• RogueAI
    3.4k
    None of this is happening in a vacuum. The Heritage scandal comes on the heels of
    https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/private-chat-among-young-gop-club-members-00592146
    "‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat"

    And MAGA darling (before he turned on Trump) Elon Musk's Ai turning into "Mechahitler", and Trump's dinner with Kanye and Fuentes and Trump's use of Naziesque language (https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213746885/trump-vermin-hitler-immigration-authoritarian-republican-primary) and "good people on both sides" after the Charlottesville rally, etc.
  • Leontiskos
    5.5k
    None of this is happening in a vacuum. The Heritage scandal comes on the heels of
    https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/private-chat-among-young-gop-club-members-00592146
    "‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat"
    RogueAI

    Okay, this is a good point. I don't follow politics too closely. I was surprised to see conservatives defending Tucker's platforming of Fuentes and I have been trying to understand it. But this is a noteworthy antecedent.

    And MAGA darling (before he turned on Trump) Elon Musk's Ai turning into "Mechahitler", and Trump's dinner with Kanye and Fuentes and Trump's use of Naziesque language (https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213746885/trump-vermin-hitler-immigration-authoritarian-republican-primary) and "good people on both sides" after the Charlottesville rally, etc.RogueAI

    Well this strikes me as leftist propaganda. Most of this has been explicitly clarified or corrected.

    For example, even left-leaning Politifact published a transcript that shows what Trump actually said. It is a shopworn misrepresentation to claim that Trump somehow gave an endorsement to neo-Nazis.
  • RogueAI
    3.4k
    Okay, this is a good point. I don't follow politics too closely. I was surprised to see conservatives defending Tucker's platforming of Fuentes and I have been trying to understand it. But this is a noteworthy antecedent.Leontiskos

    Thank you.

    "Well this strikes me as leftist propaganda. Most of this has been explicitly clarified or corrected."

    Musk's Ai literally called itself MechaHitler.

    For example, even left-leaning Politifact published a transcript that shows what Trump actually said. It is a shopworn misrepresentation to claim that Trump somehow gave an endorsement to neo-Nazis."

    It wasn't just Democrats who called out Trump over Charlottesville.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-sen-cory-gardner-urges-trump-to-call-charlottesville-crash-terrorism/
  • RogueAI
    3.4k

    "We’ve had some great interviews with Tucker Carlson, but you can’t tell him who to interview. I mean, if he wants to interview Nick Fuentes, I don’t know much about him, but if he wants to do it, get the word out. Let him. You know, people have to decide. Ultimately, people have to decide."

    Trump today.
  • Leontiskos
    5.5k


    The whole "free speech" angle strikes me as a red herring on this topic. Tucker is of course able to platform Fuentes according to the first amendment. So if folks want to talk about free speech, then I think Trump is right (i.e. Tucker and Fuentes are both engaged in legally protected speech).

    Now I have only followed some of the objections from the conservatives, and those objections are not made on first amendment grounds. To answer those objections with an appeal to free speech is an ignoratio elenchi.

    But our difference is of course that you think Trump is lying and I don't, namely when he says, "I don't know much about him."
  • RogueAI
    3.4k
    That's not our only difference and I don't actually think Trump was lying when he said, earlier, he didn't know who Nick Fuentes was when Kanye brought him over. Trump is not very bright and it's believable he wouldn't have known Fuentes.

    But if you're saying that NOW Trump isn't lying when he says he doesn't know who Fuentes is, after the latest kerfuffle? How can you believe that? Trump will have been briefed by now by his very capable campaign manager-turned-chief of staff exactly who Fuentes is and what the controversy is about. It's been roiling the conservative world for two weeks now. Trump is either lying or addled if he claims he doesn't know who Fuentes is at this point (or "not much about him")

    What you've been arguing with me, if I'm not mistaken, is the rot in the GOP is relegated to the fringe. You said "Now that Republicans are learning who Fuentes is, we are seeing lots of opposition."
    Are we? Trump just had a softball lobbed at him about it. Shouldn't he have said something like, "He shouldn't have had Fuentes on. Full stop." Why pussyfoot around on it? Why give moral support to Tucker when he's being raked over the coals by traditional Republicans over platforming people like Fuentes?
  • Leontiskos
    5.5k
    That's not our only difference and I don't actually think Trump was lying when he said, earlier, he didn't know who Nick Fuentes was when Kanye brought him over. Trump is not very bright and it's believable he wouldn't have known Fuentes.RogueAI

    Okay, fair.

