We've reached the same conclusion. The Nazis are to blame (see bolded part of my post). But we're not dealing with computers or trivia questions. We're dealing with people. This isn't zeros and ones or truths and non-truths. The fact that the Nazis were carrying weapons was indeed exacerbated by the fact that people felt a need to confront them. It takes two people to fight.
Say someone walks up to you, says, "I'm going to punch you if you spit at me," and then you spit at him. When he punches you, it is clearly his fault. However, when people look back at the situation, they will probably also say, "Maybe you shouldn't have spit at that deranged guy."
Celtics4ever is correct in that two wrongs don't make a right, even when one wrong was committed by the side representing the abstract ideal of "peace and justice."
It's good that we all agree on the awfulness of Nazis.
Now, we need to agree that this pedantic point about sharing blame is contributing to a dangerous narrative. Like it or not, even if you personally can handle the various shades of gray, perpetuating the "both sides" argument is a problem. It is NOT clear, when one makes this argument, that they see an overwhelming evil vs a relative footnote. Please don't fan the flames, no matter how unintentional it may be, or tempting to be right in an Internet debate.
I agree with you that the President's response needed to be a stronger refutation. I agree that it is difficult for the masses to accept a nuanced opinion, and I agree that it is often more effective for a leader to hold and represent one, definite, black-and-white stance rather than a comprehensive one that can be misconstrued. (Which is why I think your opinion that a comprehensive stance by a leader is valid.)
However, I think you are selling a lot of people's intelligence short in assuming that the general public is incapable of seeing gray. Like it or not, these same difficult conversations are had behind the scenes by people that have the same organs and bodily functions as you and I.
I also think that dismissing me as trying "to be right in an Internet debate" is incredibly insulting. (I refuse to use the term "red herring." Oops, it slipped out.) It is discourse like this, regardless of the forum, that advances society as a whole, and even if you or I will never have our finger on the Big Red Button, it is very valuable to examine that "gray area" which you seem so against. Like I said earlier in the thread, education of We the People is the best way to make sure horrible events like this do not happen again, and reading, listening, and participating in conversations like this help everyone.
EDIT/Notes about Rhetoric: I find the use of "pedantic" very interesting, a way of dismissing my points before telling me they are dangerous to discuss. I think I have made myself very clear in the differentiation between the clear fault of the white supremacists and the less-than-ideal (NOT illegal, racist, or anything of the like) response of the counter protestors. You did, as well, in one sentence. ("It is NOT clear, when one makes this argument, that they see an overwhelming evil vs a relative footnote.
" ) So if you and I can articulate the difference in culpability that easily, why are conversations like this so dangerous?
Once again, I understand your point (and agree 100%) that Trump probably should have taken a more resolute and one-sided stance, but what is so dangerous about this discussion amongst two citizens with slightly differing opinions?