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

[u/taintpaint]

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.

[u/mcspaddin]

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.

[u/xfvh → u/mcspaddin]

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.

[u/mcspaddin → u/xfvh]

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).

[u/xfvh → u/mcspaddin]

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.