Use of derogatory names for politicians and groups of people

[CJD]

(03-08-2024, 11:12 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: This is a very subjective style of moderation that makes equitable moderation even more difficult to achieve. 

If we are to avoid derogatory language when talking about political groups, Hamas should be referred to as a political and military movement, no? Not terrorists or worse yet dogs. 

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that this is Bengalholic's world and I'm just living in it and will comply with the rules established by the mod team. But just for the sake of clarity, is this going to be an objective style of moderation or one that is going to depend on the feelings of any given moderator?

A big part of.moderation is responding to reports submitted by the people who read comments that offend them. It's not realistic for the mod team to read every comment. So if a comment isn't reported, it may sneak through policies that we put in place. As I said in my response, I don't see what SSF stands to gain by calling Hamas terrorist dogs, but I also doubt anyone would report that post.

Moderation is subjective by its very nature. There are rules, but it is up to the judgment of the moderation team if something breaks those rules. If there is something that is on the edge, we have a forum for discussion.

As for fair moderation, there's a reason the mod team is a mixture of conservative leaning people like Sunset and Harley and left leaning people like me. We work together to make sure one side is not unfairly moderated.

I hope this addresses your concerns. 

[CKwi88]

(03-08-2024, 11:25 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: A big part of.moderation is responding to reports submitted by the people who read comments that offend them. It's not realistic for the mod team to read every comment. So if a comment isn't reported, it may sneak through policies that we put in place. As I said in my response, I don't see what SSF stands to gain by calling Hamas terrorist dogs, but I also doubt anyone would report that post.

Moderation is subjective by its very nature. There are rules, but it is up to the judgment of the moderation team if something breaks those rules. If there is something that is on the edge, we have a forum for discussion.

As for fair moderation, there's a reason the mod team is a mixture of conservative leaning people like Sunset and Harley and left leaning people like me. We work together to make sure one side is not unfairly moderated.

I hope this addresses your concerns. 

You guys do great work. Thanks for everything.

[basballguy]

Finally.

[samhain]

I have another suggestion. Perhaps consider banning spamming on subforms. Like in extreme cases. Like one poster being responsible for almost every single unoriginal and pointless OP in one subform basically forever.

If someone wants to express thoughts, that's great. However, when it gets that sideways, maybe getting a personal YouTube channel or blog would better serve the individual in question.

[samhain]

(03-07-2024, 09:42 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: see you are trying to use MAGA as a derogatory term and it isnt     

I see pedo as a derogatory term.  You've used it as a blanket statement to address people with politics that differ from yours.  You are not innocent.  You are literally part of the problem.  It's odd that you'd even speak on it.  I wonder if calling someone a hypocrite is considered derogatory.

[Luvnit2]

(03-10-2024, 03:23 PM)samhain Wrote: I have another suggestion.  Perhaps consider banning spamming on subforms.  Like in extreme cases.  Like one poster being responsible for almost every single unoriginal and pointless OP in one subform basically forever.  

If someone wants to express thoughts, that's great.  However, when it gets that sideways, maybe getting a personal YouTube channel or blog would better serve the individual in question.

Sounds like you want mods to determine if every thread and every post is original and on point.

The great thing about those starting threads or posting, if the follow the rules they are not punished, nor should they be punished.

Free country and all members are free to put a poster you can't debate well or don't like on ignore. 

[CJD]

(03-10-2024, 03:23 PM)samhain Wrote: I have another suggestion.  Perhaps consider banning spamming on subforms.  Like in extreme cases.  Like one poster being responsible for almost every single unoriginal and pointless OP in one subform basically forever.  

If someone wants to express thoughts, that's great.  However, when it gets that sideways, maybe getting a personal YouTube channel or blog would better serve the individual in question.

I get the implication but we're not doing that. Luvnit drives a lot of the discussion on this forum because of how many threads he posts. If you grow tired of his posts, you can just ignore them. He is not breaking any rules by posting more than other people.

