I’m genuinely baffled by Nick Fuentes's popularity. I just finished watching the episode, and having only learned about him this year, I approached it without any prior opinion of him. But what I saw was someone remarkably prone to logical inconsistencies, sweeping generalisations, double standards, and bizarre displays of theatrical outrage. He repeatedly undermined his own arguments while displaying astonishing confidence in them.

I thought Kim’s X post raised a perfectly reasonable question about conservative men’s harsher judgment of the woman compared with the seven men. Nick rejected Kim’s criticism, only to illustrate her point by declaring the woman more disgusting than the seven men. Instead of keeping his rebuttal focused on the argument, he personalised the disagreement and resorted to calling Kim a “man hating feminist”, a “stupid bitch”, an “idiot”, and even a “dog.” What on earth was that…? Is substituting juvenile name calling for reasoned rebuttal his usual approach to debate?

The irony and contradictions are almost comical to be honest. He portrays women as emotional and irrational while working himself up into a profanity filled meltdown, then complains about being labelled a “woman hating incel” (even though Kim never called him that), all while telling women to “go home” and “shut up” and suggesting that women’s liberation must end. He uses reproductive biology to argue for stricter sexual standards for women. Yet, a man sleeping with seven women could cause 7 pregnancies, while a woman sleeping with seven men could become pregnant only once. Sure, women bear the physical risks, but a man impregnating multiple women can affect several children, families, and society as a whole. So couldn’t his own reasoning place greater responsibility on men? Of course, neither conclusion follows from biology alone.

Kim isn’t beyond criticism, but she raised a substantive point that deserved a substantive response. Nick seemed more interested in asserting dominance and escalating the conflict than making a coherent argument. Perhaps the outrage is performative, and the spectacle itself is part of the appeal. Either way, I found the whole thing intellectually underwhelming and frankly embarrassing for someone with such a following.