I don’t think white nationalists mind being called white nationalists. The same for zionists or islamists. What these drisciptors and the people who stand by them have in common is that they all share isolationism, supremacy and the disdain for otherness. These features are all intertwined and inseparable, like the three sides of a shitty triangle.

One can say being called one of those descriptors when one finds them wrong and disagreeable is obviously offensive to the person in question.

As for if it constitutes hate speech… it’s a mess. I’m not one to police language and speech.

As the defense of every hateful person is that they can just be ignorant. And how true that is. But how convenient as well.

Trying to legislate intention is impossible, and banning words is a terrible idea. And using the elusive concept of the status quo for a barometer of what is acceptable is also not a good idea at all. So… what are we left with? Allowing speech to fight back speech, basically. It’s far from perfect, but is the best we have.

But in this case, yes, this is just someone drumming up fear in the racist bias of a portion of the public.

As for if he is ignorant and believes the nonsense he speaks or doesn’t and is just mad that there’s an actual voice for the people to hinder and reduce the control of the elites, which include him and the moron tech bro brigade he’s a part of…

I would say the distinction is irrelevant.

But that’s just me.