PDA

View Full Version : Kramer goes nuts!



The Baumer
11-20-2006, 06:46 PM
The beloved Kramer from Seinfeld goes absolutely nuts on stage at the Laugh Factory in LA. Amazing.

http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1772645

Anyone care to guess what drugs may have been in his body?

Matt700wlw
11-20-2006, 06:54 PM
Coke?

Redlegs23
11-20-2006, 06:55 PM
Caffeine?

Mutaman
11-20-2006, 07:09 PM
Caffeine?

Could be. Remember how it affected Beavis. It turned him into Cornholio.

remdog
11-20-2006, 09:53 PM
Correction: Kramer was already nuts! I love the guy as an actor but, like many actors that endear themselves to us in a particular part, they are simply playing themselves. That's Michael Richards.

I once followed him down the asile of Ralph's in Hollywood around midnight and witnessed a terrific conversation he had with a can of tomato soup (shrug).

BTW, 'Young Doctors In Love' is still one of my all-time favorite comey movies. That was the first time a saw Richards "act".

Rem

Virginia Beach Reds
11-20-2006, 11:16 PM
I couldn't tell if that was Kramer or not. That was bizarre.

macro
11-20-2006, 11:39 PM
Could be. Remember how it affected Beavis. It turned him into Cornholio.

I was thinking about those boys just the other day. I ran across some old VHS tapes of episodes. It's hard to believe that they're in their mid-twenties now. Does anyone know what they're doing these days?

Dom Heffner
11-20-2006, 11:49 PM
Before actually seeing it I was hoping it would look better in context.

Not so.

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 11:55 PM
Over/under on the public apology/rehab announcement is Tuesday at 8 pm PST. Who wants in?

RFS62
11-21-2006, 12:10 AM
Not cool.

Very not cool.

Razor Shines
11-21-2006, 01:13 AM
He was just on Letterman with Seinfeld, Richards was via satellite. It was pretty corny, he apologized, took a lot of the blame but blamed society a little and even the war. The audience, apparently thinking it was a joke, started laughing and Seinfeld had to tell them to stop laughing twice, which kind of made it worse. It's true Jerry can't not be funny. Dave was all smiles and laughs through the whole thing, but what was he supposed to do? it seemed like Jerry's idea to have Richards on, but who knows I'm sure Dave doesn't mind the added attention to his show.

LoganBuck
11-21-2006, 01:25 AM
I saw it too, and I would describe it as uncomfortable to watch. Letterman was obviously uneasy and unsure how to handle it. Richards was apologizing, but didn't seem to be of sound mind. He was all over the place imo. Blaming Katrina, and the war somehow.

jmcclain19
11-21-2006, 03:18 AM
Holy Cow.

Well, I guess anything worth doing is worth doing all the way.

"So I was performing my act at the Laugh Factory the other night and yadda, yadda, yadda...my career is now over."

Mutaman
11-21-2006, 03:29 AM
I was thinking about those boys just the other day. I ran across some old VHS tapes of episodes. It's hard to believe that they're in their mid-twenties now. Does anyone know what they're doing these days?

When they're not working, they sit around and watch videos. As always, their taste in music is impecable.

RedsBaron
11-21-2006, 07:08 AM
He blamed society, the war, Katrina for his own racist rant? I didn't see "Letterman," but if Richards blamed anybody or anything other than himself, he deserves some sort of "award" for the worst "apology" ever.

Caveat Emperor
11-21-2006, 09:41 AM
Outburts like this one and the infamous Mel Gibson explosion beg an important question that I don't think white america wants to deal with: have we really reduced racist feelings in this country, or are we now just better at hiding them?

registerthis
11-21-2006, 09:44 AM
Before actually seeing it I was hoping it would look better in context.

Not so.

No, it looks worse, actually.

I didn't see the Letterman show, but I did see trailers for it throughout the evening, particularly where he says "I'm not a racist...that's what is so insane about this."

Actually, Michael, what would be insane would be someone who is not truly a racist threatening to lynch a black man and repeatedly using the "N" word during an angry, racially-fueled tirade.

THAT would be insane.

What YOU did has all the trappings of someone who is a racist--closeted or not. That's sad and despicable, but it's not insane.

