If its on social media, it must be true …

If its on social media, it must be true …

Spread the love

Appeared on Facebook.

It’s a misquote, taken out of context, says Snopes. (June 28th – the original post has been replaced and rewritten with the following)
Violence broke out at a protest over removal of Confederate related statutes at a protest in Charlottesville, VA. Trump said:

“I think there is blame on both sides,” the president said in a combative exchange with reporters at Trump Tower in Manhattan. “You had a group on one side that was bad. You had a group on the other side that was also very violent. Nobody wants to say that. I’ll say it right now.”


I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups,” he said. “Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”

Trump’s commentary is interpreted as saying “both sides are bad” and some of the people involved were “good” (including racists) thereby implying racist white supremacists are good.
The CEO of Camping World said those who supported hate were not welcome at his stores.
I listened to the interview and I did not interpret his comments as saying Trump supporters should not shop at his stores. However, CNBC made this interpretation and posted that as the headline. This spin was distributed in online forums, right wing web sites, but not by well known media services.
Lemonis made an unclear statement that was readily interpreted in to what ever the recipient wanted it to mean … and then bungled an explanation that failed to clear up the ambiguity.  As a point of logic, the CEO of a national retailer is not likely to tell half of his shoppers to stop shopping there; that makes no sense. However, he did make an unclear, ambiguous comment that left him open to being misquoted.
I posted the Snopes link on FB and the only response was from one person saying that Snopes = CNN (an assertion), therefore this refutation of the statement is not true (logical fallacy). Numerous philosophers have said a statement is true or false regardless of who makes the claim. Thus, the analysis is true or false – even if you don’t like Snopes. By asserting that CNN is false, and Snopes = CNN, therefore this analysis by Snopes is false is itself an invalid argument.
But since it was on Facebook, it must be true.

Comments are closed.