Fair enough, and I think there’s a very interesting discussion about how much daylight we actually see between those two statements, and whether that changes in different contexts. If someone says “I wish there were no more vegetarians in the US” but then clarifies they meant that they wish all vegetarians would start eating meat, would we view that differently from someone who says that they wish there were no more Jews or Muslims in the US, but then clarifies that they wish they’d all convert to Christianity (or become atheist)? Would we treat those situations differently, and if so, why? I think that could delve into some interesting philosophical questions.
That said, it’s a topic for a different thread, and as you point out:
That was my explanation for the connotation of calling someone a Maggot (or an insulting term derived from the word maggot, like MAGAt). As I stated dozens of times now, those connotations are there whether or not anyone holds that view of Trump supporters.
I think you have no idea what the views I’ve been trying to communicate are. That may well be my fault.
Correction: now I know that you have no idea what I have been saying.
My point has absolutely nothing to do with malice.
I’ll restate it one more time:
Either:
A) Dehumanizing language is bad in and of itself, in which case we shouldn’t call people “MAGAts” whether we have any malice for 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’m sorry but your argument exemplifies the classic “begging the question” fallacy – the circular argument where the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion. Your premise is that “MAGAt” is ipso facto “dehumanizing”, and everything follows from that. My point has been that it is not, and that no one here has ever used it in that sense or for that purpose. So the “dehumanizing” premise is entirely your interpretation, which you wrongly take to be axiomatic.
Correct, calling someone a “Maggot” is dehumanizing, even if you spell it a funny way.
Your argument seems to be that since you don’t ACTUALLY hate Trump supporters or think they are subhuman, calling them “Maggots” is OK.
That’s B:
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
You’re just trying to no-true-Scotsman your way to getting away with saying that calling people you don’t like “maggots” isn’t dehumanizing language.
Sorry, but I’m not buying it. Your malice for Trumpers, or lack thereof, and your desire to purge them, or lack thereof, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that referring to people with a deprecating term derived from the word “maggot” is very much dehumanizing. It’s textbook dehumanization.
Now, if you want to argue that it’s FINE to use a term derived from “maggot” to describe Trump supporters, because you don’t have malice towards them and you don’t want to purge them and they do tons of fucked up shit and deserve it, then make that argument. That’s B. But don’t argue that the term is not dehumanizing. That’s not a defensible argument.
ChatGPT Nonsense is hidden for those who dislike that stuff.
ChatGPT Nonsense
This actually seems like the sort of place ChatGPT might come in handy, and I know @wolfpup has been a fan in the past.
I asked ChatGPT for a list of the top 10 animals someone might use for a dehumanizing comparison. Unfortunately for me, ChatGPT did not give me maggots right away - the only invertebrate was a cockroach, in fact, and most critters were mammals. Fair enough. I then asked it for ten more, and Maggot was number 8 - 18th aint bad I suppose!
Here is what ChatGPT had to say about maggots:
I then asked ChatGPT, what about the term MAGAt?
Clearly, this should settle the question once and for all
The problem is not with the term itself. The problem is in overextending it to every Republican as I see some do (not necessarily here). It’s the same as using “libtard” to describe the clueless SJWs that have no realistic view on how the world works. That may be ok but using it in a way that classifies all Democrats (or even all progressives) as libtards is wrong.
FWIW I find “MAGAts” to be an amusing but not dehumanising insult, and have used it as such. But if it really bothers people, I’ll stick to MAGAs.
I am, however, fascinated by the effort put into sorting which insults are dehumanising and which are merely hyperbolic belittling. If I call someone “pond scum”, am I calling for them to be exterminated via physical or chemical means? If I call them a “disgusting pig”, is the assumption that I wish for them to be butchered inherent in that?
The desperate extrapolation from “MAGAts” to “something to be exterminated” remains unconvincing unless there is more context to it. And without any evidence whatsoever that it is intended to signify anything more than a childish belittling based on their cult ID, everything else is purely a flimsy inference on the part of the reader.
We should probably agree on what “dehumanizing” means.
Generally, it’s more than just derogatory language. It means to equate someone as something less than human in a demeaning way. I don’t see anything about an intent for it to be real/acted upon. But I’m all ears if it means something different.
If we agree that’s basically what dehumanizing means, it’s that last italicized bit that people are disagreeing about. Mostly.
The reason dehumanizing people, especially the “enemy”, is bad is history shows when dehumanizing language is repeated, people start seeing their fellow human beings as sub-human*. It’s then easier to harm them. It’s the start of a bad path.
But I’m not just saying MAGAt is just demeaning. I’m saying: Less than human + demeaning = dehumanizing.
An idiot or an asshole are still human. The world is filled with them. Probably me. You can call me an idiot for something dumb I posted/did, it would demean me, but it would not infer I was less than human.
Late: To be clear that’s outside this board generally. The board would have rules on what you could / could not say.
Dog is not demeaning there, but it is in lots of other instances. Context matters of course.
Late: we are both editing our responses but I think this still answers your question. Animal references can be dehumanizing sometimes, but sometimes cute/fine/etc.
