Fine People Hoax
Scott Adams considers this “the biggest scandal of my lifetime” - not the events themselves, but the fact that a demonstrably false story could be believed by half the country for years despite the evidence being publicly available.
What Happened
On August 15, 2017, President Trump held a press conference about the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a counter-protester had been killed. During the Q&A, Trump made remarks about “very fine people on both sides.”
One interpretation: Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists “fine people.”
The other interpretation: Trump was referring to peaceful protesters on both sides of the Confederate monument debate, and explicitly condemned neo-Nazis in the same press conference.
The Full Context
In the same press conference, Trump stated: “And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.”
This explicit exclusion was omitted from most media coverage, creating the impression that “fine people on both sides” included white supremacists.
Scott’s Analysis
Adams used this case as the canonical example of Two Movies on One Screen:
“You think the President of the United States intentionally praised neo-Nazis in front of the world and figured that would go well? And Israel didn’t notice?”
His argument: If you believed Trump praised white supremacists, you also had to believe he did so knowing:
- His daughter had converted to Judaism
- His grandchildren were Jewish
- His son-in-law was Jewish
- Israel - America’s closest ally - somehow missed or ignored this
Adams documented attempts to “deprogram” people by walking them through the full transcript. Most people who agreed to examine the evidence either changed their view or produced word salad - incoherent responses that avoided engaging with the actual content.
The Two Movies
| Movie A | Movie B |
|---|---|
| Trump praised white supremacists on live television | Trump condemned white supremacists; media misreported context |
| Evidence of Trump’s racism | Evidence of media bias |
| Anyone defending Trump is a racist apologist | Anyone believing the narrative has been deceived |
Why It Matters
Adams made a prediction: national polls about whether Trump was racist would not change more than 10 basis points regardless of evidence. People would interpret new information through their existing filter.
He was pointing to something important about the two movies phenomenon. Evidence doesn’t determine conclusions when people are watching different movies. The filter does.
“The country is at the brink of a civil war,” Adams said, “and it’s largely ripped apart the fabric of this country.”
Related
- Two Movies on One Screen - The primary framework this case illustrates
- Cognitive Dissonance - Why people can’t update when shown evidence
- Word Salad - What people produce when their filter is challenged