No; they just acknowledged the reality that stating support for Trump was a way of announcing support for bigotry and violence while skirting the rules. No different than forbidding people posting a swastika without comment. They didn’t ban Trump supporters, they just forbade the harassment of their other members by Trump supporters.
I put a comment in both of those wikis that I don’t agree that everyone pronounces it “maggot” and/or thinks of it as derogatory. I don’t think they should just say that as a blanket statement.
However, I agree with you, that now I know some people use it in that way, I will probably avoid the term myself, and just go with MAGAs.
What are we supposed to call them? They’re still on the fainting couch from being called a basket of deplorables eight years ago.
Maganuts?
…so call them “deplorables.” Wouldn’t that sidestep the problem of dehumanization, even while possibly emphasizing the deplorability up to fainting-couch levels?
But MAGtards would not be OK here, correct?
MAGAs.
But they werent called that… well, not all of them, anyway-
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
And she was absolutely right.
I might call them by respectable names if they behaved respectably. But using terms like “illegals” or “libtards” or calling anyone to the left of Ron DeSantis “communist” or “Marxist” doesn’t give me a lot of motivation to play nice.
Call them what they are, Republicans or conservatives.
I don’t like MAGAs, because I already use MAGA more like a gestalt entity (e.g. MAGA is freaking out about htis) , and as an adjective (That’s a MAGA conspiracy theory). I would want a different term for an individual MAGA supporter.
Plus I’m pretty sure part of the intent is to add a bit of extra derision, while being pithy. So far, MAGAnuts kinda works for me. It kinda feels like “coconuts” and reminds me of macadamia nuts.
Problem is, it sounds like I’m calling them mentally ill, and I never use “nuts” for the mentally ill. It just feels wrong. So I’m still open to suggestions for good portmanteaus.
But, to be clear, they aren’t.
Look, that crap was jettisoned at the latest by the time that Cheney was considered a RINO.
MAGA is it’s own thing, granted, one that has largely absorbed the former Republican party. So address them as what they are, politely or not as the thread and mood takes you since the Mods have made clear it’s not a protected class. AIUI, we just need to avoid combinations that DO impose a negative judgement against a different, actually protected class, several of which have been mentioned and don’t need repeating.
Yes they are Republicans and conservatives.
MAGA might be the most overwhelmingly popular conservative movement in Republican history. His approval rating among them is through the roof.
Yet we have a good chunk of the population who consider themselves Republicans and Conservatives but not MAGA. Who piously hope for a return to the “Chamber of Commerce” Republican Party while pulling the lever or checking the box for the MAGA candidates.
Trying to stay within the focus of the thread, I think it’s useful to use different terms for the different branches of the Republican Party, if you don’t want to consider them separate. To use the tired example, most of us find/found that “traditional” Republicans ‘wrong within normal parameters’ while MAGA(t) is wrong in deeply, undemocratic ways.
So even if it may be in terms of current voting, a distinction without merit, in terms of theoretical agendas, it may still be a useful distinction. And as I don’t consider most MAGA to be recoverable, I don’t have any issues with addressing them in insulting (lightly) terms, no different than I would any other dangerous, violent cult of personality.
Because, I fully realize that a “reasoned discourse” with someone who self-identifies as MAGA rather than Republican is all-but doomed to failure. In general, their definition of discourse means I must capitulate, as we are self-evidently evil in their definitions.
Insulting them, if any bother to read this board (doubtful) is not risking loosing a chance to recover their votes. It may not serve a useful purpose, past venting some of my spleen, but it helps fully identify just how deplorable they truly are, and remind everyone that it’s a cultish, non-democratic movement, not just “another party”.
Fascists. NeoNazis. Far-right fanatics.
I just call them “the right wing monsters” in my own head.
Call them Maggles. Sort of like Muggles, or Fraggles. It’s diminutive but not really dehumanizing. And then you can call a group of them a gaggle of Maggles.
I’m gonna start thinking of Kid Rock as Maggle Rock.
The OED suggests the word “maggle” is an archaic variation of “mangle” so I’m liking it more.
Whether you “play nice” or “call them by respectable names” seems to be a separate issue from whether you use a dehumanizing term. Isn’t there something special about dehumanization, as opposed to various other types of name-calling? I might have that wrong, but I honestly thought that’s where the outrage-o-meter was set these days.
I sent in a report years back that raised this syllogism
A poster states: all Republicans are bastards
I am a Republican
The poster called me a bastard
I was told no, that syllogism doesn’t hold on SD. As long as the poster keeps it general as in: All X are Y, then it is OK since they are not calling you specifically (a member of X group) a Y.