You could be a white supremacist and an atheist - and some in Europe are attracted to the old Norse gods, rather than Christianity.
So, the “No True Scotsman” fallacy?
At some point, there are enough of them who identify as Christian that they can’t be brushed off as not really being Christians. Religions sects and divisions have occurred for thousands of years now. It’s a little late in the case of Christianity to try to come up with a purity test. It’s been tried before several times and failed badly every time.
Really, we’re arguing about how much overlap there is in a Venn Diagram. Sure, not all Christians are white, not all whites are Christian, not all white supremacists are Christian, not all Christians are white supremacists, and so on.
But if we were to draw a Venn Diagram, there would be a lot of overlap between the White Supremacist and Christian Nationalist communities. Not 100%, but probably 80-90%?
So, there is a “meaningful” difference between them, but not really a useful difference.
And they’re all assholes anyways, so I’m not going to get bent out of shape for mis-bigoting* them.
*It’s like misgendering, but for bigots.
yes, that’s about what I would peg it at.
Leaning towards the high end.
Much of the nitpicking and niggling and fine-tuning in this thread seems to be making excuses for these miscreants. “Well, not every single cottonpickin’ white Christian nationalist is necessarily a supremacist…” and you could include any three of the four terms and nitpick it with the remaining term and come up with a rare exception, but there’s so much overlap between all four that I see no meaningful distinction.
You seem to be implying that there’s no distinction between “white” or “Christian” on the one hand, and “nationalist” or “supremacist” on the other. I assure you, there are plenty of whites, Christians, and white Christians who are not bigots.
Who is “you” in this sentence? Because that’s pretty much the exact opposite of what I was saying, and what pretty much everyone else was saying.
Not at all.There are plenty of whites I know for sure to be kindly disposed towards those of other races. I’m one myself (though the KKK would not consider me a member of the white race, I’m quite sure.) I’m talking specifically about the terms “white supremacist” and “Christian Nationalist.” It won’t do to quibble about all Christian nationalists not being white, or all white supremacists not being Christian, or all Christian nationalists not being supremacists etc.
You said that
What does “all four” mean, if not that there’s no meaningful distinction between “white”, “supremacist”, “Christian”, and “nationalist”?
EDIT:
“You” was the person whose post I was replying to, @slicedalone . But unfortunately Discourse removes all indication of that, when it’s the immediately-preceding post.
It means you can’t take one term out and claim that it doesn’t apply across the board to the other three. No one has ever claimed that all whites are Christian nationalist supremacists, whatever that means.
I can take one term out and claim it doesn’t apply across the board to the other three. Like, not all whites are Christian nationalist supremacists.
It’s very difficult to tell what point you’re trying to make when you keep on saying that you’re not saying the things you’re saying.
I thought there were two terms, not four, under discussion. Refer to the title of the thread.
Yes, you can do that, but it’s utterly unresponsive to the question posed.
If I ask “Is there a meaningful distinction between XY and WZ?” you can’t take X out and claim that all WZ are not X. That’s making a strawman argument. No one ever that all X are WZ, nor that all W are XY. What I asked was if there is a meaningful distinction between XY and WZ.
1 “white”
2 “supremacist”
3 “Christian”
4 “nationalist”
No.
Term #1: “White Supremacist”
Term #2: “Christian Nationalist”
Otherwise, come on. There’s more than a billion Christians. Most of them are not even white. Just for starters. What about Hindu nationalists? Please.
They can call themselves whatever they’d like. In fact, if every Christian in the world transformed into a MAGA variety, à la MTG, hating foreigners, oppressing marginalized groups, etc., then, yeah, that’s what the group that calls themselves Christian would be all about.
But it would still be entirely accurate to point out that the self-described Christians ignore the actual teachings of Christ.
I suppose, but it’s indicative of an evasive attitude and misses the point of the thread.
I mean, I get it. If I’m overseas, I wouldn’t want to be lumped in with stereotypical, rude American tourists. But pointing out that there are American tourists who aren’t rude or ignorant doesn’t really address the issue.
Pointing out “not all Christians” are a certain way is defensive behavior and counterproductive in many ways when trying to deal with the ones who are that way.
I agree with you. The nitpickers are taking one term out of each pair and applying the sort of absurd logic you’re mocking.
Simple solution: Instead of typing “You seem to be implying…”, type “slicedalone, you seem to be implying…”.
Maybe, and I’m all for defeating the MAGA Christians. But I feel protective of my boy Jesus, a singularly good fellow, and often feel compelled to call out the hypocrites in His defense. 
It’s a common problem. The bigots appropriate something, and then everyone else who doesn’t want to look like a bigot has to stop using it. It kind of pisses me off that we don’t have a good solution for this problem. See Also: the swastika; Charlie Chaplin’s moustache.