    But if you're saying that NOW Trump isn't lying when he says he doesn't know who Fuentes is, after the latest kerfuffle? How can you believe that?RogueAI

    Mostly because I've watched more than 5 hours of video and I don't know who Fuentes is (including the Tucker interview, Fuentes' recap, and the D'Souza debate). I thought <this> was a good take, but I am surprised at how many people watch Fuentes and how hard he is to pigeonhole. I am not even convinced that the guy himself knows who he is or what he is doing.

    What you've been arguing with me, if I'm not mistaken, is the rot in the GOP is relegated to the fringe.RogueAI

    I like the thesis of Fetterman and others who claim that conservative opposition to anti-Semitism is much more pronounced than progressive opposition to anti-Semitism, but maybe you agree with that.

    The relevant question seems to ask how American conservatism is situated vis-a-vis an ethno-centric right. I actually don't see a great danger of conservatism flirting with ethno-centrism, and the outcry against Tucker is one of my data points. Conservatism does need to figure out how to manage the pendulum backlash against leftist identity politics, but I don't see ethno-centrism as a huge issue. I don't know if you disagree?

    Are we? Trump just had a softball lobbed at him about it. Shouldn't he have said something like, "He shouldn't have had Fuentes on. Full stop." Why pussyfoot around on it? Why give moral support to Tucker when he's being raked over the coals by traditional Republicans over platforming people like Fuentes?RogueAI

    I think someone in a position like Tucker's should have Fuentes on and go at him hard, namely by making him answer for the clips that become infamous. Pin him down on his historical inaccuracies surrounding WWII, etc. The guy has too large of a following to simply be ignored.

    (Tucker and Candace Owens are remarkable cases of the nuttiness that can affect the right.)
  • RogueAI
    3.4k
    Mostly because I've watched more than 5 hours of video and I don't know who Fuentes is (including the Tucker interview, Fuentes' recap, and the D'Souza debate). I thought <this> was a good take, but I am surprised at how many people watch Fuentes and how hard he is to pigeonhole. I am not even convinced that the guy himself knows who he is or what he is doing.Leontiskos

    He's a white nationalist Christian fundamentalist who hates Jews.
    https://www.mediamatters.org/diversity-discrimination/nick-fuentes-jews-are-running-society-women-need-shut-fuck-blacks-need-be
    "Jews are running society, women need to shut the fuck up, Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part, and we would live in paradise, it's that simple... We need white men in charge of everything again. That's it. Like, it's that simple."

    "I like the thesis of Fetterman and others who claim that conservative opposition to anti-Semitism is much more pronounced than progressive opposition to anti-Semitism, but maybe you agree with that."

    I agree with Fetterman. There's been a strain of anti-Semitism on the Left for my whole life. People like Louis Farrakhan have been tolerated when they shouldn't have been. The Left is terrible about calling it out.

    That being said, I always wonder why the right-wing, which is dominated by Christians who have traditionally been hostile to Jews, loves Israel so much. There's something nefarious about it: [ChatGPT content] Many Republicans—especially white evangelicals—support Israel because their end-times theology says Israel must exist and be defended for biblical prophecy to unfold. In this view, the return of Jews to Israel and Israel’s survival are prerequisites for the Second Coming. The motivation is religious prophecy, not affection for Jews. I wonder how prevalent that view is.

    The relevant question seems to ask how American conservatism is situated vis-a-vis an ethno-centric right. I actually don't see a great danger of conservatism flirting with ethno-centrism, and the outcry against Tucker is one of my data points. Conservatism does need to figure out how to manage the pendulum backlash against leftist identity politics, but I don't see ethno-centrism as a huge issue. I don't know if you disagree?Leontiskos

    MAGA is extremely white-nationalist. Did you mention you don't live in America?

