> surely this is a dishonest retort to a label that is being applied very specifically to a radical nationalist It's not dishonest at all. I have noticed this

> surely this is a dishonest retort to a label that is being applied very specifically to a radical nationalist It's not dishonest at all. I have noticed this trend in the last couple of years, where the likes of Sam Harris and Douglas Murray are called white-supremacists. Modi has been called a Hindu supremacist. I don't know much about David Duke, so I'll not comment about him. > if your dispute is that you think there's daylight between an ethno-religious nationalist and an ethno-religious supremacist, fine, make that argument Why does this case need to be made? There have been plenty of common counterexamples throughout modern history. Just look at the plethora of atheist Jews who are Zionists but don't believe in the concept of the promised land, or look at the formation of Pakistan, or even the split up of Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, which did not have religious motivations. It's not like I have no skin in the game. If the likes of Pravin Togadia (actual Hindu supremacist -- I've heard his speeches live) have their way, and India became a Hindu country, I'll be made a refugee. But yes, dishonest characterizations of political opponents and calling them [something]-supremacists is a trend now.