Why assume facetiousness?
On second viewing, it could be facetious, it could not be. It takes some monumental idiocy to joke about that in the wake of numerous murders of black people in the US and subsequent BLM protests. It's an extremely sensitive, volatile time.
It could be. The man in question might just be the most tone-deaf individual on the planet. But we also know there are out-and-out white supremacists among Trump's supporters, and they've been much more vocal than during campaigns for any previous US Presidential candidate, probably since Goldwater. So what makes you so sure? Tone of voice?
What makes me so sure is the circumstance. See more below. And yes, old people in Florida aren't known for their diplomatic talent, they are 100% tone deaf. And I'm confident you know everything I have to say about Goldwater and all that, so I'll let it slide cause we don't need to re-dredge the southern strategy debate every thread.
Because it's always the first line of defense for people who say and do shitty things but don't want to be held accountable for them.
It's not the same when it's a response. If this guy zipped around in a golf cart yelling white power unprovoked, I'd be inclined to take him at his word. If he then said it was just a joke, that doesn't change my perception. But it was an instigated statement, it was a response to being accused of being in the klan. Saying something offensive out of nowhere and then calling it a joke is crap behavior, saying something offensive because someone is accusing you of being that offensive thing isn't the same, that line is at the accuser's expense.
If I were to come in and start accusing the communists among us of being genocidal maniacs, and someone responded "Yeah, you got it, bring on the gulags," I'm gonna say they're also taking the piss like this guy was. If, however, someone volunteers this line:
I see nothing but more evidence of why we should do a small genocide on the villages.
I'm inclined to take them at their word.