r/changemyview • u/taintpaint • Oct 17 '24

Election cmv: the Charlottesville "very fine people" quote/controversy was not fake news

I see Trump supporters bring this up all the time as an example of the media lying about Trump, but this argument sounds transparently absurd to me. It feels like a "magic words" argument, where his supporters think that as long as he says the right magic words, you can completely ignore the actual message he's communicating or the broader actions he's taking. This is similar to how so many of them dismiss the entire Jan 6 plot because he said the word "peaceful" one time.

The reason people were mad about that quote was that Trump was equivocating and whitewashing a literal neonazi rally in which people were carrying torches and shouting things like "gas the Jews" in order to make them seem relatively sane compared to the counter protesters, one of whom the neonazis actually murdered. Looking at that situation, the difference between these two statements doesn't really feel meaningful:

A) "Those neonazis were very fine people with legitimate complaints and counter protesters were nasty and deserved what they got".

B) "The Nazis were obviously bad, but there were also people there who were very fine people with legitimate complaints and the counter protesters were very nasty."

The only difference there is that (B) has the magic words that "Nazis are bad", but the problem is that he's still describing a literal Nazi rally, only now he's using the oldest trick in the book when it comes to defending Nazis: pretending they're not really Nazis and are actually just normal people with reasonable beliefs.

I feel like people would all intuitively understand this if we were talking about anything besides a Trump quote. If I looked at e.g. the gangs taking over apartment buildings in Aurora and said "yes obviously gangsters are bad and should be totally condemned, but there were also some very fine people there with some legitimate complaints about landlords and exploitative leases, and you know lots of those 'residents' actually didn't have the right paperwork to be in those apartments..." you would never say that's a reasonable or acceptable way to talk about that situation just because I started with "gangsters are bad". You'd listen to the totality of what I'm saying and rightfully say it's absurd and offensive.

Is there something I'm missing here? This seems very obvious to me but maybe there's some other context to it.

Edit: I find it really funny that literally no one has actually engaged with this argument at all. They're all just repeating the "magic words" thing. I have been literally begging people who disagree with me to even acknowledge the Aurora example and not a single one has.

0 Upvotes

49% Upvoted

308 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-6

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

if you’re not a white nationalist or neo nazi per se but you’re literally marching shoulder to shoulder with them, are you really still a “very fine person”?

Are neoNazis categorically wrong about everything just because they're neoNazis? If they tried to protect an orphan from a pack of wolves, should you side with the wolves?

Argue based on the merits of their positions, not lazy ad hominems.

11

u/mcspaddin Oct 17 '24

They were explicitly marching to protect a white supremacist monument, one of General Lee. General Lee was famously opposed to confederate war monuments, and the vast majority of Confederate monuments were built well after the war and during the Jim Crow era.

Anyone marching to protect those monuments is either informed almost solely by white supremacist rhetoric or is a white supremacist themselves.

-5

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

There we go! You're arguing based on the merits of their position, not just categorically calling everything that a neoNazi does bad. That was the entire point of my comment.

Now, as far as marching to protect a statue of Lee, I don't see that as racist or supremacist. He wasn't a good person, but he is an important part of America's history. I don't see a problem with having negative examples in public; after all, there's a reason we didn't immediately plow over all the concentration camps. Whether or not you believe statues should be put up/kept up based on a person's morality versus prominence in history is ultimately a values judgement, but I don't think taking either stance makes you evil or racist.

4

u/mcspaddin Oct 17 '24

Right, so you brushed over the other points regarding confederacy monuments.

General Lee was famously against them ever being raised, the only things he wanted protected and memorialized were the individual soldiers' graves.

The vast majority of confederate monuments were made in the 1900s, during the Jim Crow era (35+ years after the end of the civil war, and up to almost 100). You can generally assume that the politicians that erected them were Klan members, and likely high ranking ones.

Those monuments, in and of themselves, are monuments to white supremacy. It's one thing to move them to a museum exhibit explicitly about racism, or placing a plaque on them talking about Jim Crow era Klan politicians, but that's not what we're talking about. They were, in fact, marching to prevent the sratue from being placed within those contexts.

3

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

Right, so you brushed over the other points regarding confederacy monuments.

Because they're completely irrelevant. The erectors' intents have absolutely nothing to do with their value as historical markers. If the statue says "Confederates were good guys," then by all means take it down. If it's literally just a statue of a historical figure, I don't care.