[Dill]

(03-07-2024, 06:34 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I mean...if you want? I don't see the purpose in it, but I don't think anyone identifies with Hamas, so there's little danger of offending or upsetting someone.
Now, if you call Palestinians or Palestinian supporters terrorist dogs because of some perceived association with Hamas, that's where you'll start to get in trouble.

C-Dawg, I have some questions and concerns.

What about giving oneself permission to call other forum members "terrorist supporters" because of some "perceived association with Hamas"? Or to call
them "ISIS supporters" or "racists" or "antisemites" on the grounds it's not personal attack if its true, and then simply declaring "it's true!"?

My main concerns are about the "offending or upsetting" criterion. Some are upset by accurate news about their favorite politicians or countries; consequently they want to ban topics and different perspectives and to delete threads and otherwise control discussion thereof.  
Some make no distinction between historical, scholarly or social-scientific comparisons between groups and direct slander. It's all just "personal attack."

When that occurs, I'm pretty sure that different ideals and principles are at issue. Some prioritize close reading, observation and analysis before
judgement; others prioritize ideology--judgment should come first to protect and guide analysis, reading etc.

We are living in a country in which someone who tried to stay in power by overturning a fair election now has a fair chance of regaining that power.
Given that extraordinary and unprecedented fact, it doesn't make sense to forbid discussion of cult-behavior or authoritarianism in our politics because 
it may "upset" someone.  E.g., if there is a clinical definition of "cult" behavior which was set down before the MAGA movement, and some MAGA behavior can be demonstrated to square with it, that ought to be allowed, even if it upsets. Those upset are free to demonstrate why it doesn't square, if they can.

I tend to agree with Bels here, that deploying formal definitions of political behavior, and then showing how a politician or group's behavior does or does
not align with such, is the stuff of rational political discussion. It is different from name calling or simply arguing with labels.  If someone tries to prevent
that sort of analysis/discussion from going forward, I'd like the freedom to push back, to argue why, in a democracy, we ought to allow the close
reading/observation/analysis model to operate, without subject to deflection or censorship on grounds it is "upsetting."

[Dill]

(03-10-2024, 03:26 PM)samhain Wrote: I see pedo as a derogatory term.  You've used it as a blanket statement to address people with politics that differ from yours.  You are not innocent.  You are literally part of the problem.  It's odd that you'd even speak on it.  I wonder if calling someone a hypocrite is considered derogatory.

(03-10-2024, 03:23 PM)samhain Wrote: I have another suggestion.  Perhaps consider banning spamming on subforms.  Like in extreme cases.  Like one poster being responsible for almost every single unoriginal and pointless OP in one subform basically forever. 

With you on the use of "pedo."  That's generally not deployed as illuminating definition/analysis.

Not with you on the "spamming" charge though.

There are many threads in these forums that I've never clicked on; 

if they don't interest me, I'm still not offended that they exist.

[CJD]

(03-12-2024, 10:48 PM)Dill Wrote: C-Dawg, I have some questions and concerns.

What about giving oneself permission to call other forum members "terrorist supporters" because of some "perceived association with Hamas"? Or to call
them "ISIS supporters" or "racists" or "antisemites" on the grounds it's not personal attack if its true, and then simply declaring "it's true!"?

This post is mostly regarding use of derogatory terms for politicians or groups of people. We already have rules in place regarding insulting fellow forum members. Very flatly, do not call other forum members terrorists or terrorist supporters. 

Similarly with racists or antisemites, you may be able to call a thought or belief racist if you care to explain your thought process, but do not call other forum members racists or antisemites.

Quote:My main concerns are about the "offending or upsetting" criterion. Some are upset by accurate news about their favorite politicians or countries; consequently they want to ban topics and different perspectives and to delete threads and otherwise control discussion thereof.  
Some make no distinction between historical, scholarly or social-scientific comparisons between groups and direct slander. It's all just "personal attack."

