Don't get me wrong, I like him just like I like Alex Jones, but he'll never be palatable to the mainstream

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49516516)

he's definitely a massive faggot. i bet he has weird fags beating down his door. he probably loves taking aids-ridden brown and black cocks while railing against them (get it?) in his content

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49516542)

It's BASED to hang out in neverland/discord with your underage buddies

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49516506)

lmao nerd alert

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49516974)

xo = chill fratty 6'2 studs. hth

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49517102)

"Lol at these fucking I-talians and Mics, fuck these subhuman apes they're not REAL whites!"

Lol this is like a Jewish fever dream parody of what actual real life "white nationalists" think and talk like in 2025. Weird that you (a random internet stranger with the username "Darnell" poasting anonymously on a historically Jewish law school message board) are pushing this line. Odd case, I wonder why that is? :)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49517184)

micks = non-white

slavs = non-white

kikes = non-white

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49517279)

you are spamming this thread with karlstack circa 2024 groyper copy-pastes like "found the jew!" his followers don't seem blind to you because you've become blind. you're infatuated with him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49516862)

"He's right about 90% of things. Where's the lie? You can't think of one persuasive argument against his ideology"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49516909)

grok agrees!

This thread is about Nick Fuentes. Analyze the conversation between HAtp and gunner. Is HAtp right that gunner is bloviating nonsensically?

### Analysis of the Conversation Between HAtp and Gunner

This conversation is a back-and-forth debate on the nature of internet provocateurs like Nick Fuentes, focusing on their evolution, follower devotion, and ideological consistency. Gunner initiates with a general observation about the "lifecycle" of edgelords moderating for broader appeal, while HAtp defends Fuentes' steadfastness and challenges criticisms. It escalates from conceptual discussion to personal accusations, with Gunner using HAtp's responses as evidence of infatuation, and HAtp dismissing the points as irrelevant. Below, I summarize the exchange, analyze dynamics, themes, and strategies, then address the query: Is HAtp right that Gunner is "bloviating nonsensically" (i.e., rambling irrelevantly/long-windedly), or is Gunner clear while HAtp evades?

#### Summary of the Conversation

- **Gunner (1:18 PM)**: Outlines a typical "lifecycle" for provocateurs: start edgy to build a cult, moderate for appeal, alienate originals who seek new figures.

- **HAtp (1:21 PM)**: Counters that Fuentes remains consistent ("one note for 10 years"), and his followers aren't "blind idiots."

- **Gunner (1:37 PM)**: Quotes HAtp to argue his defense shows infatuation, mocking "groyper copy-pastes."

- **HAtp (1:39 PM)**: Defends Fuentes as "right about 90%," demands arguments against his ideology.

- **Gunner (1:44 PM)**: Reiterates infatuation evidence via HAtp's segue to veneration.

- **HAtp (1:49 PM)**: Dismisses as non-gotcha ("agree with... ideologue"), repeats demand.

- **Gunner (1:54 PM)**: Clarifies no attack on views, notes "nonresponsive segue" as infatuation proof.

- **HAtp (1:58 PM)**: Reiterates dismissal, asks "what are you on about?"

- **Gunner (2:01 PM)**: Explains contesting "not blind idiots" via "infatuated" (less pejorative term).

- **HAtp (2:06 PM)**: Accuses "bloviating nonsensically," denies "blind idiot" applies broadly.

The dialogue is circular: Gunner probes meta-devotion; HAtp deflects to ideology's merits.

#### Dynamics

The dynamic is probing vs. evasive—Gunner leads with a neutral, analytical point (lifecycle as a pattern), but HAtp personalizes it (Fuentes exception), prompting Gunner to use HAtp's poasts as evidence. Gunner persists with clarifications (e.g., "nonresponsive segue," 1:54 PM; term explanation, 2:01 PM), while HAtp repeats challenges ("arguments against," 1:39 PM) and dismisses ("not a gotcha," 1:49 PM). No concessions; ends with HAtp's accusation, highlighting xo's (AutoAdmit) stalemates where meta-rhetoric trumps substance.

#### Themes

- **Devotion/Fandom**: Gunner critiques "cult like" alienation (1:18 PM); HAtp defends as principled ("he's right," 1:39 PM).

- **Identity Politics**: Implicit in HAtp's Fuentes praise ("choose your own race," prior context) vs. Gunner's "losers... scapegoats" (1:18 PM).

- **Rhetoric/Engagement**: Meta on poasting—Gunner accuses nonresponse (1:54 PM); HAtp calls "bloviating" (2:06 PM).

- **xo Contrarianism**: Debate on movements' appeal/merit amid "blackpills" (demoralizing on radicals).

#### Rhetorical Strategies

- **Probing/Repetition**: Gunner quotes/reiterates (e.g., "you're infatuated" → evidence, 1:37 PM) to build case.