RedsBaron
11-21-2006, 09:50 AM
have we really reduced racist feelings in this country, or are we now just better at hiding them?

I'd guess both. I really believe that racism is not as bad as it was decades ago--I truly believe that progress has been made. While I have no doubt but that many people have also learned to hide their racism as it is not socially acceptable, the fact that racism is not socially acceptable is a sign of some progress.

Reds Nd2
11-21-2006, 10:11 AM
You can watch the apology here. (http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/dave_tv/ls_dtv_big_show_highlights.shtml) Really strange stuff. And since when is it acceptable to use the term "Afro-American"?

minus5
11-21-2006, 10:28 AM
This might be a good time for Jerry to use the ole'

http://www2.bc.edu/~parksla/JerrySeinfeld.jpg

"Good luck with all that" line.

Danny Serafini
11-21-2006, 10:44 AM
He didn't blame Katrina or the war, he was just using those as points about race relations, although he really was rambling and bouncing all over the place. That was really awkward to watch. It sounded like he got really angry and said something stupid, and then tried to use some schtick to get out of it and said something even more stupid.

Ltlabner
11-21-2006, 10:56 AM
Yikes...that's ugly. Whether fuled by drugs, soda pop or a desire for attention, that's some ugly stuff bubbling out of him. Stuff like that usually finds it's way to the surface one way or another.

Hope he gets his issues worked out.

As far as the "applogy". I guess that's the SOP for a celeb that gets caught being a human being (that is, showing off their faults, warts and short commings). I'd prefer they skip the excuses and lame attempts to rescure their carear. One day I wish someone would just say something like, "I'm not going to applogize, because I'm only sorry I got caught. My stupidity revealed some real shortcommings in my charicter. I hope the embrassement of having those come to light motivates me to change for the better".

Probably very pollyanna on my part to want to hear that, but oh well. Dare to dream I suppose.

registerthis
11-21-2006, 10:57 AM
Angry or not, he's still a racist.

I've been plenty angry at people before, and the idea of using a racial slur doesn't even enter my mind as an option. I've called people a-words and f-words and s-words, and every potential combination thereof, sometimes to unintentionally hilarious results...but I've never just blurted out, for instance, the N-word. Most people wouldn't. In fact, the only people who would, are those who either use that term with some degree of regularity and/or harbor racist feelings themselves. I'm guessing Michael Richards is some combination of the two.

Redsland
11-21-2006, 11:41 AM
"So I was performing my act at the Laugh Factory the other night and yadda, yadda, yadda...my career is now over."
:laugh:

RFS62
11-21-2006, 01:21 PM
Angry or not, he's still a racist.

I've been plenty angry at people before, and the idea of using a racial slur doesn't even enter my mind as an option. I've called people a-words and f-words and s-words, and every potential combination thereof, sometimes to unintentionally hilarious results...but I've never just blurted out, for instance, the N-word. Most people wouldn't. In fact, the only people who would, are those who either use that term with some degree of regularity and/or harbor racist feelings themselves. I'm guessing Michael Richards is some combination of the two.




Yep, I agree.

Dom Heffner
11-21-2006, 02:16 PM
I've been plenty angry at people before, and the idea of using a racial slur doesn't even enter my mind as an option. I've called people a-words and f-words and s-words, and every potential combination thereof, sometimes to unintentionally hilarious results...but I've never just blurted out, for instance, the N-word.

But the people you were mad at weren't probably African-American were they? I mean- you wouldn't call a white person the n-word, would you?

I think he did this more out of anger than anything. Often when we are angry at someone, we tend to go right for the jugular, don't we?

Have you ever said something you didn't mean? If you didn't mean it, then why did you say it?

The reason is that when we are hit in certain places, we hit back in certain places. If the heckler would have been fat, Richardson would have hit him on that. In that case, we would not have thought that Richards had a bias against fat people.

When we are verbally attacking someone, we try to hit what we think will offend that person the most. Do people who talk about "Your mother" really hate your mother, or are they just trying to get you mad?

Richard's act was probably bombing, the heckler(s) were very rude to him, and he they hit a nerve and he hit them back with a low blow.

The heckler hurled the worst insult at a comedian you can give- that Richards wasn't funny- and I think Richards was - foolishly- looking for a way to hit him back just as hard.

