The good news is that for now at least, one can ... well ... one can't avoid hearing about him, so there's a bit of noise, but one can at least refrain from paying the slightest attention to him. Nick Funtez -- see, I don't even know or care how to spell his name -- consumes maybe two minutes per month of my time. Commercials on TV are a far worser problem.
Thank you for explaining this paradox. I believe that most conservatives are relatively rooted in values and I found it hard to understand how someone like Fuentes could gain such a large following. You have explained this fraud and I find this very reassuring. This is another reason to condemn Tucker Carlson, who, for some reason, continues to have a real following. He helped inflate the significance of a bigoted nobody!!
I wonder how this fake popularity can be exposed, diminished and dealt with? Fuentes reminds me of my Kindergarten students who sought attention by saying "shocking" negative things about me, the teacher or other children in class. I had them sit to the side and watch how other children behaved appropriately, how our class benefitted. I brought up the point of wasted time in put downs.
Thanks, but there's the unspoken premise that any of this matters. Surely serious people ignore all of these noises? I could not care less about this person and I probably don't care about anyone who does care about this person. He is as relevant to me as Taylor Swift -- not at all. We can expect him to evaporate one day surely. Do these 'influencers' actually change anything at all?
Unfortunately there are more than enough unserious people to propel this nonsense for a while. Plus, it's manufactured mostly to give the left a big strawman to whine about.
Still I'd like some data, or at least intelligent analysis, of how much any of this wind really changes things. Social media people mostly perform for each other, no? I suppose there must be some leakage into the real world, but how much? In the next election, run a parallel simulation assuming zero 'Influencers' -- does the outcome change?
Mind ... on the Left, the woke are said to be about 9% of the population, still they control the Dems completely. Could the Nick Fuentes of the country end up controling MAGA the same way? Mind ... wokeness didn't originate in these podcasts -- or whatever you call them -- it originated in the Ivies as a political variant of communism. The 'far right' is more home grown -- it comes from the pissed off working class.
You ask, “there must be some leakage into the real world, but how much?”
The article actually addresses that question. The answer seems to be “a lot”.
For mainstream media, the purpose of the hoax is to stem the flow of Jewish defections from the Democratic Party. “You see, the Republicans are becoming just as antisemitic as the Democrats!”
While I don't think you are wrong, Donald Trump did host Fuentes at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wasn't president then, true, but that's the kind of invite that draws attention. While I think media can be snookered into giving people too much attention, Fuentes is hardly an obscure figure on the right.
In my observation Nick Fuentes was obscure until Tucker Carlson interviewed him.
I must live under a rock.
I don't know or give a crap for this guy.
I learned who he was because of the spamming I saw about 1.5 years ago in popular threads.
I didn't like the spamming and, the more I learned, the more I hated the guy. I am utterly unsurprised that he is the product of grand spamming.
The good news is that for now at least, one can ... well ... one can't avoid hearing about him, so there's a bit of noise, but one can at least refrain from paying the slightest attention to him. Nick Funtez -- see, I don't even know or care how to spell his name -- consumes maybe two minutes per month of my time. Commercials on TV are a far worser problem.
Thank you for explaining this paradox. I believe that most conservatives are relatively rooted in values and I found it hard to understand how someone like Fuentes could gain such a large following. You have explained this fraud and I find this very reassuring. This is another reason to condemn Tucker Carlson, who, for some reason, continues to have a real following. He helped inflate the significance of a bigoted nobody!!
I wonder how this fake popularity can be exposed, diminished and dealt with? Fuentes reminds me of my Kindergarten students who sought attention by saying "shocking" negative things about me, the teacher or other children in class. I had them sit to the side and watch how other children behaved appropriately, how our class benefitted. I brought up the point of wasted time in put downs.
Thanks, but there's the unspoken premise that any of this matters. Surely serious people ignore all of these noises? I could not care less about this person and I probably don't care about anyone who does care about this person. He is as relevant to me as Taylor Swift -- not at all. We can expect him to evaporate one day surely. Do these 'influencers' actually change anything at all?
Unfortunately there are more than enough unserious people to propel this nonsense for a while. Plus, it's manufactured mostly to give the left a big strawman to whine about.
Still I'd like some data, or at least intelligent analysis, of how much any of this wind really changes things. Social media people mostly perform for each other, no? I suppose there must be some leakage into the real world, but how much? In the next election, run a parallel simulation assuming zero 'Influencers' -- does the outcome change?
Mind ... on the Left, the woke are said to be about 9% of the population, still they control the Dems completely. Could the Nick Fuentes of the country end up controling MAGA the same way? Mind ... wokeness didn't originate in these podcasts -- or whatever you call them -- it originated in the Ivies as a political variant of communism. The 'far right' is more home grown -- it comes from the pissed off working class.
You ask, “there must be some leakage into the real world, but how much?”
The article actually addresses that question. The answer seems to be “a lot”.
For mainstream media, the purpose of the hoax is to stem the flow of Jewish defections from the Democratic Party. “You see, the Republicans are becoming just as antisemitic as the Democrats!”
Yes, that's one reason for the strawman.
Also to prevent defections from the Party line.
While I don't think you are wrong, Donald Trump did host Fuentes at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wasn't president then, true, but that's the kind of invite that draws attention. While I think media can be snookered into giving people too much attention, Fuentes is hardly an obscure figure on the right.
Curious about his massive Rumble numbers, however. I can see the Tweets being manufactured, but millions of views on Rumble?