The US Politics |OT|

[EricHiggin]

IvorEvilen said:

EricHiggin said:

The point was someone taking the Dem side, claiming how Trump and his supporters are racist, and then bashing Trump using a racist type skin related remark. This is proving his skin means something, which the Dems make clear skin color has no meaning, and that it doesn't define people. It either does or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, it's childish, which is also why I pointed it out. If you're going to point out someone doing bad things, someone you want gone from their position, you don't follow that up by doing bad things, especially similar to what you just accused them of. It makes you look bad, and possibly both, which then you've just proved neither is better, so if you're going to side with one or the other, what does it really matter? You could side with neither, but that's not what the situation was here.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused?  Are you stating that only Democrats think skin color has no meaning?  That is certainly false.  I know a number of Republicans who would agree with that statement.  Just because a sizable portion of the Republican base is racist doesn't mean every Republican, or even a majority of Republicans, are racist.

References to skin color to refer to race versus references to skin color to refer to vanity are separate things.  That being said, people aren't orange.  It's not a natural color.  If you call someone "orange", there is no commonly associated racial connection between it and any specific group of people.  Trump is also white, so people are also culturally less concerned about being racially sensitive towards him.

Regarding your last paragraph, Trump is president.  When he mocks people or harasses them, he's punching down.  He has the power and influence to hurt people.  That's the difference.

Besides, I'm not deciding between Trump and the VGChartz person who called Trump an "orange idiot" when determining who to vote for.  I'm deciding between Trump and the Democratic nominee.  I will admit, the followers of a candidate do reflect on them to a certain extent, but anecdotal evidence from comments on this forum is not representative of either party in that regard.

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.