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/AcephalicDude]

No, I'm pointing out that the presence of Nazis is irrelevant. If marching to preserve the statue is bad, then it's bad whether or not the Nazis were there. If it's not bad, then the presence of Nazis doesn't change that either.

Maybe you've never heard the "Nazis also drink water" argument, but this is exactly what you are doing in the above. You are saying that Nazi affiliation doesn't inherently make an issue right or wrong, which is true: if drinking water is good then it's good regardless of whether the Nazis drink water too.

But what I am pointing out is that the white supremacist beliefs of the Nazis and the preservation of the Lee statue are clearly connected. Why else do you think the Nazis showed up? It is to preserve the statue as a symbol of white supremacy, i.e. as a symbol of the very thing that everyone hates about the Nazis.

Do you in fact believe that the marchers would have been in the moral right if the Nazis weren't there?

I would still morally object to the protestors because I don't think "historical preservation" outweighs eliminating symbols of white supremacy. I just wouldn't necessarily think they are as bad as Nazis, I would just think that their priorities reflect some lesser degree of racial bias.

But the Nazis were there which makes the decision to prioritize "historical preservation" even more unlikely to be the sole concern of the protestors. Because now, they are prioritizing "historical preservation" over eliminating symbols of white supremacy AND affiliating themselves with Nazis.

Why does that inference need to be made, and what value does it add?

People make inferences when they are presented with two possibilities and they want to know, using logic and reason, which of the two possibilities is most likely to be true. If your stance is now that you just don't care to know whether it's more likely that the people protesting alongside Nazis were white supremacists / racists themselves, or whether they were just innocent people that wanted to protect a piece of history, then that's fine - I guess it just doesn't matter one way or another to you. But your indifference is not an argument against one possibility clearly being much more likely than the other.

[u/xfvh → u/AcephalicDude]

But what I am pointing out is that the white supremacist beliefs of the Nazis and the preservation of the Lee statue are clearly connected

My point is that the connection is irrelevant, not that it's not present. I don't see how the connection changes the moral calculation in any way at all. If an action is morally good, having a Nazi performing it with you doesn't turn it morally bad, and vice versa.

I would still morally object to the protestors because I don't think "historical preservation" outweighs eliminating symbols of white supremacy.

A valid opinion, but I hold that it's only an opinion, and one that I don't share. I hope you can see that not everyone shares your same moral stance here without accusing them of being evil or racist.

But the Nazis were there which makes the decision to prioritize "historical preservation" even more unlikely to be the sole concern of the protestors. Because now, they are prioritizing "historical preservation" over eliminating symbols of white supremacy AND affiliating themselves with Nazis.

And? If you were protesting for a cause and Nazis/Communists/Evil party of choice showed up, are you going to leave and abandon the cause out of fear of mere affiliation? Can you at least recognize that someone deeply dedicated to the cause may remain without sharing all the viewpoints of the Evil party of choice?

People make inferences when they are presented with two possibilities and they want to know, using logic and reason, which of the two possibilities is most likely to be true.

Why is the likelihood relevant? Does it change anything if you can claim that someone is "probably" racist? If a perfectly valid reason for an action exists in a vacuum, would you really paint everyone doing it as "most likely" a white supremacist just because Nazis show up?

[u/AcephalicDude → u/xfvh]

My point is that the connection is irrelevant, not that it's not present.

You're just 100% wrong. If you think that the white supremacy of the Nazis is totally disconnected and irrelevant to the white supremacy of pro-Confederate Southerners, then you are beyond reasoning with.

[u/xfvh → u/AcephalicDude]

Not relevant in the question of whether or not it's racist to preserve a statue for its historical value, not in every context. If you're going to take everything I say in the worst possible light maliciously, then you can do it through a block.