Blue MAGA is a subculture of the DNC whose purpose is to bully and marginalize anyone who critiques the Dem party leadership.
What is it called when people make up a name for a group of people and assign motivations to them even though the people doing the naming are massively exaggerating, or seeing a few outliers and painting them as the norm for everyone they disagree with they disagree with?
And the name is specifically designed to resonate in a particular way with the lizard-brain in a way that paints the message “These are the BAD group of people, everyone doesn’t like them and shits on them with little nicknames, don’t you want to be like everyone, and not like them, too.” It’s inventive and creative (I mean, sort of) in a memorable way, and carelessly insulting, even though when you look at it, it doesn’t make any fucking sense.
It just kinda stuck out to me. Like the post title wasn’t “DNC is getting weird again” or “Oh God we’re screwed in the fall aren’t we” or “Didn’t I just GIVE you some money” or anything like that, it was specifically inventing a new little mini-slur to pass around and for everyone to use, free of charge.
Like I say, it just kind of stuck out to me a little.
MAGA tactics at this point means trying to destroy the machinery of democracy and use explicit violence to threaten with death or imprisonment judges, election workers, congresspeople, and anyone else who stands in their way of seizing power. Then, if they are able to regain power, going after any minority or vulnerable person at home or abroad that they can find, simply for the fun and pleasure of exercising cruelty.
The Republicans do send weird fundraising texts sometimes. But, that’s not a new thing in American politics or what I would consider anywhere even in the neighborhood of a defining characteristics of MAGA. I think actually turning away from this kind of dogshit DC-consultancy politicking and fundraising and towards more effective and insidious news-media and social-media secret influence campaigns, and simple transfusions of vast infusions of dirty money from billionaires and foreign oligarchs, is more MAGA’s style than this type of text message. Although, again, they do still send text messages, I’m sure.
I would define assigning insulting nicknames to your opponents, and repeating them even though they don’t really correspond to reality even a little bit, to try this sort of middle-school level of influence to turn people away from your opponents (and apply a tag of “the enemy” in the eyes of your groupthinking followers) to be MAGA tactics, though.
So other than responding disagreeably to a critique, what other features? Or just that?
I ask because this type of Hillary Clinton DNC-consultant crap you’re screenshotting in this text message has been following Democrats around for quite a while now, consuming their money and providing only failure in return, but MAGA is kind of an incongruous term to use to describe it. Like when I think of MAGA I don’t normally think of things like this; right?
Interesting. I think it goes without saying that I don’t think this text message is an example of defending any and all criticism of the Democratic Party.
I did a search through comments for the term “Blue MAGA.” Most people aren’t using it like you said. Most people are using it to refer to the Democrats in general; e.g.:
“Or ask any Blue Maga what specific immigration reforms they want. They want the same thing, they just have minor disagreements on how to get there or even just aesthetics.”
“Democrats are just blue MAGA and the only option to fix this country is to burn it down.”
“lol blue maga is using red maga’s scare tactics to get their favorite pants shitting geriatric to win a popularity contest.”
… and so on. I was just curious, though. Carry on.
How many text messages do you get from them, and how many posts have you made on lemmy.world evangelizing for your chosen viewpoint on the exact same issue in various ways, to try to spread it to others, and to disparage people who disagree with you?
Let’s say the count of each one over the span of the last three days.
How many blue MAGA ones, though, over the last three days? I can total up the posts of yours that I’d describe as clearly evangelical to your viewpoint, if you don’t want to. IDK, maybe you should do it, since you might not agree with how I would categorize the evangelical ones.
As far as I can tell, Ozma is redefining it here. The other Perfectly Legitimate Leftists aren’t trying to make any distinction of a particular segment of the Democrats who are “blue MAGA”; they’re just using the term to mean the Democrats are exactly the same as the Trump party and so there’s no point voting for either of them.
That is, of course, insane. I think they’re hoping it’ll produce their desired result on the election through sheer repetition and weight of “emperor definitely has clothes” peer pressure, but who knows. Also, why Ozma is using it in his different way, who knows, although I have a theory.
I think he just independently arrived at it on his own, with this very specific definition as applied to this one particular establishment segment of the Democratic Party, because he had really strong feelings created because all his pro-Democrats-winning-elections productive feedback was being short sightedly ignored. He’s just trying to get through to them how important it is for them to start using more successful tactics to win the election and defeat Trump, because he totally thinks that’s important and he’s working hard to try to make it happen.
But then, independently, a whole different group of perfectly legitimate leftists invented the same term and started applying it (in front of a different audience with a somewhat different receptiveness level to transparent bullshit and groupthink), but using a different meaning and framing, which they also independently came up with, to encourage people to the totally different but still organically arrived at result of not wanting to vote for Joe Biden.
Or, wait, I’m not sure I think that. Now that I type it out it seems a little farfetched all put together. There must be some explanation, though.
@return2ozma@lemmy.world Question for you
What do you mean by “blue MAGA”? I mean I know it’s the Democrats, but why that term specifically?
“Both sides” nonsense
Blue MAGA is a subculture of the DNC whose purpose is to bully and marginalize anyone who critiques the Dem party leadership.