When that occurs, I'm pretty sure that different ideals and principles are at issue. Some prioritize close reading, observation and analysis before
judgement; others prioritize ideology--judgment should come first to protect and guide analysis, reading etc.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to create a blanket ruling that applies to every single scenario. Whether something is offensive for the sake of being offensive or offensive because "truth hurts" or something like that would need to be determined in the moment by the moderation team. I think most people have a pretty good idea when someone is attempting to intentionally provoke people and those cases are typically not the times when evidence is laid out in a methodical and logical way to demonstrate a point.

Quote:We are living in a country in which someone who tried to stay in power by overturning a fair election now has a fair chance of regaining that power.

Given that extraordinary and unprecedented fact, it doesn't make sense to forbid discussion of cult-behavior or authoritarianism in our politics because 
it may "upset" someone.  E.g., if there is a clinical definition of "cult" behavior which was set down before the MAGA movement, and some MAGA behavior can be demonstrated to square with it, that ought to be allowed, even if it upsets. Those upset are free to demonstrate why it doesn't square, if they can.

I've addressed that point in post 31. If you want to discuss it in a clinical or technical manner, this rule would likely not apply. 

Quote:I tend to agree with Bels here, that deploying formal definitions of political behavior, and then showing how a politician or group's behavior does or does

not align with such, is the stuff of rational political discussion. It is different from name calling or simply arguing with labels.  If someone tries to prevent
that sort of analysis/discussion from going forward, I'd like the freedom to push back, to argue why, in a democracy, we ought to allow the close
reading/observation/analysis model to operate, without subject to deflection or censorship on grounds it is "upsetting."

You and I are aligned. This post is about name calling and labeling with the intent to upset or offend, not to regulate beliefs that may be upsetting.

For instance, I find it upsetting that so many people in this country have a generally negative attitude towards immigration, seeing it as something that must be begrudgingly accepted only under certain scenarios rather than embraced as a part of how a country grows and flourishes. But someone expressing that view is not a violation of this rule. 

Now, if someone said illegal immigrants (I.e. the people that come into this country from the southern border) are filth that is poisoning the blood of our country...then that's a violation of this rule.

[Matt_Crimson]

(03-07-2024, 08:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would disagree. My intention in using the word is never to offend. I am using it based on the definition to describe the traits of the MAGA movement, not even a political party as a whole. I mean, objectively, there is no way to say that the movement is not a cult of personality surrounding Trump. If you take offense to a reference like that where a movement meets the criteria then I don't know what to tell you.

I will refrain from referring to the MAGA movement as a cult from here on out so as not to offend any delicate sensibilities, but I was merely using the term based on definitive characteristics, not to insult.

Hmm....I dunno. Seems like an odd position to take Bels.

Why would someone not get offended by you calling them a cult? I cant think of a time I've ever heard that word used in a positive sense. You can't just  define something as a "cult" and tell people to get over it because you feel you're accurately defining the movement. Whether you're accurately describing it or not has nothing to do with how people "should" feel about the use of the word. It's like calling a group of people "terrorists" and saying "Well I accurately described it. If you don't like that it's your problem". Clearly people will have a problem with that because like cult, "terrorist" is never really used in a positive sense, so naturally people who support "terrorists" will take offense to being called as such.

How do you objectively prove that the MAGA movement is a cult? That seems a bit problematic to me. Sure, you could argue that there are those who show cult like tendencies on an individual basis, but the MAGA movement is a conglomerate of Trump supporters of various reasons for why they support him.

So, it shouldn't be a surprise that people get offended that they're called a "cult" when they're being equated to someone who essentially worships another person.

[Belsnickel]

(03-14-2024, 06:18 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Hmm....I dunno. Seems like an odd position to take Bels.

Why would someone not get offended by you calling them a cult? I cant think of a time I've ever heard that word used in a positive sense. You can't just  define something as a "cult" and tell people to get over it because you feel you're accurately defining the movement. Whether you're accurately describing it or not has nothing to do with how people "should" feel about the use of the word. It's like calling a group of people "terrorists" and saying "Well I accurately described it. If you don't like that it's your problem". Clearly people will have a problem with that because like cult, "terrorist" is never really used in a positive sense, so naturally people who support "terrorists" will take offense to being called as such.

