Admitting When You Are Wrong in Great Debates

[Annoyed]

@Dead_Cat

I am no fan of Donald Trump, the Republican Party, or the right-wing of this board. But if this:

“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

is what Donald Trump said, then just on the basis of that I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. in other words I don’t think he believes/said that neo-Nazis are very fine people and it is unfair to state that he did say or imply that.

I would genuinely like to be shown where I am wrong and if so I will happily admit such :).

Finally, an objective person.

Also, don’t forget, he said this in the same interview:

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Dead_Cat

I am no fan of Donald Trump, the Republican Party, or the right-wing of this board. But if this:

“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

is what Donald Trump said, then just on the basis of that I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. in other words I don’t think he believes/said that neo-Nazis are very fine people and it is unfair to state that he did say or imply that.

I would genuinely like to be shown where I am wrong and if so I will happily admit such :).

Full quote, courtesy of Vox:

TRUMP: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane, what I’m saying is this: you had a group on one side and a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch, but there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.

REPORTER: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

The problem is… they did put themselves down as neo-nazis. One side was absolutely, undeniably neo-nazis. The lie here is that this was a protest of conservatives about the statues that involved some neo-nazis. But it wasn’t - this was organized by and for neo-nazis. It was advertised as a neo-nazi event using neo-nazi symbolism and memes. People weren’t there to protest a statue. They were there to affirm their neo-nazi beliefs.

If Donald Trump wasn’t talking about the neo-nazis… Who was he talking about? Because the people on the right at Charlottesville were either neo-nazis, or marching alongside neo-nazis, and if that’s a hair you want to split, I really have to wonder why.

So taking Trump as charitably as humanly possible, he unintentionally gave a group of violent neo-nazis exactly the characterization they wanted - that they’re just good ol’-fashioned conservatives with a few bad apples. And he did so by knowing exactly fuck-all about the case at hand, and by contradicting a reporter who tried to inform him about the state of affairs. Is it any wonder that people have problems with that?

[Dead_Cat]

Thank you for the further information, that’s very clear. In that case, my take on it is the same as yours - Trump probably does not think it is acceptable to publicly call neo-Nazis “very fine people” and did not intend to do so. But, because he was unaware that that particular event was (almost?) solely neo-Nazis on one side, he ended up equating peaceful protesters (some of whom may be “very fine people”, if - in my view - misguided) with neo-Nazis. Which, as you say, is a problem in itself on several levels, and I’m certainly not here to defend that.

What I will say is that if you want to rail against Trump and his agenda, I think it’s important to be completely accurate and evidence-based, otherwise the conversation degenerates into this kind of distraction. But I’m sure that point has been made many times before. I must admit I don’t tend to read those threads.

Thanks again for the clarification.

[El_Kabong]

Hey, I’m perfectly happy to spot Annoyed the “fine people” remark and just condemn Trump for the other 10,000 or so false and/or moronic things he’s said since his inauguration.

[str8cashhomie]

@Dead_Cat

But, because he was unaware that that particular event was (almost?) solely neo-Nazis on one side, he ended up equating peaceful protesters (some of whom may be “very fine people”, if - in my view - misguided) with neo-Nazis. Which, as you say, is a problem in itself on several levels, and I’m certainly not here to defend that.

However he was then corrected that the right-wing protesters actually were an alt-right group and maintained his original position that the people who “started this thing” - undeniably a neo-nazi group - were not neonazis. The ignorance defense is not applicable at that point.

[Annoyed]

@El_Kabong

Hey, I’m perfectly happy to spot Annoyed the “fine people” remark and just condemn Trump for the other 10,000 or so false and/or moronic things he’s said since his inauguration.

And that makes you a person of fine character. Plenty of buffoonery to mock that actually happened.

[bobot]

@begbert2

I always thought that the standard way to admit error was to drop the subject and never speak if it again, abandoning the entire thread if necessary.

Yeah. And its partner strategy: Publicly declaring that you (not You, you) don’t participate in the Pit anyway.

[Steve_MB]

@Annoyed

Aaaaaaaand exhibit A ^

Yes, but all you have to do is admit you’re wrong about this and the exhibit will no longer be applicable.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@begbert2

I always thought that the standard way to admit error was to drop the subject and never speak if it again, abandoning the entire thread if necessary.

A time honored technique, to be sure. But what if you want to continue in the discussion?

