Why is calling Trump Supporters MAGAts allowed?

About This Message Board
1

I see the use of MAGAts to refer to Trump supporters in many threads, generally P&E. It’s used pretty casually and it appears to be perfectly fine to say. Why?

It’s clearly a homophone of maggot. It’s derogatory. Basically calling a whole subset of people animals. What gives?

I’ve tried reading the rules, etc but not sure I found anything on point. The closest I found was in the rules for the P&E forum that said: The use of racial epithets, pejoratives, slurs, and other similar items is forbidden. But it also adds context matters to the use.

If I’ve missed something I’m happy to be informed. In my mind, I could see similar language being used against a different group of people and it not being allowed at all. But maybe that’s just in my mind.

2

Not being a moderator or administrator, I can’t speak to why things are allowed or not allowed, but there’s a big difference between using derogatory language based on race, and using derogatory language about opinions that people chose to hold and could change at any time. Trump supporters are a group of people, sure, but they’re not an identity category in the same way that racial groups are.

3

IIRC, general derogatory language is fine (“those people are scum”) even outside the Pit, but personal derogatory language is not (“you are scum”).

4

This sums it up well.

5

I understand this has been the practice for a long time. But I always wondered whether there wasn’t always a risk that a generalized slur (of otherwise acceptable use) could be targeted implicitly against a participant in a discussion or other board member.

But I guess that’s what mod flags (and the freeform text field in them) are for.

6

Thanks for the responses. Very helpful. It doesn’t feel right, but I understand.

Or more broadly, why are we ok with dehumanizing any group of people for merely holding an opinion?

Late: changed “anyone” to “group of people” to be more correct.

7

Sure, but then this crosses over very easily into religion, which is also something someone chooses to hold.

I wouldn’t want to see liberals called “libtards” here either.

8

There are some opinions that are so objectively repugnant and dangerous, that those who hold them can and should be severely criticized. Dehumanizing is perhaps a step too far, but MAGAt doesn’t seem akin to “vermin,” etc. But I acknowledge, there’s no bright line.

9

And thus entirely fair game in my book.

10

Nazism is a political ideology, “an opinion” if you will, should we be respectful about them?

11

Where’s the slap my head emoji? I was literally wondering last night what the “t” in MAGAt stood for, and never realized the connection, as I was pronouncing it as MAH-gots in my head. Mystery solved!

12

Good point. I guess I feel like religion is so closely connected to ethnicity and culture that it’s only partly a chosen attribute, though, and much more likely to be an aspect of people’s core identities. (I mean, you CAN make loyalty-to-an-individual-politician a key part of your identity, but it would be very unwise to do so, and I don’t really have a problem with insulting people for being unwise.)

13

And here I thought it meant Make America Great Again trump supporters.

jk. I know what it means.

14

This is probably the ultimate test. Assuming you mean Nazis (the people that held those views), I would still say no. I don’t see the need to dehumanize people, especially ones that are alive. It just seems to devolve the situation completely and make it worse. But I’m not holding this particular view very tight.

I have to go on a trip. If anyone asks me a question I’ll have to respond tonight or tomorrow.

15

Some opinions are weird.

16

For the record, I think there is an extra layer of distinction that can be drawn specific to the term.

First, there are three different terms, that IMHO can but don’t always mean three different Political POV.

Conservatives, Republicans, and MAGA (also referred to disparagingly as RWNJ and MAGAts).

Someone can be Conservative on one or more issues, but aren’t absolutely in the other two categories. I can agree or disagree, but when used in most cases as a standalone term, tend to be synonyms for the next two terms. The main exception is as a modifier for Democrat, which tends (please note, broad categories) to be applied to former Republicans who can’t stand where MAGA is going, or something approaching a centrist POV (such as actual financial conservatives and social liberals).

Second term, Republican, is/was a purely political grouping, registered voter and all that. Again, historically, someone I will generally disagree with on priorities, but not always self evidently evil in the way fascists or Nazis are. But, again IMHO, outside of a few remaining outliers, especially those in purplish states, they’re mostly gone, with the political wing being MAGA, and the individual party members becoming the “Conservative” Democrats above, or identifying as independent, or just giving up on the whole thing.

And MAGA, well, from the Top Down, it was homophobic, bigoted, racist, grifting cult of personality wearing the skin of a political movement. To use insulting terms for it is fair and accurate. Are there individuals who can be good people otherwise while supporting said cult? Sure, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t part of an evil cult.

As for religion, I’m kind of in the same POV. Using the most commonly found one on the boards and the West in general, Christianity, there’s a huge number of sub-sects, splinters, and out-and-out wackos. Would I use a direct insult for Christianity in general? No, but would I use one for Christian Nationalists? Absolutely - because once again, it’s a political movement with abhorrent and direct political goals, which I have every right to judge, while a Christian (no other modifier) runs the gamut from saintly (even if I disagree with them) to “I hope your God does exists and I do not think you’ll be pleased when you meet them”.

17

Personally, I’m okay with “dehumanizing any group of people for merely holding an opinion” when that opinion includes dehumanizing others.

On the other hand, there is ab honest virtue in “call[ing] a spade a spade”, particularly when it comes to bigots, sectarians, fanatics, and enablers of a would-be autocrat.

But what is the actual question on your mind, the one you’ve been tap dancing around since your o.p.?

Stranger

18

And you won’t, at least not without moderation applied. The word “libtard” is considered offensive not because it denigrates liberals (which it does but so what) but because it refers or calls to the offensive term “retard” for a developmentally disabled person.

Maggot is not an offensive word if it is referring to the actual object so named, i.e. the larval form of certain flies. (Interesting side note: in looking that up to be sure of my facts, I found a third definition for “maggot” – an extravagant or eccentric idea. The 2nd definition was “a despicable person” so really MAGAts just means despicable people.)

19

If you think it is about maggots — that is on you.
In fact it is a contraction of MAGA hats.

20

I’m starting to use the term MAGAciles myself, or MAGAbots.