You've never seen the term cult used in a positive manner? Never heard of a "cult classic?" In all honesty, I get what you're saying but the reality of it is that the intention is not to offend. If you take offense being a part of a group that meets those definitions, then maybe don't be a member of it. I am a member of several organizations that people refer to as a cult. I mean, I am a Freemason for crying out loud, do you know the things that have been said about my Brethren? But even beyond that, I am also a civil servant. Every time negative things are said about the government that is derogatory towards a group of people with which I identify. People make the choice to be offended and they make a choice of the groups with which they affiliate. 

(03-14-2024, 06:18 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: How do you objectively prove that the MAGA movement is a cult? That seems a bit problematic to me. Sure, you could argue that there are those who show cult like tendencies on an individual basis, but the MAGA movement is a conglomerate of Trump supporters of various reasons for why they support him.

So, it shouldn't be a surprise that people get offended that they're called a "cult" when they're being equated to someone who essentially worships another person.

You are applying the MAGA movement moniker in too broad of a brush. For instance, Jeff Yass, the billionaire investor who caused Trump to change course on the TikTok ban. He isn't a part of the MAGA movement but he is a Trump supporter. He doesn't give two shits about the MAGA movement, he just sees Trump as a tool to manipulate. The GOP voters that are going to vote for Trump because he is the party's nominee? Not MAGA. I am talking about the die-hard, excuse making, head-in-the-sand MAGA members. That's the MAGA movement.

Now, objective is probably the wrong term to use because of the inherent ambiguity that exists in the definition of the term. However, when you look to authorities on the matter, when you view the MAGA movement through an objective lens is certainly going to show that those die hard followers fall within the defined boundaries. But again, just being a Trump voter, or even someone that supports him, doesn't make you a part of the MAGA movement. That is a very specific subset.

[Matt_Crimson]

(03-15-2024, 09:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You've never seen the term cult used in a positive manner? Never heard of a "cult classic?" 

Alright you got me there.

Quote:In all honesty, I get what you're saying but the reality of it is that the intention is not to offend. If you take offense being a part of a group that meets those definitions, then maybe don't be a member of it. I am a member of several organizations that people refer to as a cult. I mean, I am a Freemason for crying out loud, do you know the things that have been said about my Brethren? But even beyond that, I am also a civil servant. Every time negative things are said about the government that is derogatory towards a group of people with which I identify. People make the choice to be offended and they make a choice of the groups with which they affiliate. 

Well to be clear, I'm not arguing that you can't call it a cult. I think you should actually be allowed to call it a cult when the intention is to argue your point about the movement. I was just saying I don't think it's fair to say people shouldn't be offended by it. At the same time, I don't think people being offended by it should be cause for it's usage to be banned. That's a slippery slope in my opinion.

Quote:You are applying the MAGA movement moniker in too broad of a brush. For instance, Jeff Yass, the billionaire investor who caused Trump to change course on the TikTok ban. He isn't a part of the MAGA movement but he is a Trump supporter. He doesn't give two shits about the MAGA movement, he just sees Trump as a tool to manipulate. The GOP voters that are going to vote for Trump because he is the party's nominee? Not MAGA. I am talking about the die-hard, excuse making, head-in-the-sand MAGA members. That's the MAGA movement.

Is that the MAGA movement though? Perhaps I'm uninformed here, but I always just saw the MAGA movement as the people who support Trump and not necessarily a group of people who are strangely devoted to him. I mean, I voted for Trump twice and I considered myself "MAGA" but I never saw myself as anything other than someone who supports Trump. And I think a lot of people that I would consider "MAGA" feel this way as well. 

Quote:Now, objective is probably the wrong term to use because of the inherent ambiguity that exists in the definition of the term. However, when you look to authorities on the matter, when you view the MAGA movement through an objective lens is certainly going to show that those die hard followers fall within the defined boundaries. But again, just being a Trump voter, or even someone that supports him, doesn't make you a part of the MAGA movement. That is a very specific subset.