My feeling is that this is the place where Richard's comments came from, but he should realize that in this day and age, there are certain things you can say and certain things you can't.

It was completely the wrong way to go with it.

My advice to him would be to come prepared with jokes to aim at hecklers that aren't offensive in any crowd. If I were a comedian, I would learn 6 or 7 before I ever took the stage.

I'm not defending Richard's words- that was a truly offensive tirade he let loose with- I'm just saying that people indeed say things they do not mean and to conclude that he is a racist because he lost his temper and defended himself with poorly chosen words is a bit shortsighted.

I can't stand Richards, so I'm not coming to his aid- I jus think it's a stretch to say that because somebody uses certain words, they are racist.


In fact, the only people who would, are those who either use that term with some degree of regularity and/or harbor racist feelings themselves.

This isn't necessarily true. Again- in anger we say all sort of things we never would want repeated or that we don't use in our regular vocabulary.

Puffy
11-21-2006, 02:28 PM
I agree with Dom - from watching it I think three things were at play. One, the people were obviously black. Two, they were talking all during his set. Three, they got to him and he took two things combined them and tried to hit them back by being funny - here the stereotype of black people talking thru a movie, play, etc. Thereafter he went for the jugular and the n-word.

I'm not saying its right or even defending him - but I don't think this makes him racist per se.

Ltlabner
11-21-2006, 02:29 PM
Richard's act was probably bombing, the heckler(s) were very rude to him, and he they hit a nerve and he hit them back with a low blow.

That's an interesting perspective Dom. And to a certian degree I would agree with you. Sometimes a person makes a poor choice of words or has one "incident" if you will and the automatic cry is "racisist" when it should be "stupid" or "insensitive" or "ignorant".

I tried to watch the entire video but I couldn't really hear the words and the subtitles were grarbled. Did he say the N word more than once. I got the impression it was an extended tirade with multipule offensive words and phrases.

If he just said the N word in the heat of the moment, I'd agree that it was a dumb "come back" not necessarly a sign of a lurking racist. But the tirade, simular to the Mel Gibson incident seemed to indicate a more deeply seated issue to me.

dabvu2498
11-21-2006, 02:43 PM
Did he say the N word more than once.

At least 6 times.

Dom Heffner
11-21-2006, 03:06 PM
At least 6 times.

And the conversation with the heckler was going on as well. The heckler told him he hadn't done anything funny since Seinfeld and some other things. I think they were really getting to Richards and he was just hitting back. Again-what he is saying is atrocious but the reason he is doing it is to get back at the guy, in my opinion.

You know, if Richards went up and hit the guy in the face to retaliate, he might be facing assault charges but he could come back with his career.

This? Not so sure.

RFS62
11-21-2006, 03:07 PM
But the tirade, simular to the Mel Gibson incident seemed to indicate a more deeply seated issue to me.


Yeah, that's my take too.

Booze and stress can loosen inhibitions that may be well hidden otherwise.

Dom Heffner
11-21-2006, 03:15 PM
Booze and stress can loosen inhibitions that may be well hidden otherwise.

They can also make you say things you totally don't mean.

I'm choosing ot err on th eside of caution with Richards. If we want the term "racist" to mean anything and have power, we need to be careful at who we wield it.

RFS62
11-21-2006, 03:22 PM
If we want the term "racist" to mean anything and have power, we need to be careful at who we wield it.


I agree with this.

And I'm sure there are many degrees of racist. Maybe his level only stoops to using the N word when he feels he's provoked.

Still very disappointing. There are a lot of other insults, vile and otherwise, that he could have used.

I've just got a thing about this one. I forbid the use of that word in my house. And I've flipped out and embarrassed a few of my son's southern friends over the years who made the mistake of dropping the term in my presence.

I really have zero tolerance for racism and prejudice. To me, it's the most pure form of ignorance.

traderumor
11-21-2006, 04:09 PM
Angry or not, he's still a racist.

