Some are, the MAGAs arent.
They arent competent enough- Fascist wannabes.
Seems like half a story to me. How did the mods react to your complaint?
It’s true to say that MAGA has hoovered up most of the people who previously called themselves conservative or republican. However that doesn’t mean MAGA itself has those traits and should be categorized that way.
The very first thing in most definitions of “conservative” is “promoting and preserving traditional institutions”. MAGA wants to abolish many government departments such as the department of education, defund the FBI, take powers away from medical and environmental agencies so the government can make all major decisions themselves, and I haven’t even got into project 2025.
This is not conservatism.
In terms of “Republican”, the MAGA movement doesn’t seem to care what happens to the party. Fealty to Trump is the most important thing, and you get promptly primaried or sanctioned if you don’t toe the line, which jeopardizes the party’s chances in purple states. Trump will try to turn his mob even on to very popular republican governors, just because said governors weren’t loyal enough.
And look at things like mail-in voting. Encouraging people to vote any way they can, is very important, particularly as many Republican voters are elderly. But, because of Trump’s ego, MAGA has been saying mail-in ballots are rife with fraud and that’s why Trump lost.
And, while some are trying to flip the script now, it seems it’s too late to convince many Trump-supporters.
So, we have the party’s interests, and Trump’s interests, and the former was sacrificed for the latter.
Except that in practice it’s seldom been about that; it’s been about hurting people and breaking things. Like MAGA wants. I’d say they represent the true spirit of conservatism.
I thought I told you all.
Oh wait, I did.
No, that is conservativism since “promoting and preserving traditional institutions” has nothing to do with “government departments”.
Traditional institutions are things like; (hetero-sexual) marriage, (nuclear) families, and (Protestant) Churches.
Yes it’s crazy talk to imagine that institutions could refer to institutions of state. It must refer to endorsing one branch of one religion in contradiction of the constitution.
Well, that’s exactly what it does mean in real life? “The desire to install a Christo-fascist dictatorship and end democracy” has been what “conservative” has meant in practice since at least Reagan. Somebody who supports present institutions and rights is a “liberal”. Liberals are the traditionalists, conservatives are the radicals.
Here’s the conservative plan:
-
Make up some mythical story of “how things used to be” that reflects a world you’d like to be in (where you have power and those you dislike suffer).
-
Claim that you’re just trying to erase the changes that have happened since “the good old days” and you want to preserve a lost way of life, and undo the radical and harmful consequences of the changes created by left-wing nuts.
-
Now you are a conservative and a traditionalist!
Even if it were so that MAGAt were a contraction of ‘MAGA hat’ that would bear little relevance on whether the word is or is not being used as a homophonic slur now.
Etymologies don’t usually redeem slurs from out of the context where they are used as slurs. Negro is, after all, just the Spanish word for the colour black. Its OK to use in that context, but is very definitely not OK in other contexts. Explaining the etymology doesnt undo that.
I don’t think MAGAt is the world’s most terrible label, but it is a label and it is sort of ‘othering’.
I am not so sure. I think many of them vote trump because after all, he is R.
Reagan was a big supporter of mail in voting.
I dont use it, and generally I just call him “trump”.
I should probably make it clear that I don’t particularly think this is something the board should disallow; there are (IMO) worse things than MAGAt that fly under the radar here that I shan’t go into, but I do find this particular situation interesting and I offer this as nothing more than food for thought: Purposely using a derogatory label for a group of people to whom we consider ourselves superior is a behaviour I think I would normally attribute to right-leaning positions. I guess if you want to actually be better people than them, maybe don’t do the exact same thing as them.
Weirdos.
The capitalist pigs, imperialist running dogs and neoliberal ghouls beg to differ.
Calling people you don’t like nasty names is extremely common. If the Right is distinguished on the matter it’s by their fondness for outright slurs and tendency towards grade-school level insults.
Naaaah. Plenty of people on the Left do that too. It’s more of a human trait than a Right wing trait. The things us on the Left look down at people on the Right for are different, for example we might look down on people who are uneducated, or overly Christian, or rednecks, or whatever, rather than race or being an immigrant. But it’s not like the Left doesn’t engage in the same behaviors.
I don’t think that’s necessarily a big problem; looking down at someone for holding odious beliefs that they came to due to a lack of education is not the same as looking down at someone for being a certain skin color.
I mean,
is very literally about a certain skin color.
Your broader point, though, holds: it’s not about a racial category.
Thought I’d emphasize that letter as I totally missed it and was about to ask what was anti-gay about it.
I like Maggle. Maybe also MAGAL? I’d use a lowercase L, but most of you are using a font that doesn’t distinguish between capital i and lowercase L.
And, @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness, I’ve not known redneck to refer to an actual skin color for as long as I’ve been alive in redneck country.
That said, I do think it can very well be used as a slur–for poor white folk living in certain areas. It’s just that we’ve reclaimed it.
It refers to the color of skin on the necks of White agricultural workers, who bend over the crops outside all day. It’s more of a class insult than a race insult, but as I said, it’s literally based on skin color.
Sure, but it’s not about what their natural skin color is, it’s about how their profession (working outside all day) makes them look, and if you look down at people who work outside all day then you can use one as a proxy for the other.
As you correctly point out, I used the expression “skin color” as a shorthand for race based insults, and Redneck is more of a class based insults yet still skin color based.
And I suppose it is at least a LITTLE racial because a black person living the same lifestyle won’t get called a “redneck”.
Anyways, my main point was, I definitely wouldn’t say that people on the Left don’t engage in this behavior.
“There are no bad tactics, only bad targets” is by this point a statement I have heard both sides make (and the sentiment definitely predates anyone using the phrase) but I think it originated on the Left.
Why not “Trumpers”? Trump is MAGA and MAGA is Trump. Maybe someday Trump will be gone and the MAGA movement will still be there, but we can cross that bridge if and when we come to it, since it’s also possible that the name will change when Trump goes.