    I think someone in a position like Tucker's should have Fuentes on and go at him hard, namely by making him answer for the clips that become infamous. Pin him down on his historical inaccuracies surrounding WWII, etc. The guy has too large of a following to simply be ignored.Leontiskos

    Well, that's what should have happened. What actually happened was Tucker fawned over Fuentes, and now Trump is coming to Tucker's rescue. There's an old saying: the fish rots from the head.
  • Leontiskos
    5.5k
    He's a white nationalist Christian fundamentalist who hates Jews.RogueAI

    Sure, but when I say that as someone who watched a few minutes of his clips or read an article that pulled a few paragraphs out of a single episode, his followers tell me that I am engaged in confirmation bias. They will say that the guy has many thousands of hours of video, and that it is misleading to approach his position in such a reductionistic way.

    And so I am trying to avoid the reductionistic confirmation bias. In doing so I find that it is harder to understand Fuentes. Basically I think Bret Weinstein is correct in the video from my last post. Fuentes' views and especially his rhetoric are problematic, but the shibboleth approach is not realistic with someone who is so popular. Indeed, Fuentes' whole persona seems tailor-fit to preclude his (second) cancelation, and this includes his whole audience. Trying to ostracize him would be like throwing extra antibiotics at a bacteria that has already become resistant.

    I agree with Fetterman. There's been a strain of anti-Semitism on the Left for my whole life. People like Louis Farrakhan have been tolerated when they shouldn't have been. The Left is terrible about calling it out.RogueAI

    Okay, and I agree too.

    That being said, I always wonder why the right-wing, which is dominated by Christians who have traditionally been hostile to Jews, loves Israel so much. There's something nefarious about it: [ChatGPT content] Many Republicans—especially white evangelicals—support Israel because their end-times theology says Israel must exist and be defended for biblical prophecy to unfold. In this view, the return of Jews to Israel and Israel’s survival are prerequisites for the Second Coming. The motivation is religious prophecy, not affection for Jews. I wonder how prevalent that view is.RogueAI

    There are differing theological views that put different Christians in different positions vis-a-vis both the Jews and Israel.

    O'Reilly, who is Catholic like Fuentes, actually identifies some of the historical background much better than others have done. European Christendom had anti-usury laws for Christians, and so usury fell to the Jews. This created long-lasting hostilities towards Jewish people. Presumably Fuentes ends up drawing on that historical animosity.

    MAGA is extremely white-nationalist. Did you mention you don't live in America?RogueAI

    No, I live in America. Trump has done better and better among non-whites as time goes on (link).

    Well, that's what should have happened. What actually happened was Tucker fawned over Fuentes, and now Trump is coming to Tucker's rescue. There's an old saying: the fish rots from the head.RogueAI

    Well, Tucker isn't capable of that sort of thing. He is a domesticated pundit who would have died in the wilderness if not for his prior following. His unintelligence is striking.

    Regarding Trump, even if Fuentes were a one-dimensional Nazi Trump would not go out of his way to disavow him if it would mean hurting his base of support. Trump always has his finger to the wind of public opinion (on the right), and that's generally how he makes decisions. At the same time Trump is strongly pro-Israel, which is why he is at odds with Tucker and Fuentes.
  • AmadeusD
    3.8k
    MAGA is extremely white-nationalist.RogueAI

    It absolutely is not. And I think its ridiculous for most of it's actual pertinent thought trains. MAGA has massive overlap with the values of most minorities - religious adherence, law and order, family values, There are a small number of identitarian groups who have glommed on the MAGA wave, but these are very much not the mainstream of MAGA. The emergence of several minority-centric MAGA groups like Black Voices for Trump support his view, as does the lack of white nationalism(entirely missing) across the vast majority of MAGA output. They are dumb - not racist (for the most part. Some are smart. Some are racist). Added to that is the point Leon makes that Trump has increased his minority vote-share in each election cycle.