What is it called when people make up a name for a group of people and assign motivations to them even though the people doing the naming are massively exaggerating, or seeing a few outliers and painting them as the norm for everyone they disagree with they disagree with?
And the name is specifically designed to resonate in a particular way with the lizard-brain in a way that paints the message “These are the BAD group of people, everyone doesn’t like them and shits on them with little nicknames, don’t you want to be like everyone, and not like them, too.” It’s inventive and creative (I mean, sort of) in a memorable way, and carelessly insulting, even though when you look at it, it doesn’t make any fucking sense.
It just kinda stuck out to me. Like the post title wasn’t “DNC is getting weird again” or “Oh God we’re screwed in the fall aren’t we” or “Didn’t I just GIVE you some money” or anything like that, it was specifically inventing a new little mini-slur to pass around and for everyone to use, free of charge.
Like I say, it just kind of stuck out to me a little.
You don’t think that strongly correlates with maga tactics?
MAGA tactics at this point means trying to destroy the machinery of democracy and use explicit violence to threaten with death or imprisonment judges, election workers, congresspeople, and anyone else who stands in their way of seizing power. Then, if they are able to regain power, going after any minority or vulnerable person at home or abroad that they can find, simply for the fun and pleasure of exercising cruelty.
The Republicans do send weird fundraising texts sometimes. But, that’s not a new thing in American politics or what I would consider anywhere even in the neighborhood of a defining characteristics of MAGA. I think actually turning away from this kind of dogshit DC-consultancy politicking and fundraising and towards more effective and insidious news-media and social-media secret influence campaigns, and simple transfusions of vast infusions of dirty money from billionaires and foreign oligarchs, is more MAGA’s style than this type of text message. Although, again, they do still send text messages, I’m sure.
I would define assigning insulting nicknames to your opponents, and repeating them even though they don’t really correspond to reality even a little bit, to try this sort of middle-school level of influence to turn people away from your opponents (and apply a tag of “the enemy” in the eyes of your groupthinking followers) to be MAGA tactics, though.
I believe that is called a “hypocrite,” or as we refer to them as… “far leftists.”
“Critiques”
Interesting
So other than responding disagreeably to a critique, what other features? Or just that?
I ask because this type of Hillary Clinton DNC-consultant crap you’re screenshotting in this text message has been following Democrats around for quite a while now, consuming their money and providing only failure in return, but MAGA is kind of an incongruous term to use to describe it. Like when I think of MAGA I don’t normally think of things like this; right?
There’s the Trump cult and the Dem cult. The Blue MAGA are the ones that defend any and all criticism of the Democratic Party, to a cult-like status.
Interesting. I think it goes without saying that I don’t think this text message is an example of defending any and all criticism of the Democratic Party.
I did a search through comments for the term “Blue MAGA.” Most people aren’t using it like you said. Most people are using it to refer to the Democrats in general; e.g.:
… and so on. I was just curious, though. Carry on.
Yep. You just discovered how disingenuous and bad faith some of these people can be.
The post is saying “if you don’t like Biden then you are a Trumper.” That’s Blue MAGA cult like behavior.
How many text messages do you get from them, and how many posts have you made on lemmy.world evangelizing for your chosen viewpoint on the exact same issue in various ways, to try to spread it to others, and to disparage people who disagree with you?
Let’s say the count of each one over the span of the last three days.
I get multiple Dem “give us money” texts and calls daily.
How many blue MAGA ones, though, over the last three days? I can total up the posts of yours that I’d describe as clearly evangelical to your viewpoint, if you don’t want to. IDK, maybe you should do it, since you might not agree with how I would categorize the evangelical ones.
It’s a derogatory term people like Ozma use to a describe those who try and apply the concept of nuance to the propaganda they’re constantly sharing.
Essentially- it’s the boogeyman they create so they can be victims of something while they antagonize everyone that disagrees with them.
If you don’t believe me, check their comment history. See what they’re about and how they talk to others.
As far as I can tell, Ozma is redefining it here. The other Perfectly Legitimate Leftists aren’t trying to make any distinction of a particular segment of the Democrats who are “blue MAGA”; they’re just using the term to mean the Democrats are exactly the same as the Trump party and so there’s no point voting for either of them.
That is, of course, insane. I think they’re hoping it’ll produce their desired result on the election through sheer repetition and weight of “emperor definitely has clothes” peer pressure, but who knows. Also, why Ozma is using it in his different way, who knows, although I have a theory.
I’d be willing to bet I know what your theory is, and that it’s absolutely correct.
I think he just independently arrived at it on his own, with this very specific definition as applied to this one particular establishment segment of the Democratic Party, because he had really strong feelings created because all his pro-Democrats-winning-elections productive feedback was being short sightedly ignored. He’s just trying to get through to them how important it is for them to start using more successful tactics to win the election and defeat Trump, because he totally thinks that’s important and he’s working hard to try to make it happen.
But then, independently, a whole different group of perfectly legitimate leftists invented the same term and started applying it (in front of a different audience with a somewhat different receptiveness level to transparent bullshit and groupthink), but using a different meaning and framing, which they also independently came up with, to encourage people to the totally different but still organically arrived at result of not wanting to vote for Joe Biden.
Or, wait, I’m not sure I think that. Now that I type it out it seems a little farfetched all put together. There must be some explanation, though.