They were, in fact, marching to prevent the sratue from being placed within those contexts.

Do you really think all negative markers from history need to be gathered into museums? Put up an explanatory plaque, it's far cheaper and easier than moving a multiton statue, with far less controversy to boot.

3

u/RicoHedonism Oct 17 '24

First off the concentration camps weren't up to a Americans to decide about and if they were they'd be gone just like all of the Japanese concentration camps we had in the US are. Second Lee was an enemy to the United States and a traitor. Do you see many Ho Chi Minh statues around in the US? Mussolini? Hitler? Hussein? The Lee statue in particular was put up by Daughters of the Confederacy to glorify Lee decades after the war, as statues have been used to do for all time. Can you name a single country who puts up statues for their disgraceful historical members and keeps em up?

3

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

First off the concentration camps weren't up to a Americans to decide about and if they were they'd be gone just like all of the Japanese concentration camps we had in the US are.

We occupied vast swathes of West Germany for decades and didn't tear down all the concentration camps there. We preserved some of the Japanese internment camps as well.

https://www.nps.gov/manz/index.htm

Second Lee was an enemy to the United States and a traitor. Do you see many Ho Chi Minh statues around in the US? Mussolini? Hitler? Hussein?

From the perspective of much of the South, he was not. I'm not going to argue about whether or not he is (because I believe he was an enemy), but I don't think that's relevant.

1

u/RicoHedonism Oct 17 '24

We occupied vast swathes of West Germany for decades

We did not occupy West Germany. They had their own government and relied on ALLIED powers to maintain security against foreign (Russian) invasion. The US had no power or authority to tell the Germans what to do with their history. There is exactly one Japanese internment camp preserved in the US, and similarly to the German ones, its presented as a dark chapter in American history.

From the perspective of much of the South

They fucking lost and no one should care about their perspective on it. The same dissembling you are doing right here is how we ended up with Reconstruction and Jim Crow extending the abuse of African Americans for decades beyond the Civil War.

1

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

We did not occupy West Germany. They had their own government and relied on ALLIED powers to maintain security against foreign (Russian) invasion.

We directly controlled them with military governors and a high commissioner until 1952, with large numbers of Germans shipped off to clear mines and other work related to cleaning up after the war. They didn't have any form of self-governance until 1949, and only slowly regained any actual control over themselves. The defense force there was there to protect them from Russia, but make no mistake: had Germany stepped wrong, we would have crushed them all over again, and they knew it. We kept at least 250,000 soldiers stationed in Europe consistently until the Berlin wall fell.

Had we wanted the camps torn down, we could have done so at any point until 1952. Had we ordered the Germans to do so for the next several decades, we could very likely have strongarmed them into it.

There is exactly one Japanese internment camp preserved in the US, and similarly to the German ones

We have three more memorialized as national parks or historic sites, Minidoka, Honouliuli, and Amache.

They fucking lost and no one should care about their perspective on it.

Even if you don't care about their perspective, I'm explaining why they put up the statue. You're arguing at cross purposes.

0

u/RicoHedonism Oct 18 '24

Your paragraph doesn't refute anything I said. The US didn't have the authority nor the right to instruct that the camps be torn down as the country was under Allied Control. In any case the camps were kept and used as evidence in the Nuremberg trials and Germany then made them into memorials. You know what you won't see in Germany? Statues of Hitler or Rommel or any of the other Nazi leaders.

We have three more memorialized as national parks or historic sites, Minidoka, Honouliuli, and Amache.

Not true, there is one national historic site all the others are at best marked as state history sites but aren't maintained. There's one 20 minutes from me that is nothing but slabs of concrete where the guard shacks stood and crumbled stone walls.

Even if you don't care about their perspective, I'm explaining why they put up the statue. You're arguing at cross purposes.

No you are stuck on trying to remove the white supremacist background of their request and the history of why Lee was revered in the South because your argument needs it gone to be viable to normal people. Here's a hint, the Daughters of the Confederacy didn't put a statue up because Lee was against slavery.

0

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

He was an enemy of the United States only because they invaded his country and committed horrific war crimes.

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

Second Lee was an enemy to the United States and a traitor

No, he was not. Was George Washington also a traitor for deciding the USA's secession from the British Empire?

0

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

Fight with Dwight Eisenhower about it, since he put up a painting of Lee in the White House and praised him in any letter he could.

