I'm saying they shout it from the rooftops. There's plenty of people from the other side being quiet indoors who think the same. I'm sure some would like to proclaim it, but it would be overshadowed by a red hat, ironically.
So making fun of people with non natural different colored body parts is ok as long as it's not tied to their race or sex or gender? So if someone who's white, wears blackface, but doesn't do it for racial reasons, is that ok? What about orange and the connection to fruit, and referring to someone as a "fruit"? I'm concerned. Are they they implying Trump is gay? Are they saying that's a bad thing?
So breaking your own rules is ok as long as you're punching up? When else are the rules bendable if not breakable? How can we be sure those who use this to gain power will follow the rules once they are able to punch down?
I'm glad you see things that way, and I agree for the most part.
I don't think making fun of people for how they look is appropriate, period. I'm simply stating it's not commentary on his race, and culturally that is seen as "not-so-bad".
Comparing black face to calling Trump "orange" is not exactly comparing apples... to oranges... (Buh-dum-tssh) Because of the cultural significance of black face in the US, a white person wearing blackface for any reason is ill-advised, at the very least. It's too easy to misconstrue the intent, even if it was admirable. You have to think about the act and the impact it can have on marginalized people. And in the case of Trump, I don't think people with poor tanning preferences qualify as a marginalized people of significant interest, personally.
Regarding the "fruit" association... As a gay man, that is not an association I would ever naturally draw. In fact, I know many gay men who refer to Trump as an "orange baboon" (take that as you will). Now, if people were calling Trump a "fruit"... Or more relevantly, referring to Buttigieg as a "fruit", I would be pretty peeved.
Well I'd say Trumps been marginalized by others for quite some time now. It's one thing to critisize his policies but his skin? I was always under the impression the spray tan is because he was told he looked bad with his super pale natural skin. Applying something to one's skin to dress yourself up doesn't seem odd especially if it does better their appearance. If Trump is sensitive about his skin, so much so he always tans it, going after it is pretty harsh then. Maybe not blackface historical harsh, but it's what it does to the individual that's the concern.
As a straight man who used to "get under the skin" of other straight men by calling them gay references back when it was typical and seen as more acceptable when we were young, and vice versa, I could see it. There's new gay slang I've heard since, that's used to get around the no no words nowadays. Considering the initial childish remarks here, I'd guess it meant fruit before I would assume it meant he's so full of himself that he always has to have a 'fancy' tan. The worst I've heard Pete called in person is a "delicate flower", and I thought straights were supposed to be the mean ones. Then again there is Milo.
Not quite so bad still doesn't make it much better considering the skin attack. It references something else in the end that's meant to harm the individual which is wrong. Both of us seem to agree about that though. As for calling Trump an "orange baboon", I'd say that's pretty harsh as well. Just because he's white doesn't change what the reference means.
In the end my point is trying to bash an opponent by stooping to their level, as initially described, doesn't help the cause, and can actually just make it worse. If you want change, it starts with your own actions by following what the party preaches.