I've been plenty angry at people before, and the idea of using a racial slur doesn't even enter my mind as an option. I've called people a-words and f-words and s-words, and every potential combination thereof, sometimes to unintentionally hilarious results...but I've never just blurted out, for instance, the N-word. Most people wouldn't. In fact, the only people who would, are those who either use that term with some degree of regularity and/or harbor racist feelings themselves. I'm guessing Michael Richards is some combination of the two.Although you do not come out and say it, why is the "N-word" so much more unacceptable, to the point of accusing someone of being a "racist," compared to some of the other terms you claim to have used toward other human beings? In other words, isn't the use of derogatory terms to describe other human beings despicable in and of itself?

registerthis
11-21-2006, 04:18 PM
But the people you were mad at weren't probably African-American were they? I mean- you wouldn't call a white person the n-word, would you?

I've been cut off by black drivers before and unleashed a stream of profanity, I'm certain. Just a few weeks ago I got into an argument in the parking lot of a local grocery store with a middle age Latino woman (long story). At no time did the idea of tossing a racial epithet her way enter my stream of consciousness.

And I've never called a white person a "cracker" "honkey" or any other racially-deragatory term. It just doesn't occur to me as an option.


I think he did this more out of anger than anything. Often when we are angry at someone, we tend to go right for the jugular, don't we?

Have you ever said something you didn't mean? If you didn't mean it, then why did you say it?

I'm of the belief that people rarely--if ever--say things that they truly don't mean. We say things that we wish we could take back. We say things that may be intentional exagerrations. But I believe it's exceedingly rare for someone to say something we know conclusively to be false--particularly during a moment of rage when our ability to think through and filter our thoughts is significantly depleted.

In fact, I think you could make the argument (as some have) that the thoughts and words we have during times of extreme stress, anger, or while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, are some of the "truest" feelings we have. There's no self-censorship or consideration of the ramifications of what is being said, whatever is on one's mind just comes right out.


The reason is that when we are hit in certain places, we hit back in certain places. If the heckler would have been fat, Richardson would have hit him on that. In that case, we would not have thought that Richards had a bias against fat people.

...

The heckler hurled the worst insult at a comedian you can give- that Richards wasn't funny- and I think Richards was - foolishly- looking for a way to hit him back just as hard.

My feeling is that this is the place where Richard's comments came from, but he should realize that in this day and age, there are certain things you can say and certain things you can't.

It was completely the wrong way to go with it.

How do we know that the heckler wasn't fat? Or bald? Or had abnormally large ears? Or an unusually shrill voice? Or anything else that might distinguish him? Why did Richards choose to focus singularly on race?

It wasn't merely the repeated use of the N-word, either. It was the comparison to lynchings, the warnings of the repercussions of "interrupting a white man" and other racially-charged comments that lead me to concur that this was no mere foolish slip of the tongue. He clearly holds some degree of racial animosity, otherwise he wouldn't have replie dint he manner he did.


This isn't necessarily true. Again- in anger we say all sort of things we never would want repeated or that we don't use in our regular vocabulary.

Saying things we may want to be repeated? Most certainly. Saying things we truly don't mean? Hardly ever.

registerthis
11-21-2006, 04:23 PM
Although you do not come out and say it, why is the "N-word" so much more unacceptable, to the point of accusing someone of being a "racist," compared to some of the other terms you claim to have used toward other human beings? In other words, isn't the use of derogatory terms to describe other human beings despicable in and of itself?

Because calling someone an a-hole or dips*** doesn't have the history of deep-seeded hatred, racism, violence and evil that the n-word brings. As RFS said, racism is the most pure form of ignorance. A racist insult hurled at an individual cuts to the heart of that individual's very being. Anyone can be an idiot, a moron, a prick or any other assorted terms. But only a select few can be n******. Therein lies the difference.

WMR
11-21-2006, 04:30 PM
Because calling someone an a-hole or dips*** doesn't have the history of deep-seeded hatred, racism, violence and evil that the n-word brings. As RFS said, racism is the most pure form of ignorance. A racist insult hurled at an individual cuts to the heart of that individual's very being. Anyone can be an idiot, a moron, a prick or any other assorted terms. But only a select few can be n******. Therein lies the difference.

That's why he said it. He was pissed, lost his cool, and called the guy the most offensive word he could use to insult that person.

Doesn't make him a racist in my book.

remdog
11-21-2006, 04:53 PM
I tend to agree with Dom, Puffy and WilyMo that this incident, in and of itself don't mean that someone is racist. It could be the most convient way to insult someone in retaliation for a percieved slight.

