Sure, call them all those things. I never said you should be nice to the Right, and if your insults are both accurate and not dehumanizing, then by all means, fire away.
I do think that “weird” is probably going to beore effective than “fascist” but that’s just because our electorate, when aggregated together, acts pretty stupid, and weird appeals better to the lowest common denominator.
You probably shouldn’t called them a homophone of “Maggots” though.
My finger isn’t pointed at anyone. I’m simply saying that if you make the argument “dehumanizing language is inherently bad”, you should not use dehumanizing language.
I haven’t heard Republicans make the argument that dehumanizing language is bad, so when they use dehumanizing language, I’ll criticize them for doing so, but not for hypocrisy (in that particular area, they’re plenty hipocritical elsewhere)
I am desperately trying to find an animal that follows Trump and wears those ridiculous red hats, but no luck so far.
As an Ibex, my hoof is cloven, so I have two fingers per hand.
Please do not dehumanize yourself.
Oooh, I understand the source of confusion.
These are maggots:
They are the larvael stage of flies.
How about a red-headed 'pecker?
Someone has never watched a documentary about chimpanzee troops! They can certainly be sadistic at a minimum, and possibly fascistic if you’re generous enough with the definition 
Meanwhile Bonobos are practicing Fully Automated Gay Space Communism while in the Stone Age.
It’s a fascinating question whether chimps have enough theory of mind to be sadists, or whether that’s anthropomorphizing them. It’s barely possible that such a question is outside the realm of ATMB. In any case, if an insult applied to chimps is potentially anthropomorphic, applying it to humans is definitely not dehumanizing.
You mean the ones spelled with two "g"s, the first three letters not capitalized to denote a popular Trumpian phrase, with an “ot” so as to not represent the red hat those others wear?
FWIW, I always took “MAGAts” to suggest “maggots.” I offer this since I know I’m a role model for the board. I hope this settles matters.
I mean the ones who are pronounced identically to ‘MAGAts’, yes.
From Wikipedia:
Of course, you have had this point cited to you, in this very thread, multiple times now.
Some do, some don’t. I have noticed that, in real life, those that pronounce them the same seem to be right-wingers that insist that the far left all pronounce them the same. In fact, I often wonder if the use of that word that denotes Trump followers might drop off the face of the Earth if it wasn’t made a distracting cause by the Right.
It’s OK if it’s not actually dehumanizing. Dehumanizing means suggesting that some subset of humanity is less than human and should be treated accordingly. It’s what the slave trade did to Black people, and what the Nazis did to Jews. It’s not what posters here do when they refer to Trump cultists as either “MAGAs” or “MAGAts”, with or without the silly redundant “t”. The implication to any reasonable person is that they’re being ridiculed for being uninformed idiots, not that they’re subhuman. I’d be fine with dropping the “t” but I never thought it was a big deal.
There seems to be much love here for the descriptor “weird” for Trump and Vance and his cronies, and I like it too, but it serves an entirely different purpose. A term is needed for the core of Trump cultists, which is not the same as the much larger group of Trump supporters in the sense of likely Trump voters. “MAGAs” or “MAGAts” serves the purpose, and is shorter than “MAGA cultists”.
Considering the bad history the word “Maga” has, it (slightly) surprised me when they took it up/
With the T, you’re calling them “Maggots”. That’s precisely why the T was added.
Call them MAGA, or call them Trumpers.
Or admit that if you think someone is vile enough then calling them a “maggot” is totally acceptable.
It’s funny that people are denying that “MAGAt” means “maggot” but we have had multiple threads complaining about “Democrat Party” because “DemocRAT”.
“MAGAt” is exactly equivalent to Demoncrat or DemocRAT or whatever.
ETA: ha! That thread has a wonderful post in support of our side by dear Czarcasm:
Continuing the discussion from RESOLVED: Using the term "democrat party" should be a bannable offense:
Your first cite calls “MAGAt” derogatory slang. Your second cite calls it “offensive” and “derogatory” slang. The idea that it’s “dehumanizing” seems to be your own invention.
Pretty much, yes. It’s silly. It’s offensive and certainly should be avoided in anything but extremely informal contexts. But “dehumanizing” is just an inappropriate and wholly inaccurate criticism.
No, at least for most, it’s because there isn’t a fucking Democrat Party in the US.