I'm not so sure I agree with the bold here.

What I find interesting about the whole MAGA thing is that it literally was just a slogan for Donald Trump's campaign, something that is not even remotely close to being unique to Trump. Yet, people ralllied behind the slogan and it somehow morphed into this derogatory term for Trump supporters. Trust me, I get that there are people who  have really extreme and racist views that are "MAGA", but what I don't understand is why those people are the ones who got to define the slogan when that's really all it was to begin with. 

For Obama it was "Yes We Can". Or "Change".

For Bush it was......whatever Bush's was.

For Hillary it was "I really suck at this!".

Joking aside, I feel like Trump just heavily marketed the slogan and made some hats and then people sort of lost their minds with the whole "MAGA" thing, when in my opinion it was just a slogan/rallying cry for his presidential efforts like every other campaign that came before and that will come after his days as a presidential candidate are over. 

At the same time..... I'm not sure we should continue this discussion here. Seems we've wandered into the territory of derailing the thread, but I do enjoy the discussion on this. 

[Luvnit2]

"What I find interesting about the whole MAGA thing is that it literally was just a slogan for Donald Trump's campaign, something that is not even remotely close to being unique to Trump. Yet, people ralllied behind the slogan and it somehow morphed into this derogatory term for Trump supporters. Trust me, I get that there are people who have really extreme and racist views that are "MAGA", but what I don't understand is why those people are the ones who got to define the slogan when that's really all it was to begin with.

For Obama it was "Yes We Can". Or "Change".

For Bush it was......whatever Bush's was.

For Hillary it was "I really suck at this!".

Joking aside, I feel like Trump just heavily marketed the slogan and made some hats and then people sort of lost their minds with the whole "MAGA" thing, when in my opinion it was just a slogan/rallying cry for his presidential efforts like every other campaign that came before and that will come after his days as a presidential candidate are over.

At the same time..... I'm not sure we should continue this discussion here. Seems we've wandered into the territory of derailing the thread, but I do enjoy the discussion on this."

Spot on Matt! I always find it interesting when people feel they know more than the actual people who support "Make America Great Again". Like you said it is a campaign slogan marketed well by Donald Trump.

[*pally*]

(03-15-2024, 10:57 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Alright you got me there.




Well to be clear, I'm not arguing that you can't call it a cult. I think you should actually be allowed to call it a cult when the intention is to argue your point about the movement. I was just saying I don't think it's fair to say people shouldn't be offended by it. At the same time, I don't think people being offended by it should be cause for it's usage to be banned. That's a slippery slope in my opinion.




Is that the MAGA movement though? Perhaps I'm uninformed here, but I always just saw the MAGA movement as the people who support Trump and not necessarily a group of people who are strangely devoted to him. I mean, I voted for Trump twice and I considered myself "MAGA" but I never saw myself as anything other than someone who supports Trump. And I think a lot of people that I would consider "MAGA" feel this way as well. 



I'm not so sure I agree with the bold here.

What I find interesting about the whole MAGA thing is that it literally was just a slogan for Donald Trump's campaign, something that is not even remotely close to being unique to Trump. Yet, people ralllied behind the slogan and it somehow morphed into this derogatory term for Trump supporters. Trust me, I get that there are people who  have really extreme and racist views that are "MAGA", but what I don't understand is why those people are the ones who got to define the slogan when that's really all it was to begin with. 

For Obama it was "Yes We Can". Or "Change".

For Bush it was......whatever Bush's was.

For Hillary it was "I really suck at this!".

Joking aside, I feel like Trump just heavily marketed the slogan and made some hats and then people sort of lost their minds with the whole "MAGA" thing, when in my opinion it was just a slogan/rallying cry for his presidential efforts like every other campaign that came before and that will come after his days as a presidential candidate are over. 

At the same time..... I'm not sure we should continue this discussion here. Seems we've wandered into the territory of derailing the thread, but I do enjoy the discussion on this. 