As for racism being the 'most pure form of ignorance' I would say that judgeing someone to be racist based on a 60 second sound bite without knowing anything else about that person certainly would be at least a tie. Many people like to label others 'racist' in order to put others down and imply their own moral superiority. Thank goodness that no one on Redszone would ever do that. Right?

Rem

registerthis
11-21-2006, 04:53 PM
That's why he said it. He was pissed, lost his cool, and called the guy the most offensive word he could use to insult that person.

Then that also means that, at some level, he feels using that word is acceptable.

registerthis
11-21-2006, 04:58 PM
Many people like to label others 'racist' in order to put others down and imply their own moral superiority. Thank goodness that no one on Redszone would ever do that.

To quote my own post:

"I've never just blurted out, for instance, the N-word. Most people wouldn't."

I don't see anyone attempting any type of moral superiority here. Most people just know better.

Michael Richards may not be a card carrying member of the KKK, he may not have any admiration for Adolf Hitler...but hurling racial slurs, threatening lynchings and warning of the repercussions of interrupting a white man--even if in jest--portends to some deeper feelings of animosity. Again, if those things were as offensive to him as they *should* be, they wouldn't have been at the tip of his tongue, waiting to be hurled at a black heckler.

Dom Heffner
11-21-2006, 05:00 PM
Then that also means that, at some level, he feels using that word is acceptable.

I would think the opposite- he is so mad at the guy that he's throwing down what is not acceptable to vent his frustrations.

There is no universe where a Michael Richards thinks that's okay. Even in provate, I'll bet he's absolutely kicking himself.

traderumor
11-21-2006, 05:01 PM
Because calling someone an a-hole or dips*** doesn't have the history of deep-seeded hatred, racism, violence and evil that the n-word brings. As RFS said, racism is the most pure form of ignorance. A racist insult hurled at an individual cuts to the heart of that individual's very being. Anyone can be an idiot, a moron, a prick or any other assorted terms. But only a select few can be n******. Therein lies the difference.I am not excusing the use of the term you so carefully avoid. I am merely pointing out that were you to call me any of those other names you included in this thread, you also would cut to the heart of my being.

If we are going to censor, lets censor and quit with the picking and choosing which insulting terms are socially acceptable and which human beings can be insulted and which can not. Because I do not think calling someone a prick is any less derogatory or any less hurtful than using a racial slur. Because the essence of what you seem to be saying is that if he had called a white heckler in the crowd an ignorant prick, that this would not be news. Sadly, it is probably true, and sadly, no one would care. That is really my point, and I do not find the arbitrary lines you are drawing acceptable.

WMR
11-21-2006, 05:01 PM
Then that also means that, at some level, he feels using that word is acceptable.

It isn't possible that his internal censor was temporarily overridden by feelings of anger and fear combined with the intense desire to inflict the same sort of emotional damage via verbiage that this heckler was imposing upon him?

registerthis
11-21-2006, 05:02 PM
There is no universe where a Michael Richards thinks that's okay. Even in provate, I'll bet he's absolutely kicking himself.

We may just be in disagreement here, but I would like to point out that it takes as much of a stretch to hold the above to be true as it does to believe that Michael's outburst was indicative of some deeper, hidden level of racism.

RFS62
11-21-2006, 05:03 PM
As for racism being the 'most pure form of ignorance' I would say that judgeing someone to be racist based on a 60 second sound bite without knowing anything else about that person certainly would be at least a tie.



How many seconds of that would you need to see to draw a conclusion, Rem?




Many people like to label others 'racist' in order to put others down and imply their own moral superiority.


Personally, I couldn't care less about such foolishness and simply don't tolerate ignorance. Did you see the video? Did you hear his explanation?

If you did, I'm surprised at your comments. If you didn't and still made those remarks, wouldn't that put you in the same group as those who could listen to a "60 second sound bite without knowing anything else about that person"?

registerthis
11-21-2006, 05:05 PM
It isn't possible that his internal censor was temporarily overridden by feelings of anger and fear combined with the intense desire to inflict the same sort of emotional damage via verbiage that this heckler was imposing upon him?

