All the cites I posted were specifically about MAGAt being a homophone of Maggot. Did I need to bold that part?
If I need to explain to you why calling someone a “Maggot” is dehumanizing, I’m not sure this will be a productive conversation.
For realz. But I’ll let someone else try.
Fine, let’s do it:
Hope that helps!
The preview to your article says:
Which is exactly what I was alluding to above. If we believe dehumanization is harmful to the person doing the dehumanizing, in and of itself, regardless of the target - then we shouldn’t do it, even if Republicans deserve it.
If we don’t buy that dehumanization is inherently harmful, then we can make a case by case decision, including saying ‘yep, Republicans are such massive assholes that dehumanizing them is OK’.
That second argument is a valid argument to make; it may or may not be a strong argument, but at least it’s coherent.
“Dehumanization is bad and harmful in and of itself but I really like doing it to Trump supporters so I’m going to pretend that calling them “maggots” is not dehumanizing”, on the other hand, is not an intellectually honest argument.
And the thing is, there are so many good insults that don’t treat one’s opponents as something that should be exterminated. If you don’t want to exterminate them, why not stick to those other insults?
Do I really have to explain that a near-homophone like “MAGAt” is supposed to be a freaking joke, albeit a pretty lowbrow juvenile one? That serious, pervasive, and hateful references to some particular group as vermin is actual hate speech? Can you possibly not see the difference?
Oh–it’s a joke! That’s okay then. Jokes are never harmful and never contribute to a toxic discourse.
Oooh, your dehumanization was meant to be humorous, was it? That makes it totally OK, then.
It would be, if actually used all that often.
Isn’t “pigs” still dehumanizing?
They can, but only when they carry an implication that can be inferred to have an element of actual truth. Even “how many ‘x’ does it take to screw in a lightbulb” jokes can be harmful by conveying the implication that ‘x’ is stupid.
But what the hell actual truth does “MAGAt” seriously convey, except maybe to the fevered imagination of someone looking to be offended? Which sort of individual I suspect would be equally offended if the “t” was dropped. There really is such a thing as manufactured outrage.
That one view Trump supporters as subhuman scum, as vermin whose very existence is tainting this country, as something to eliminate completely? You know - like maggots?
And who on this board has that view?
Please name one poster here among the many who have used the term “MAGAt” who has indicated in any way – even very vaguely – that they actually view Trump supporters in the way you just described? If you can’t, then admit you’re wrong.
Speaking for myself, I’ve called Trump supporters many things. The words I use most often are “uninformed” and “ignorant”. I believe “idiots” has also come up. I can confidently state that “subhuman scum” and “vermin” were not adjectives I’ve ever employed.
Is it OK to use slurs as long as you don’t actually hate the people you’re using slurs against?
Who on this board holds those views?
For what it’s worth, I think MAGAt is indeed roughly comparable to “Democrat party”, and IMO both are slurs that should be banned outside the PIT.
When you’re parroting arguments from the Clothahump playbook, it’s time to take the L and move on.
So as long as you don’t hold any hate in your heart you can say any slur you want?
Then why use a term that compares them to maggots, known for being subhuman vermin?
Not every shorthand term that happens to sound like an animal is dehumanizing. For example, I knew a Reform Jewish woman who was studying to become a rabbi, and so she called her self a “rabbi in training”, or “rabbit”. Since rabbits don’t generally have an association as vile disgusting things that ruin anything they touch completely and utterly; and since the point of the term wasn’t to insult rabbis who are training; I don’t think that this term is very dehumanizing.
MAGAt, on the other hand, is both meant as a term of disparagement for a class of people you dislike, AND is specifically chosen because of the vile association of the maggot, a disgusting creature that spoils food and must therefore be destroyed wherever it comes in contact with anything valuable.
So if no one on this board is in favor of slavery and we all agree that black people are equal, should we start dropping n-bombs?