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:

  1. There was practically no violence from the counter-rallyers, or
  2. It’s ethically and morally fine to behave violently against neo-Nazis’
  3. Trump should have singled out the white supremacists (and them alone) on his very first statement
  4. Trump condemning violence on both sides is surely wrong
  5. Trump’s singling out the KKK, Nazis, etc. on Tuesday was certainly inadequate and too little too late
  6. 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:

  1. There was violence on both sides last weekend
  2. 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.

Edu-trainer, Žižek studies, amateur theologian, columnist.

Edu-trainer, Žižek studies, amateur theologian, columnist.