Oh, I believe that's entirely possible. In fact, i would argue that's probably what happened. My argument is that, if one viewed racial slurs as being as offensive as the people they are expressed towards view them, an internal censor shouldn't be necessary to keep such thoughts from escaping.

And, again, this wasn't a solitary slip of the tongue...he goes on his tirade for a solid two minutes. That's a profound slip.

Highlifeman21
11-21-2006, 05:07 PM
I agree with Dom - from watching it I think three things were at play. One, the people were obviously black. Two, they were talking all during his set. Three, they got to him and he took two things combined them and tried to hit them back by being funny - here the stereotype of black people talking thru a movie, play, etc. Thereafter he went for the jugular and the n-word.

I'm not saying its right or even defending him - but I don't think this makes him racist per se.


Clearly walking a fine line with this question, and having just watched a Mind of Mencia DVD, why is it that Black people are always talking at the screen in movies, and talking during comedians sets?

I know I've talked during comedy sets, and I've said things in a movie theater, but without fail, every time I've been to a movie and there are multiple Black people in the crowd, they are always saying stuff to the screen.

Just making an observation.

"Kramer's" actions don't surprise me. I kind of chalk this up to something people often think, but don't say. Problem is, he said it. While I don't agree with what he said, how many of us are 100% morally pure that we haven't used off-color humor from time to time and let a racial slur escape our lips? We're human, it happens. I'm not defending "Kramer" by any means, but I don't think we should act surprised that he thought the N word. I'm surprised he used the N word in his act to verbally attack patrons.

registerthis
11-21-2006, 05:10 PM
I am not excusing the use of the term you so carefully avoid. I am merely pointing out that were you to call me any of those other names you included in this thread, you also would cut to the heart of my being.

If we are going to censor, lets censor and quit with the picking and choosing which insulting terms are socially acceptable and which human beings can be insulted and which can not. Because I do not think calling someone a prick is any less derogatory or any less hurtful than using a racial slur.

...

Sorry, TR, but I'm simply not going to agree that calling someone a prick carries the same weight and baggage as a racial slur. If you *personally* find it as offensive, I hope that you're able to overcome those feelings if and when someone happens to call you a bad name. But the N-word is a loaded word, conjuring up images of enslavement, lynchings, segregation, racial inferiority and other such illustrations. It is a trait not similarly shared by words such as "idiot" "prick" "a-hole" etc.

dabvu2498
11-21-2006, 05:11 PM
I kind of chalk this up to something people often think, but don't say.

That doesn't make it acceptable.

TeamCasey
11-21-2006, 05:12 PM
I'd guess both. I really believe that racism is not as bad as it was decades ago.

I used to believe that before I moved here. It was one of the first things that stood out to me.

dabvu2498
11-21-2006, 05:14 PM
I've got to agree with reg on this one.

After first hearing something about this one the news, I thought, "he lost it, said something he shouldn't have... it happens to all of us, more often than we'd like. OK."

After seeing it, I thought "He didn't lose it. He never had it in the first place."

traderumor
11-21-2006, 05:23 PM
Sorry, TR, but I'm simply not going to agree that calling someone a prick carries the same weight and baggage as a racial slur. If you *personally* find it as offensive, I hope that you're able to overcome those feelings if and when someone happens to call you a bad name. But the N-word is a loaded word, conjuring up images of enslavement, lynchings, segregation, racial inferiority and other such illustrations. It is a trait not similarly shared by words such as "idiot" "prick" "a-hole" etc.

So, I just need to get over it. My, now that's an interesting view. So, do white females just need to get over being called "beeyotch" or "ho" by a "hip-hop artist?"

WMR
11-21-2006, 05:28 PM
Oh, I believe that's entirely possible. In fact, i would argue that's probably what happened. My argument is that, if one viewed racial slurs as being as offensive as the people they are expressed towards view them, an internal censor shouldn't be necessary to keep such thoughts from escaping.

And, again, this wasn't a solitary slip of the tongue...he goes on his tirade for a solid two minutes. That's a profound slip.

Why else would he have said it but to inflict the 'kill blow' of a verbal argument?

Certain insults get preferential treatment as allowable while others are an absolute indicator of your innermost being?

