He also mentions trade disagreements with South Korea. Don't forget to factor that in.

Kudos to you though that you acknowledge you're engaging in speculation.

You saying Trump wanted to play to the crowd's supposed xenophobia or racism so Parasite would be his natural target?

Maybe his fanbase saw Parasite and didn't like it for a fair reason? Or maybe a lot of Trump's fans are Joker fans or Joaquin Phoenix fans or don't like having to read subtitles?

Unlike too many, I'm not so eager to jump to the nuclear option. Also note Trump garners a reaction BEFORE his mentioning of the Parasite film. Seems the Academy Awards is no stranger to contention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS6jokMQ60U

We're talking about constituents, not candidates. If the shoe were on the other foot and it were a Democratic candidate saying this, I guar-damn-tee you Republican/conservative voters (basically Trump supporters) wouldn't be defending him right now like they are the orange idiot.

And that last sentence is exactly why it's racist.

"Do you honestly think their boos were derived from a fair critique with careful consideration of the merits and quality of the film?  Or could it be the other thing? The xenophobia and racism thing?"

>There are the million-dollar questions. I have no way of knowing without being able to speak to these supporters individually and I'm not going to start pretending to know these supporters on a personal level. Wouldn't be fair.

"Or maybe they are all exceptionally well versed with South Korean trade"

>Highly doubt it.

"and started booing as soon as he said the Academy Awards because they knew he'd bring up Parasite and the first thing that came to their mind, just like Trump, was trade."

>You're making my argument for me. No, I don't think the audience had a crystal ball.

"Trade?  Problems with SK?  Really? And somehow a SK film winning Best Picture is a "problem"?  And not just any problem but a problem on the scale of trade?  Yeah, it's definitely not xenophobia."

>Or it could just be taste. Or the audience and Trump could be huge Joker fans. Joker's an iconic villain after all and recently had a very successful film released. Or maybe the audience are fans of Trump and want to support him blindly. Or maybe they saw Parasite after the Academy win and didn't like it.

"And why did you post the same video CaptainExplosion posted 4 days ago that started this very conversation? You even quoted him the following day."

>Just wanted to show you Trump get a reaction BEFORE the mention of Parasite.

This entire thread reminds me of this:

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751&page=1

What started simply enough, as an inquiry about how often one should work out, somehow devolved into a 129 page argument about...how many days there are in a week, with such gems as 'A week is sunday to sunday, moron, that's 8 days' to 'two weeks is 15 days, retard' (They use slurs a lot over there). That is how this thread comes across to me, just people arguing over the basic tenets of speech, some people making shit up to prove their point, and lying to look good. There IS a right answer, but you'd never know it based on how people are acting and how tenuous people's attachment to reality can be.

How would the Dem supporters react though is the question? Would it be the same situation just opposite reactions?

You also point out racism, while calling Trump an "orange idiot." What does his skin color have to do with anything?

Not that I condone name calling, but people calling Trump "orange" is not a reference to his race, but rather his seemingly unnatural skin color, brought about by a perceived over abundance of either spray tan or skin toner.  It's more a reference to his vanity and how out of touch he is.

I don't really see the point in calling Trump "orange".  It's childish, but considering the terrible things he calls other people, I'm not going to shed any tears for him either.

As a minor anecdote, my father often tans until his skin is a similar pigment to Trump's, and my family and I constantly worry about melanoma.

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.

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.