    I'm genuinely unclear on how I am able to use AI resposes, so I'll spoiler this and if I've done this wrong, someone please tell me and I'll edit the post down:

    Reveal
    ChatGPT

    My prompt: is there any evidence that MAGA is "white nationalist"? I want you to honestly account for hte fact that plenty of MAGA are black, hispanic and indian. Not only this, gay blacks have an affinity for MAGA also. I don't want to be thinking with a bias, but I don't want you to be either (thinking used figuratively here)

    Here’s a clear, bias-aware, research-grounded explanation of what is actually known about whether “MAGA” is synonymous with “white nationalism,” while also fully accounting for the fact that many MAGA supporters are Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other minorities—including LGBT minorities.

    I’ll break it down into three separate things, because they are often mixed together even though they aren’t the same:

    1. Is the MAGA movement as a whole “white nationalist”?

    No.
    There is no credible evidence that the MAGA movement as a whole is a white-nationalist movement.

    What political scientists and sociologists consistently show is:

    ✔ MAGA is primarily a populist, nationalist, conservative movement

    It stresses themes like:

    anti-establishment populism

    strong borders

    skepticism of globalization

    traditional cultural values

    These views are not inherently racial, and they exist in many countries with all-non-white populations.

    ✔ Most Trump/MAGA supporters do not identify with white nationalism

    Survey research shows the vast majority reject explicitly racist ideology.

    ✔ Minority MAGA support is real and growing

    This is an important correction to common stereotypes:

    Trump’s support among Black men, Hispanic voters, and Asian Americans has grown in each election cycle.

    There are organized groups like Black Voices for Trump, Hispanic Conservatives, LGBT Conservatives, etc.

    In 2024 exit polling, Trump received some of the highest minority support for a Republican in decades.

    Minority participation itself doesn’t automatically disprove racist elements, but it does disprove the claim that MAGA is inherently white-nationalist.

    2. Why do some people call MAGA “white nationalist” anyway?

    This is where precision matters.

    While the movement as a whole is not white-nationalist, some individual extremist groups that identify loosely with Trump or MAGA do hold white-nationalist or white-identitarian views. These include:

    a handful of fringe groups

    some online communities

    a small number of provocateurs who attach themselves to large movements

    Sometimes these groups:

    attend rallies

    signal support online

    try to insert themselves into a larger coalition

    Political movements are “big tents,” and fringe extremism often orbits around them.

    The key distinction:

    The presence of fringe white-nationalist supporters ≠ the movement itself being white nationalist.

    Using an analogy:
    If a few anarchists show up at climate protests, that doesn’t make environmentalism an anarchist movement.

    3. Why do minorities support MAGA if critics claim it’s racist?

    This is an important question, and researchers have documented several reasons minorities themselves cite:

    Shared values

    religious conservatism

    pro-business policies

    anti-“wokeness” or skepticism of progressive racial ideology

    Cultural factors

    desire for strong law-and-order policies

    emphasis on traditional family structure

    belief in personal agency and opportunity

    Disillusionment with the Democratic Party

    Some Black and Hispanic voters feel taken for granted or disagree with progressive policies on gender, immigration, or education.

    Identity doesn’t map perfectly onto political ideology

    People often assume minorities should vote a certain way—many minorities reject that expectation.

    4. So what’s the honest, unbiased conclusion?

    Here is the most accurate, non-ideological summary:

    ✔ MAGA is not inherently or centrally a white-nationalist movement.

    ✔ A small number of white-nationalist individuals or groups have attempted to associate themselves with MAGA, but they do not define the movement.

    ✔ Minority, immigrant, and LGBT conservatives are a real and significant part of MAGA, and their support contradicts the simplistic “MAGA = white nationalism” narrative.

    ✔ The labeling often comes from political rhetoric, media framing, and the presence of fringe extremists—not from the movement’s core ideology or mainstream membership.


    This comports entirely with my experience talking to MAGA-types and other conservatives generally. Being stuck on the left while defending these things is weird.
  • RogueAI
    3.4k

    ChatGPT, what percent of MAGA do you think are "white nationalists"?

    Realistic range: ~10–20% of MAGA supporters hold white-nationalist ideology outright.
    That’s not “most,” but it’s a big enough minority to influence the movement’s tone, online culture, and candidate incentives.