When the candidate does not or cannot define his slogan or buzzwords he leaves it to others to define it for them. Donald Trump has never actually put a vision behind the phrase “Make America Great Again” and as a resulted in a bunch of meaningless words that others put meaning to

Seriously, in his world, when was America great?and what, besides elect him and give him unlimited powers, has to happen to make it great again?

MAGA for Trumps opposition means a time when only white Christian straight men had full rights and power. It means a group of people who either follow him blindly, follow out of fear,, or follow because of the desire of power. The leader is more important than the ideas. His flaws, inconsistencies, and mistakes are ignored. MAGA means culture wars aimed at anyone different sociologically, culturally, ideologically from the faithful

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2024, 10:57 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Is that the MAGA movement though? Perhaps I'm uninformed here, but I always just saw the MAGA movement as the people who support Trump and not necessarily a group of people who are strangely devoted to him. I mean, I voted for Trump twice and I considered myself "MAGA" but I never saw myself as anything other than someone who supports Trump. And I think a lot of people that I would consider "MAGA" feel this way as well. 

Maybe this is something where I need to reconsider the terms used. I'm really just trying to articulate that the cult of MAGA is a smaller subset of Trump supporters. What makes it difficult is the mercurial nature of Trump because what really is the MAGA position? But that's a whole other discussion and derails even further.

(03-15-2024, 10:57 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I'm not so sure I agree with the bold here.

What I find interesting about the whole MAGA thing is that it literally was just a slogan for Donald Trump's campaign, something that is not even remotely close to being unique to Trump. Yet, people ralllied behind the slogan and it somehow morphed into this derogatory term for Trump supporters. Trust me, I get that there are people who  have really extreme and racist views that are "MAGA", but what I don't understand is why those people are the ones who got to define the slogan when that's really all it was to begin with. 

For Obama it was "Yes We Can". Or "Change".

For Bush it was......whatever Bush's was.

For Hillary it was "I really suck at this!".

Joking aside, I feel like Trump just heavily marketed the slogan and made some hats and then people sort of lost their minds with the whole "MAGA" thing, when in my opinion it was just a slogan/rallying cry for his presidential efforts like every other campaign that came before and that will come after his days as a presidential candidate are over. 

At the same time..... I'm not sure we should continue this discussion here. Seems we've wandered into the territory of derailing the thread, but I do enjoy the discussion on this. 

What I would simply add here is that there are several researchers on cult behavior that would tell you there was a cult of personality around Obama, also around Bill Clinton as well as Ronald Reagan. The most popular politicians almost always have a cult of personality around them. Trump's is considered more extreme for a number of reasons. As you said, though, we should probably leave this discussion for the time being.

[Matt_Crimson]

(03-16-2024, 03:38 AM)pally Wrote: When the candidate does not or cannot define his slogan or buzzwords he leaves it to others to define it for them.  Donald Trump has never actually put a vision behind the phrase “Make America Great Again” and as a resulted in a bunch of meaningless words that others put meaning to.

Seriously, in his world, when was America great? and what, besides elect him and give him unlimited powers, has to happen to make it great again?

He did define it though. His campaign was the vision. That's how a slogan is defined, by putting forth your political stances and having people rally behind it.

The stances he took during his campaign was him defining what it meant for America to be "Great Again".  He ran on things such as...

1. Securing the border.

2. Bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US.

3. Renegotiating/axing trade deals.

4. Rebuilding our military.

5. Reviving the coal industry.

That's not all of them, but those were some of the big points he touched on multiple times.

These were all issues Trump believed needed to be addressed to "Make America Great Again". The problem is, people took the slogan and overcomplicated it.

Quote:MAGA for Trumps opposition means a time when only white Christian straight men had full rights and power.  It means a group of people who either follow him  blindly, follow out of fear,, or follow because of the desire of power.  The leader is more important than the ideas. His flaws, inconsistencies, and mistakes are ignored.  MAGA means culture wars aimed at anyone different sociologically, culturally, ideologically from the faithful

But why is that what it means?

It's honestly always kind of boggled my mind that people took "Make America Great Again" as "Make America White Again".