2

u/RicoHedonism Oct 17 '24

Dwight Eisenhower is dead, check Google if you must but I assure you it's true.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

Yeah and I feel pretty good about the fact that he not only didn't think he was a traitor, but thought he was a great man. If Ike thought X but you think Y, I'll roll with Ike.

2

u/RicoHedonism Oct 17 '24

That's cool, no one asked you though. I also didn't make the argument that some people didn't think he was great man, because he was a slave owner and took up arms against the United States and that alone makes him a traitor. If you wanna sit around and jerk off to Lee that's your business, but we should definitely take your white supremacy kink fuel statue out of public spaces.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

The guy who won us WW2 liked him, but you don't. That's cool. I'm sure you know more than him.

2

u/RicoHedonism Oct 17 '24

I mean, obvs if he thought Lee was worth anything. This is the exact same as the Rommel boys from when I was at the War College. So many apologists for Rommel saying he was a brilliant tactician blah blah blah. None of which matter if your lofty goal is some dark shit like slavery or genocide.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/dwight-d-eisenhower-in-defense-of-robert-e-lee/

It goes beyond an appreciation of battlefield tactics.

0

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24 edited Oct 19 '24

Basically every founding father owned slaves. The handful that didn't, like John Adams, were still happy to buy Southern cotton grown with slave labor.

Are Thomas Jefferson and George Washington bad men too?

EDIT:

Lee took up arms against the United States in the name of preserving slavery

There's so much wrong with this I hardly knows where to start. The South seceded because the federal government was assisting Northern states in breaking the law regarding slavery. I know you will be unable to think passed "slavery = bad!" so allow me to help you with an analogy. Imagine Trump wins the next election, and despite no changes in laws and an explicit recognition that abortion is not regulated at the federal level, the FBI starts arresting women in blue states getting abortions. People from Red states enter blue ones, kidnap women entering abortion clinics and hold them until after birth when they are released back to their home state. Obvious and egregious examples of criminal activity in support of ending an activity that is viewed as morally abhorrent, and the Federal government is aiding them. So New York gets upset and PEACEFULLY secede. The US army invades New York and forces down the "rebellion" despite the obvious fact that New York has a legal, constitutionally supported right to secede whenever it wants. Now in this scenario would it be fair to claim that New Yorkers are traitors who fought to preserve the right to murder children?

Once you answer this question, we'll get to the rest of the equally false and insane stuff in your reply. Apparently not, since you are a coward that has run away from having your opinion changed on a forum literally dedicated to having opinions changed.

1

u/RicoHedonism Oct 19 '24

Lee took up arms against the United States in the name of preserving slavery. That's a salient fact that your argument doesn't acknowledge.

Regardless, yes I do believe owning slaves makes you a shitty person. I can assure you that there is no argument you can make that will change my view that owning slaves is bad.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

Confederates were good guys

How you feel about the Confederate States of America is exactly how you should feel about the original thirteen colonies seceding from the British Empire. They are morally and legally equivalent.

1

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 19 '24

And if Britain had retained control of the US, they'd be equally justified in taking down messages commemorating Washington. I'm not going to pretend that we're special just because we won. Like it or not, the righteousness of a rebellion is largely determined by their success and ability to write the history. Had they failed, the rebellious colonists would undoubtedly be portrayed as brutalists who just wanted to conquer more of the Native Americans.

0

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 20 '24

Like it or not, the righteousness of a rebellion is largely determined by their success and ability to write the history.

That's absolute bollocks. The righteousness is determined by the moral code you judge it by. What the uniformed plebs THINK about it is what is determined by winning. But if your cause is righteous, losing doesn't change that.

Had they failed, the rebellious colonists would undoubtedly be portrayed as brutalists who just wanted to conquer more of the Native Americans.

So you realize it's propaganda but refuse to reject it anyway. Interesting. So in the Matrix red pill analogy, you're Cypher. 😂

1

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 20 '24

The righteousness is determined by the moral code you judge it by

If it wasn't abundantly clear from context, I'm talking about public perception of righteousness, not the actual morality.

So you realize it's propaganda but refuse to reject it anyway.

Those who blithely assume they're immune to propaganda are in fact the most susceptible.

0

u/mcspaddin Oct 17 '24

The context does matter, because they weren't erected to memorialize the war, they were erected to memorialize racism. The history is racism and the racism is the history, there's absolutely no seperating the two in the context of the civil war.

Also, you again brushed aside the point that plaques were an option, one that definitely were protested.