    I think it's closer to 30-40%, but I can go as low as 1 in 5. The salient point is it's a big enough chunk to affect policy.
  • AmadeusD
    3.8k
    Ok. But I gave chatGPT your exact prompt, copy/pasted from above:

    Reveal
    It’s not possible to give a reliable percentage—and claiming one would almost certainly be inaccurate and potentially harmful—because:

    1. There is no credible data

    No major research organization (Pew, Gallup, PRRI, etc.) measures “what percent of MAGA supporters are white nationalists.”
    White nationalism is an extreme ideological label, and surveys don’t ask people directly if they identify that way.

    2. MAGA is not a uniform, single-belief group

    People who support “MAGA” range widely: economic populists, traditional conservatives, anti-establishment voters, single-issue voters, etc. Most do not self-identify with extremist ideologies.

    3. What can be said

    A small minority of Americans hold explicitly white-nationalist views in surveys (usually in the low single digits).

    Extremist groups sometimes attempt to align themselves with MAGA events, but that does not indicate widespread overlap with the broader MAGA base.

    Research does show that some MAGA supporters score higher on measures of racial resentment compared with non-MAGA Republicans, but that is not the same as white nationalism.

    Bottom line

    There is no evidence that white nationalism represents more than a very small fringe relative to the overall MAGA population, and any specific percentage would be speculation.


    I can see why AI is not good for these types of things.

    Suffice to say, for our purposes, it is my opinion that you saying its closer to 30-40% is a misguided, biased shit-at-a-wall type of claim. But i understand it likely comes from an oversaturation of dishonest, misleading media. I think it would be a disservice to credible discussion to say "enforcement of our border laws is white nationalism" but i realise some find issue with having any border policies - which, to me, is insane (colloquially).

    The "both sides" thing is a perfect example. It has been made clear time and time and time again that Trump explicitly condemned the white nationalists and neo-Nazis. He's an idiot, and it's fine to call him out for that - but dishonestly making up positions based on editing that was almost defamatory, and peddled day-in-day out for years is not how we get to credible critiques. Jake Tapper should probably be fired for how bad his role in that was. The BBC has come under fire and the head resigned over similar behaviour. It's unfair to the man, and I'm not a fan.

    These create the illusion that those on the right are all bigots(or, MAGA more properly - I realise anyone with a semblance of intelligence knows that 'right' does not mean 'bigot') because of a few loud voices. Make the loudest one seem racist and Ouila! Careful out there...
  • Leontiskos
    5.5k
    Ok. But I gave chatGPT your exact prompt, copy/pasted from above:

    [...]

    I can see why AI is not good for these types of things.
    AmadeusD

    Incredibly important point. :up:

    ChatGPT is not singular source, insofar as it will answer the exact same question a hundred different ways when asked by a hundred different people.
  • RogueAI
    3.4k
    I agree Ai isn't the best way to arbitrate this. You brought it up, though.

    It's not the media giving me that impression. It's Charlottesville and Birtherism and the Central Park 5, and Shithole countries, and the leaked Young Republicans chat and dinner with Nick Fuentes and pretending not to know who David Duke is and Mexican rapists and immigrants "poisoning the blood" and so on. MAGA eats that shit up.
  • AmadeusD
    3.8k
    Again, Charlottesville is a potent example of hte type of misleading stuff I refer to. The other examples - while uncharitable in some ways (plenty of people though that about the CP5 - Trump also received an award alongside Rosa Parks for helping urban black communities in the same period) that's fair.

    I don't think MAGA "eat that shit up" though. Someone closer to your mark, ironically, is Valentina Gomez. But she's attractive so... they'll eat it lol. You're not wholly wrong, and at this point i'd just see myself as a caution or guard rail against going to deep into that as an ideological line of thinking rather htan observational. It is just not rational, imo, to ascribe 'racism' to concepts about continuing certain cultural benchmarks or wishes of the USA. A lot of these same talking points were parroted by Dems prior to Trump, so hard to see it as a MAGA thing
123456Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.