Trump, Charlottesville and Fragile Argumentation
If you’re against Trump and how he responded to Charlottesville, you effectively need to defend all the below points:
- There was practically no violence from the counter-rallyers, or
- It’s ethically and morally fine to behave violently against neo-Nazis’
- Trump should have singled out the white supremacists (and them alone) on his very first statement
- Trump condemning violence on both sides is surely wrong
- Trump’s singling out the KKK, Nazis, etc. on Tuesday was certainly inadequate and too little too late
- Trump has NO RIGHT to condemn any violence from anti-Nazi groups
On the other hand, if you think that Trump’s reaction was more or less fine, you merely need to defend the following:
- There was violence on both sides last weekend
- Trump has the right (and duty?) to condemn the violence on both sides
My point is that the former position (the one taken by 90% of the globe) is an extremely fragile one. If even one of those points don’t hold, the entire edifice is threatened.
Perhaps that’s a key reason why people who hold to that position almost instinctively argue that the pro-Trump position endorses white supremacy (which is ludicrous).
Think about it.