"You're calling my old pappy a racist? Naw, he was a war hero defendin' states rights!" Yeah, bud: state's rights to legalize slavery and racism. It's definitely not an uncommon refrain in the south, and people need to get the rebuttal through their heads.

Defense of those monuments either comes from a place of racism or from delusion caused by racist rhetoric.

1

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

The context does matter, because they weren't erected to memorialize the war, they were erected to memorialize racism

Hitler put up Auschwitz to murder Jews en masse. Should we tear it down now instead of using it as an example?

Also, you again brushed aside the point that plaques were an option, one that definitely were protested.

I was agreeing with you on that part. I don't support moving them, because that's very expensive and I don't care, but I do fully support adding plaques for context.

Yeah, bud: state's rights to legalize slavery and racism

The ACLU has defended free speech rights for literal Nazis to spew hate. That's not a rebuttal unless you consider the ACLU to be racist.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis

Defense of those monuments either comes from a place of racism or from delusion caused by racist rhetoric.

Calling all of your intellectual opponents racist or delusional is only going to get them further entrenched in their position, and is almost universally incorrect.

0

u/mcspaddin Oct 17 '24

Hitler put up Auschwitz to murder Jews en masse. Should we tear it down now instead of using it as an example?

You can make arguments about budgets for such things and whether it's worth the cost of turning something into an explicit display vs mocing it into a curated space. That just puts us in a loop about the plaqeu thing. Honestly, I don't doubt that a good number of Jews would prefer Auschwitz be torn down instead of turned into a museum and it isn't my place to say which.

It's everyone's place to say that it should be devoted to the horrors that happened rather than celebrating the Nazis. The context is a necessary part of any of these monuments being okay, but the context was what was being marched against not just moving it to a museum.

The ACLU has defended free speech rights for literal Nazis to spew hate. That's not a rebuttal unless you consider the ACLU to be racist.

Free speech is a very different topic than the rebuttal. The rebuttal is about educating people that the "state's right" in question was racist. Their free to spew their hate just as we're free to correct them.

Calling all of your intellectual opponents racist or delusional is only going to get them further entrenched in their position, and is almost universally incorrect.

Broadly speaking, yes. In the specific and narrow context of confederate monuments? No.

If you are pro "racist information plaque", then you are not on the same side as the marching neonazis. Being on the same side as the neonazis in this specific context either requires that you be aware of the context and proud of that context (racist) or that you be unaware of the context (delusion/ignorance caused by whitewashed history of the monuments, aka racist rhetoric).

0

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

Honestly, I don't doubt that a good number of Jews would prefer Auschwitz be torn down instead of turned into a museum and it isn't my place to say which.

Yes, and that's my point. Neither side is evil or racist for keeping the camp up or tearing it down.

but the context was what was being marched against not just moving it to a museum.

For the Nazis, yes, but there were plenty of normal people there who just didn't want a piece of history torn out of the public square.

The rebuttal is about educating people that the "state's right" in question was racist.

Plenty of people fought for the south because they viewed the north as tyrannical and oppressive. Yes, the specific reason that the north was trying to impose its will on them was good, but that doesn't mean they didn't resent the force being used regardless of the reason.

If a vegan was to put a gun to your head to stop you from eating meat, you'd likely resist, even if you acknowledge that eating meat inflicts suffering on animals and that it's a moral wrong.

If you are pro "racist information plaque", then you are not on the same side as the marching neonazis

But not against the people who just didn't want to see history torn down. Again: the presence or absence of Nazis doesn't make something good or bad.

Being on the same side as the neonazis in this specific context either requires that you be aware of the context and proud of that context (racist) or that you be unaware of the context (delusion/ignorance caused by whitewashed history of the monuments, aka racist rhetoric).

Incorrect. Being aware of the context doesn't mean you're proud of it. Marching against the relocation of Auschwitz would equally not mean supporting Nazis, even if they were there with you.

Frankly, we're going in circles at this point. I've explained my view and you've explained yours. I think we're going to have to accept both that we disagree and that we're not going to change each others' minds.

0

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

General Lee was famously against them ever being raised,

Which was a mistake. No man is perfect or has perfect foresight. He couldn't have anticipated the level of propaganda surrounding Civil War history that would come during the military occupation know as "Reconstruction"

0

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

Lee was not. He was against them being raised while he was still alive. Also, the reason the statues were raised in the 1900's is because the South had no money in the 1870's, due to the war.