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Dead_Cat

Thank you for the further information, that’s very clear. In that case, my take on it is the same as yours - Trump probably does not think it is acceptable to publicly call neo-Nazis “very fine people” and did not intend to do so. But, because he was unaware that that particular event was (almost?) solely neo-Nazis on one side, he ended up equating peaceful protesters (some of whom may be “very fine people”, if - in my view - misguided) with neo-Nazis. Which, as you say, is a problem in itself on several levels, and I’m certainly not here to defend that.

Not to hijack my own thread with the Trump neo-Nazi thing, but I was the one who brought this up in the Donald Trump “clusterfuck” thread recently, that he wasn’t talking about Nazis. What you say in the bolded part is what I think people miss. They assume Trump has all knowledge about who was at the event and why. But it doesn’t matter if Trump got these facts right in his head or not. As long as he believes some people were there simply because they wanted the statues to stay up, and that these same people were not neo-Nazis*, then it is entirely plausible that he of course was not referring to neo-Nazis as fine people.

• Why it is so difficult for some people to believe you can have reasons to want to keep the statues and NOT be a neo-Nazi is beyond me, btw.

[Annoyed]

@Fiddle_Peghead

it is entirely plausible that he of course was not referring to neo-Nazis as fine people.

And of course he literally says in that very same interview, minutes later, which the Vox article intentionally left out (or maybe the writer of the post intentionally left out) that he’s not talking about Nazis or white supremacists and that they should be condemned totally.

It’s not just “plausible” it’s an established fact, from his own mouth.

[bobot]

If Trump believes that nazis “should be” condemned, then what the fuck is he waiting for?

[Czarcasm]

Attempted hijack aside, I hate it when posters post something that is corrected, acknowledge the correction begrudgingly…then post the same already-corrected crap in another thread on the same subject.

[Jackmannii]

It’s OK to concede an erroneous statement without explicitly saying “I was wrong - beat me with armadillo tails and let me be eaten by starving baby elephants”*.

I find that to be more acceptable than continually posting provocative, false claims leading to lengthy acrimonious debate, then finally saying “I was wrong about that, sorry” and receiving fulsome praise for admitting error (we had a poster who continually employed that M.O.).

*obscure Fugs song reference.

[What_Exit]

@Annoyed

Great example of this (in the pit but no doubt said everywhere else)i had recently was that “Donald Trump said Nazis were very fine people!”

No, no he didn’t. No, he didn’t even imply it. You can post the entire transcript of the statement where he never says it and people will STILL say he said it, being completely wrong and knowing it.

People who like to talk politics are tribal, and just like their favorite politicians it’s all about twisting and bending and lying.

You are a complete asshole for hijacking this thread. It is possibly clueless but likely trolling. I am reporting this post by the way as trolling. Let the mods decide what to do with a little shitstain like you.

[What_Exit]

So back on topic. I agree with the Op and will go a step further.

Between those who never back down even when presented with facts, trolls and nitpickers that will bring up extraneous BS that push buttons and those damn parsers, GD is a flaming garbage fire in my humble opinion.

[Annoyed]

@What_Exit

You are a complete asshole for hijacking this thread. It is possibly clueless but likely trolling. I am reporting this post by the way as trolling. Let the mods decide what to do with a little shitstain like you.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are several people furiously hammering the report button on me at all times, considering the replies I get sometimes.

It shall be interesting to see what happens with your complaint. As far as I can see I’ve broken no rules and that post is completely relevant to the topic at hand.

Good luck.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Jackmannii

It’s OK to concede an erroneous statement without explicitly saying “I was wrong - beat me with armadillo tails and let me be eaten by starving baby elephants”*.

I find that to be more acceptable than continually posting provocative, false claims leading to lengthy acrimonious debate, then finally saying “I was wrong about that, sorry” and receiving fulsome praise for admitting error (we had a poster who continually employed that M.O.).

*obscure Fugs song reference.

Oh, certainly. A simple acknowledgement that you missed something, or misunderstood a link, or whatever, and you stand corrected is more than adequate. Of course, its harder to admit that your whole premise was wrong, and the aforementioned technique of just dropping out of the thread is easier in this case, and probably happens quite a bit. I’m happy to say I’ve never resorted to that, but give me time.

[Dead_Cat]

I apologise for promulgating the hijack, I could have read about the issue or even discussed it in one of the many other threads it fits in - I was wrong to bring that discussion here.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@What_Exit

So back on topic. I agree with the Op and will go a step further.

Between those who never back down even when presented with facts, trolls and nitpickers that will bring up extraneous BS that push buttons and those damn parsers, GD is a flaming garbage fire in my humble opinion.

I don’t find this to be the case in a lot of GD threads, I’m happy to say, but it is certainly more likely to occur in some cases ( ::cough:: gun control ::cough:: ) rather than others.