Please, try to just answer the question.
Your question is completely irrelevant.
And the answer is “I don’t know whether anyone on this board holds those views or not; certainly a lot of posters hold very negative views of Trump supporters and think the country would be better if they didn’t exist”. But again, the answer does not matter.
Then neither does the accusation. In fact, it makes the accusation untrue.
How so?
What accusation do you think I am making?
Do you actually know what my point is? Because if you think my point involves an accusation you’ve missed it completely.
And I’m outta here. 
That’s not the point. I’ll quote myself from another thread:
Good people should avoid dehumanizing language because we know exactly what it leads to. It’s an evil tool, and the fact that MAGA folks are objectively awful isn’t a good enough reason to normalize tactics that exist to lay the groundwork for genocides.
It’s very relevant, and you didn’t answer it. If many posters here have used the term “MAGAt”, yet not a single one holds the abhorrent views you ascribe to the term, then clearly the term isn’t associated with the abhorrent views you imagine it is. Anyone who actually believed those things would be quickly banned from the board for hate speech.
We sure do. What does that have to do with anything?
There you go again, imagining things that probably no one ever said. What I’ve repeatedly said is that the country would be so much better off if voters were better informed and more engaged, and have suggested ways that that could happen. Is that “dehumanizing”?
Did you read that post on its own, or in context?
I am not accusing anyone on the SDMB of holding this view.
I was responding to the question of what calling someone a “Maggot” would imply.
For the zillionth time - my point is this:
-
The argument that dehumanizing language is bad for the person using that language because of the psychological effect that using it has on the speaker is one that is commonly made on the Left.
-
“MAGAt” is dehumanizing language because it is a homophone of “Maggot” and maggots are considered nasty, disgusting vermin because of the harm they cause and their horrible appearance, as well as their association with death and decay.
-
If we hold that dehumanizing language is bad in and of itself, we should not then also use the term MAGAt. If we want to argue that dehumanizing language is not bad in and of itself, that there are times when someone’s behavior justifies using dehumanizing language against them, then THAT is the argument we should make.
Note that my argument doesn’t rely on anyone here thinking that Trump supporters are subhuman or that they deserve to be purged. IF dehumanization is bad in and of itself, then IT DOES NOT MATTER whether anyone here holds those views or not. And if dehumanization can sometimes be justified, then again, that’s the argument that should be made, rather than, as you put it in the 2020 thread, “pretending that we don’t understand” why someone is offended to be called a Maggot.
Well, literally, yes. I meant it more as “call a spade a spade,” using the adage as a brilliant reference. And, no, I don’t mean to actually call them shovels, either. 
Dehumanization is a mental loophole that lets us harm other people. Best to just not do it at all for any reason.
So, your argument is that dehumanizing speech IS NOT bad in and of itself, that Trump supporters are vile enough to deserve it, and that as long as we aren’t indulging in it to the point that our minds become poisoned and we become truly hateful, a little bit of dehumanization is OK?
IF so, then GREAT. That is a coherent argument. I may or may not agree, but it’s a discussion we can have. Literally ALL I have been saying is that if this is your position, you should SAY SO, rather than claiming that MAGAt isn’t dehumanizing.
I didn’t say YOU said it. But, you think there aren’t plenty of posters who think our country would be better if no one supported Trump? I certainly think so.
Nope. That’s not my argument at all. My argument is that “MAGAt” is only “dehumanizing” if you process it through layers of phonetic and semantic re-interpretations and eventually synthesize an abhorrent meaning that no one ever actually intended.
The only real criticism of “MAGAt” is that it’s stupid and juvenile, but then, silly jokes are a common foible. 
Yes, and I’m one of them. But for about the tenth time, this is not saying they should not exist or be exterminated like maggots. That straw man is all on you. What posters are generally saying is that most voters are being bamboozled by the Trump campaign, and would not support him if they were better informed on objective facts. I’ve said this dozens of times. What you prefer for some reason to interpret as hate when terms like “MAGAt” are used is really just frustration with ignorance.
By “process it through layers of phonetic and semantic re-interpretations and eventually synthesize an abhorrent meaning that no one ever actually intended” do you mean “realize it sounds just like ‘Maggot’”?
Since I never said that posters here think Trump supporters should be exterminated, and since my argument does not rely on people feeling that way at all, the straw man is all yours, I am afraid.
Dude.
My argument does not rely on the people who are calling Trumpers “MAGAts” hating those people.
Again.
If dehumanizing language is bad in and of itself, then it’s bad in and of itself.
If dehumanizing language is OK so long as you don’t, in your heart, hate the people you are dehumanizing - then make that your argument.
I think when you said many wished MAGAs didn’t exist, it was interpreted as “should be wiped out” rather than “wish they didn’t believe what they do.” I think either would be a reasonable read, certainly out of context.
Sure, but that was in response to being asked about the views of people on the board, and for the zillionth and first time, that does not matter in the slightest to the argument that I am making.
Either:
A) Dehumanizing language is bad in and of itself, in which case we shouldn’t call people “MAGAts” whether we truly hate them or not
OR
B) Dehumanizing language is OK as long as we don’t REALLY mean it and the target group is bad enough and anyways they did worse to us first
I understand. I was reacting to you saying, “Since I never said that posters here think Trump supporters should be exterminated.” Some people could have reasonably thought you did. That isn’t a misunderstanding of your point; it has nothing to do with it.
I think it’s (C) MAGAts is not dehumanizing language. For it to be dehumanizing, you have to use tortured logic/arguments to get to it being calling them maggots in a demeaning way.
Don’t agree, that’s how I understand it. But we’ll see I guess.
Look, I’m not the one who brought up the view of (direct quote) “Trump supporters as subhuman scum, as vermin whose very existence is tainting this country, as something to eliminate completely” or, in reference to Trump supporters (direct quote) “think the country would be better if they didn’t exist”.
The straw man is all on you.
Respectfully, I’m done here. You obviously have strong views on the matter, and you’re entitled to your views, but I think they’re misplaced. You’re attributing malice where there is none.