Nothing meaningful to add, but I always equated “MAGAt” with calling the Tea Party (remember them?) “TeaBaggers.” In both cases I think the damage, if any, was self-inflicted.
I think the term was ‘red hats’ and not ‘maga hats.’
Any way you slice it, the term ‘MAGAts’ doesn’t belong in any serious discussion forum. Nor does dumbocrats and republiturds etc. etc…
True, but we’re discussing the SDMB.
Well, I wouldn’t want to ban it or anything. It’s not scary, like the most terrifying threat to humankind to ever haunt a message board:
A TANGENT
I’ll give up “MAGAt” when they give up “groomer”.
“MAGAt” is clearly a metaphor. No one really thinks they’re actually maggots squirming about on the floor.
But “groomer” refers to actual people who exist. They’re vile criminals who target children to commit actual crimes with life-long negative effects. Label someone a “groomer”, and at a minimum, you expect them to be rejected by society, and investigated by the police. At worst, you make them a target for vigilante justice as people hunt them down to assault or kill them. That’s far, far worse than making people think of MAGAts as metaphorically maggots.
I think (strictly IMHO) that part of the issue is that while not 100%, the majority of the board considers itself (and for good reason!) moral, as well as intellectually gifted. And there’s a LOT of feeling (outside the Pit, duh) that we should not “sink to that level” in any number of arguments or debates.
Which is… fine. It’s certainly the high road. But, for MAGA specifically, and increasingly any number of right-leaning populist movements world-wide, it’s been a losing game. Many of the die hard supporters of such movements (note, I’m not automatically extending this to all their enablers and “hold-my-nose-and-vote-because-of-one-issue”) the refusal to dispute or counter claim is an admission that the claims are correct. See @Horatius’ comments on “groomer”.
And people who pride themselves on not being swayed, the “independents” tend to see the extremes and assume the reality is in the middle. So one side talks none-stop about groomers, murderers, replacement-planning, evil communist/socialist, and the other says misled, misguided, undereducated, easily-led, the middle of those two POV is NOT a good place to be for the left-leaning group.
So, once again, the paradox of tolerance is killing those who wish tolerance, and those who want to destroy their “opposition”.
So say what you will about using the term here - and certainly feel free to be careful using it IRL as it were, because one side is more than happy to endorse violence if you disagree with them. But be aware, they know and depend upon your forbearance.
That side was calling liberals/Democrats "zombies’ about a decade ago . . . one should remember how one deals with zombies.
Currently, I think, NPCs is all the rage and I don’t know how you can be more dehumanizing than saying that other humans are not really real.
I concur, nor orange shitgibbon, etc. I just use “trump”.
Find me a poster here that made that accusation.
Regardless, it’s deliberately dehumanizing and insulting language and we know that equivalent language directed at the politicians and supporters of said politicians that align with the vastly predominant ideology of this board would not be tolerated under the deliberately vaguely worded rules concerning persons of jerkhood, hijacking, and various other subjective and inconsistently applied categories of infractions.
So, my opinion is either let the gloves come off for all sides or try to keep political debate, outside of the pit of course, somewhat civil.
I’ve never seen anyone moderated for using such language against people for their political beliefs. Has anyone been modded for calling someone a “demonrat” in P&E or the Pit? Do you have actual examples?
I think the effort is to keep a balance between both of those things. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
ETA: You might be surprised to learn that I am somewhat sympathetic to your viewpoint though, and I do think that things can get a bit more childish than I’d prefer. I don’t like the nicknames for the most part. I’m not offended by them though.
Completely untrue, though I know this is one of your hobby horses.
You’ll never know how many flags we reject from posters who are upset when a right-leaning poster uses dehumanizing language against a left-leaning politician. I’ve personally rejected a number of them.
Who is left on this board that posts critically of the left? Perhaps that could answer your question.
Perhaps it does answer my question, in that the answer is “no”.
So, this is about that one time when that one poster finally went too far but you’ll happily ignore that history to score a point?
Unless you’re voicing your opposition to Clothahump’s banning for using a blatant racial slur of course.
If you called a poster that, yes you would be.
You’d be absolutely wrong. The abortion “one issue” voters are a block that was crafted from “Christian” racists by the likes of Falwell: They are the fucking rank and file of the modern American “alt-right” or “Christian nationalist”. They are, without exception, the enemy. There is no federalist society, no “project 2025” without these folks.
And less that 15% of voters want all abortion banned. More than 50% do want some reasonable limitations, sure, but that is not the same.
Abortion isn’t by any means the only single issue voter out there. I’m thinking more of “I don’t care but I don’t want higher/I do want lower taxes” as an example I think short sighted but not egregiously evil.
What’s especially tiring is when posters here use an abbreviation for a Trump nickname and there’s no way to know they’re referring to Trump. Seemingly random letters standing for some pet-name the writer assumes we all know. Don’t assume.
Or even spelling it out (for once) but using some bizarre personal nickname like Orangutan Dolly-Face (or whatever). Just say what you mean, folks. Don’t ask a reader to have psychic ability.
Or, be a conscientious poster and don’t fill up our threads with needless junk such as motion GIFs.
Nope, conscientious posters use good gifs.