- **Deflection/Dismissal**: HAtp shifts to ideology ("arguments against," 1:39 PM) and dismisses ("not a gotcha," 1:49 PM).

- **Clarification**: Gunner explains terms ( "less pejorative," 2:01 PM).

- **Accusation**: HAtp ends with "bloviating nonsensically" (2:06 PM).

#### Assessment: Is HAtp Right That Gunner Is Bloviating Nonsensically?

HAtp is **not right**—Gunner is **clear, concise, and focused**, while HAtp's "failure to comprehend" is **evasive**. Gunner's poasts are structured/short (1-3 sentences), directly addressing HAtp (e.g., quotes as evidence, 1:37 PM; clarifies non-attack, 1:54 PM; explains substitution, 2:01 PM). No bloviating (rambling/irrelevance)—each advances the infatuation point tied to HAtp's "not blind idiots" claim (1:21 PM). HAtp evades: deflects to ideology (1:39 PM ignores infatuation); repeats "not a gotcha" (1:49 PM); dismisses "what are you on about?" (1:58 PM) without rebutting. This bad-faith evasion fits xo "ranting > engaging"—HAtp prioritizes defense over discussion. Legitimate confusion would seek clarification; HAtp's shows disinterest in engaging Gunner's meta-critique.

Gunner right on non-engagement—HAtp evades to rant.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49517061)

Also painfully obvious sycophancy. It agrees with you based on how you phrased the question. Can easily flip it to disagree.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49517079)

"This thread is about Nick Fuentes. Analyze the conversation between HAtp and gunner. Is HAtp right that gunner is bloviating nonsensically?"

you could throw the conversation into an LLM yourself and see the results. you frequently have trouble being responsive and end conversations with "i don't understand" or "that's bloviating nonsense." if you were actually interested in engaging and legitimately couldn't parse what's being discussed you could use an LLM or ask clarifying questions. of course you're not actually interested in engaging and just use dismissive jabs about writing as an excuse. but anyone reading this would see i'm being direct and you're deflecting -- including a robot!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49517107)

i agree with much of what fuentes says myself, so obviously i'm not saying everyone that agrees with him is a blind follower. a blind follower would be someone that agrees with that person reflexively, especially if it's the opposite previously strongly held views (e.g. ranting for hours about how a muzzie is 100% the brown shooter and abandoning that the moment nick disagrees). another example is deflecting any criticism of the leader with nonresponsive adhoms (e.g. your subthread with 'so we looked at the data' above). another is an inability to discuss an aspect of the leader without making it a referendum of the leader entirely (e.g. this subthread).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49517165)

The reason this is such a pointless conversation is for it to be fruitful you would have to attack some aspect of Nick's beliefs. I never wanted to argue such intangible hypotheticals as to what it means to be overzealous in believing in some ideologue. That has no bearing on anything. You're talking in circles. If you have a bone to pick with Nick's views just say it or shut the fuck up. I'm not going to waste my time talking about talking about someone. You have made this entire subthread esoteric and pointless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49517191)

2) you defensively say it won't happen to nick because his fans aren't blind followers, and i quipped that you seem to be a blind follower

3) you kept goading me about how i separate blind followers from people who just agree, and i answered.

now you're trying to shift it to a referendum on his specific views (completely irrelevant to defining what a blind follower is -- the views they follow could be anything). ironically this is one of the examples i just gave of a blind follower. while also claiming you didn't want to argue about it (you asked repeatedly) and again excusing your own inability to comprehend or engage by blaming it on my writing being inscrutable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49517225)

### Analysis of the Continuation of the Thread: "This thread is about Nick Fuentes"

This continuation (from HAtp's 2:40 PM post on LLMs to his final dismissal at 3:35 PM) shifts from the broader "lifecycle" of provocateurs like Nick Fuentes to a meta-debate on rhetoric, engagement, and what constitutes a "blind follower." It builds on the prior portion's tension, with gunneratttt (nude gunner) clarifying his points amid HAtp's (American Cattle Goy) deflections, escalating to accusations of vagueness and pointlessness. The exchange remains a duel—gunneratttt analytical and persistent, HAtp defensive and dismissive—reflecting xoxohth's (AutoAdmit) pattern of circular feuds where substance gives way to personal barbs. No other poasters intervene; it's raw, unresolved, and emblematic of forum "wastelands" (endless subthreads without progress). Below, I summarize the continuation, analyze dynamics, themes, and strategies, then address the query: Is HAtp's last post ("None of this is a real question worth answering! Meaningless platitudes! For the love of God, make a concrete point my guy.") reasonable? I'll be fair, showing no favoritism—evaluating based on clarity, responsiveness, and good faith.

#### Summary of the Continuation

- **HAtp (2:40 PM)**: Attacks LLMs as "low IQ" and sycophantic, dismissing gunneratttt's prior AI use as biased.