Trump has on multiple occasions spoken within the context of when America was "respected militarily and economically" and how we as a nation didn't "let countries push us around" and constantly talked about how we as a nation were being taken advantage of by other countries with things like NAFTA and NATO and that counries need to "start paying their fair share" instead of us paying for everything. He talked about bringing jobs back to Ameirca that were "taken" from us by other countries. That is what it means for "America to be great again".

Yet, people who oppose him consiistantly ignore all that and say "What does he really mean". He's already said what he means multiple times. You don't have to agree with any of it, but it is a definition of the "movement"  regardless.

[Dill]

(03-18-2024, 01:41 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But why is that what it means?

It's honestly always kind of boggled my mind that people took "Make America Great Again" as "Make America White Again".

Trump has on multiple occasions spoken within the context of when America was "respected militarily and economically" and how we as a nation didn't "let countries push us around" and constantly talked about how we as a nation were being taken advantage of by other countries with things like NAFTA and NATO and that counries need to "start paying their fair share" instead of us paying for everything. He talked about bringing jobs back to Ameirca that were "taken" from us by other contries. That is what it means for "America to be great again".

Yet, people who oppose him consiistantly ignore all that and say "What does he really mean". He's already said what he means multiple times. You don't have to agree with any of it, but it is a definition of the "movement"  regardless.

Some people would say that America was great when it helped defeat the Axis powers, and then took up the responsibility of rebuilding a safer world, backing the UN, NATO and Bretton Woods institutions. That created both military and economic respect. That came back home with a civil rights movement which ended segregation.

But MAGA tends to define "greatness" as rather something different. Trump himself doesn't seem to know very much about the US or World history, and his handlers always complained they could not teach him. So what does he think makes America great? It does not seem to be the liberal democracy which the US has pushed for the last 70 years. Trump admires Putin and Orban. If they are "great," then what does he think a "great" America should look like?

Signing the TPP might have been one way of "bringing back jobs to America," as it would have forced a number of Asian "Tigers" to increase wages and allow unions, but he refused and it crashed, to be replaced by an East Asian partnership dominated by China and which excludes the US. The MAGA base sees him as "strong" and dominating the world rhetorically, but US allies, who double US power, are disconcerted by him, while our adversaries see him as a gift.

I suspect that most Trump supporters are upset that the country has not continued to progress as it had for previous generations--wages are stagnant, Blacks are doing worse economically, and yes, jobs did go overseas. But it is puzzling how all that gets laid at the feet of some liberal Hollywood elite, and not at the feet of Republican/MAGA big donors, whose tax break was the first great accomplishment of Trump's reign, followed by the undoing of EPA protections and tariffs which raised prices. 

The culture wars seem central to this great re-direct away from the real causes.  Did you know that Trans men can compete in women's sports now???

[Matt_Crimson]

(03-16-2024, 06:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Maybe this is something where I need to reconsider the terms used. I'm really just trying to articulate that the cult of MAGA is a smaller subset of Trump supporters. What makes it difficult is the mercurial nature of Trump because what really is the MAGA position? But that's a whole other discussion and derails even further.


What I would simply add here is that there are several researchers on cult behavior that would tell you there was a cult of personality around Obama, also around Bill Clinton as well as Ronald Reagan. The most popular politicians almost always have a cult of personality around them. Trump's is considered more extreme for a number of reasons. As you said, though, we should probably leave this discussion for the time being.

All fair points made that I don't feel really warrant a response other than your question about what the MAGA position is. My response to pally is what I would say to that.

[samhain]

(03-10-2024, 06:34 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Sounds like you want mods to determine if every thread and every post is original and on point.

The great thing about those starting threads or posting, if the follow the rules they are not punished, nor should they be punished.

Free country and all members are free to put a poster you can't debate well or don't like on ignore. 

That's fine, but you should know that you are both insufferable and unnecessary.  There are millions like you that have the exact same impact on the platforms you post in, ie zero.  You actually make the world a shittier place.