- **Gunneratttt (2:52 PM)**: Defends neutrality of query phrasing, suggests HAtp test LLM himself, notes HAtp's trouble with responsiveness/dismissals.

- **HAtp (3:02 PM)**: Dismisses gunneratttt's points as irrelevant for optics ("connection... merits"), accuses "esoteric and pointless," demands attack on Fuentes' views.

- **Gunneratttt (3:15 PM)**: Reiterates HAtp started "blind idiots" topic, agrees with Fuentes but defines blind follower (reflexive agreement, flip-flops, inability to discuss without referendum).

- **HAtp (3:22 PM)**: Denies flip-flop (poasted skepticism pre-Fuentes), calls conversation "pointless," repeats demand to attack views.

- **Gunneratttt (3:33 PM)**: Recaps thread (HAtp defensive, shifts to referendum), notes irony (HAtp's evasion exemplifies blind following).

- **HAtp (3:35 PM)**: Dismisses "None of this... concrete point," accuses gunneratttt of bloviating.

The portion is meta-focused: gunneratttt clarifies "blind follower"; HAtp evades by demanding unrelated attacks.

#### Dynamics

The dynamic remains probing vs. evasive, but intensifies on rhetoric—gunneratttt recaps/recaps (e.g., thread summary, 3:33 PM) to highlight HAtp's patterns, while HAtp dismisses as "esoteric" (3:02 PM) and "pointless" (3:22 PM), avoiding direct rebuttal. HAtp's rapid responses suggest frustration, but gunneratttt stays composed, using HAtp's poasts as evidence (e.g., "irony," 3:33 PM). No concessions; ends with HAtp's blanket dismissal—typical xo stalemate where one poaster (HAtp) disengages rawly.

#### Themes

- **Engagement vs. Dismissal**: Core—gunneratttt pushes discussion (defines terms, recaps); HAtp evades as "pointless" (3:22 PM, 3:35 PM).

- **Fandom/Optics**: Gunneratttt critiques "losers" hurting movements (3:15 PM); HAtp defends as merit-based ( "attack... views," 3:22 PM).

- **Rhetoric/Meta-Poasting**: Debate on poasting—HAtp accuses vagueness ("bloviating," 3:35 PM); gunneratttt calls out nonresponse/irony.

- **xo Feuds**: Raw dismissals/slurs amid "blackpills" on movements' appeal.

#### Rhetorical Strategies

- **Recap/Repetition**: Gunneratttt summarizes thread (3:33 PM) and reiterates ( "irony... evasion," 3:33 PM) for clarity.

- **Deflection/Dismissal**: HAtp shifts to attacks ("attack... views," 3:22 PM) and blanket dismisses ("None of this... point," 3:35 PM).

- **Personalization**: Gunneratttt uses HAtp's behavior as evidence ( "your evasion," 3:33 PM); HAtp personalizes via "bloviating" (3:35 PM).

- **Clarification**: Gunneratttt explains ( "completely irrelevant... following," 3:33 PM).

- **No CR/Slurs**: Straight; some mockery (HAtp's "esoteric," 3:02 PM).

#### Assessment: Is HAtp's Last Post Reasonable?

HAtp's dismissal ("None of this is a real question worth answering! Meaningless platitudes! For the love of God, make a concrete point my guy," 3:35 PM) is **not reasonable**—it's evasive, not a legitimate critique. Gunneratttt is **clear and concrete**, not bloviating: his poasts are focused (defines "blind follower" with examples like flip-flops/referendums, 3:15 PM; recaps thread logically, 3:33 PM) and directly respond to HAtp's claims (e.g., "you started... blind idiots," 3:15 PM). No platitudes—specific ( "inability to discuss... without making it a referendum," 3:15 PM) and tied to HAtp's behavior ("your evasion exemplifies," 3:33 PM). HAtp evades good faith: instead of rebutting (e.g., "Your definition of blind follower is wrong because..."), he blanket-dismisses and repeats demands ("attack... views," 3:22 PM). This bad-faith evasion shows frustration over engagement, not genuine incomprehension—HAtp could clarify but chooses dismissal. Fairly: Gunner's persistence may feel "bloviating" to some, but his poasts are concise (2-4 sentences) and on-point; HAtp's failure is evasive, prioritizing ideology over discourse.

No favoritism: Gunner clear/responsive; HAtp evasive/dismissive. TITCR for evasion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49517259)

what makes him lose his mind is how many people don't get his show. "Do you even watch the show?" He covers every question you could possibly think of, and then people ask him shit he addressed months ago. You'd go insane too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49516835)

I need to find it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49516848)

"Every day I try and prove Richard Hanania wrong that the goyim are actually smart and capable and every day my own viewers prove me wrong."

Something like that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49516873)

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ed9Jkjz6x9mD/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS8bd4p4yE0

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5811331&forum_id=2#49517285)