Why did the black guy call him a "cracker-ass MF'er" after Richards called him a ******?

Does that mean that that black guy thinks all white people are crackers? That word applied to every other white person in that room... that guy must really hate whitey.

Richards wanted to strike a nerve and he did. Using the N-word as Richards did only tells me that he a) knows the word and b) freaked out.

From Wikipedia...


Part of the repertoire of white American comedian George Carlin is a routine concerning sensitive words - that words by themselves are never good or bad and it's the user's intention that counts. "We don't mind when Richard Pryor or Eddie Murphy uses it," he quips. "Why? Because we know they're not racists. They're ******s!" In a famous skit on Saturday Night Live, Chevy Chase and Pryor explore this dynamic as a job interview devolves into racial name-calling on both sides, with Pryor calling Chase "honky" several times; when Chase eventually says "******", Pryor responds with "dead honky".

remdog
11-21-2006, 05:31 PM
62:

I saw some of the tape and I turned it off because it was garbage. But I term it simply garbage, not necessarily racist garbage.

As for Richards' appearance on Letterman, what I saw was a guy rambling and not making a whole lot of sense. I did think that he was distressed about what he did but I didn't and don't make a moral judgement as to why he was distressed. Could be he feels badly about the hurt he caused someone. Could be he feels badly about what it may mean for his career. Could be a lot of things. I'm not in a position to know what was in his heart and in his mind in either the first incident or the apology and, frankly, neither are you.

So you, sitting 3000 miles away and (unless you aren't telling me something) knowing nothing about Michael Richards except what you see on a few seconds of tape are making a judgement and applying a label. Ergo, I'm surprised at your comments.

Michael Richards is a public figure and as such he's an easy target. As I mentioned early in this thread, Richards is noted to be very strange, excentric and unpredictable. Unless there is a bigger body of proof that this isn't an isolated incident then labeling him a racist on this small amount of information is, IMO, purely ignorant. Sorry Bubba but that's the way I feel.

Rem

Disclaimer: The term Bubba is in no way meant to be racist, distainful or derogatory to any white man living in the southeastern part of the United States. :devil:

RFS62
11-21-2006, 05:31 PM
It's not the word.

It's how it's used.

Highlifeman21
11-21-2006, 05:39 PM
62:

I saw some of the tape and I turned it off because it was garbage. But I term it simply garbage, not necessarily racist garbage.

As for Richards' appearance on Letterman, what I saw was a guy rambling and not making a whole lot of sense. I did think that he was distressed about what he did but I didn't and don't make a moral judgement as to why he was distressed. Could be he feels badly about the hurt he caused someone. Could be he feels badly about what it may mean for his career. Could be a lot of things. I'm not in a position to know what was in his heart and in his mind in either the first incident or the apology and, frankly, neither are you.

So you, sitting 3000 miles away and (unless you aren't telling me something) knowing nothing about Michael Richards except what you see on a few seconds of tape are making a judgement and applying a label. Ergo, I'm surprised at your comments.

Michael Richards is a public figure and as such he's an easy target. As I mentioned early in this thread, Richards is noted to be very strange, excentric and unpredictable. Unless there is a bigger body of proof that this isn't an isolated incident then labeling him a racist on this small amount of information is, IMO, purely ignorant. Sorry Bubba but that's the way I feel.

Rem

Disclaimer: The term Bubba is in no way meant to be racist, distainful or derogatory to any white man living in the southeastern part of the United States. :devil:


How would one of our newest Reds, Bubba Crosby feel about this?

registerthis
11-21-2006, 05:40 PM
Why else would he have said it but to inflict the 'kill blow' of a verbal argument?

Certain insults get preferential treatment as allowable while others are an absolute indicator of your innermost being?


One could write a thesis on the distinction between racial slurs and other, more common insults. I feel I've articulated my argument as clearly as possible here, and at this point I'm simply repeating myself.

I feel the same way about Richards tirade as I did about Mel Gibson's much publicized anti-Semitic rant: If the feelings weren't somehow there to begin with, they would not have been expressed.

WMR
11-21-2006, 05:42 PM
One could write a thesis on the distinction between racial slurs and other, more common insults. I feel I've articulated my argument as clearly as possible here, and at this point I'm simply repeating myself.

I feel the same way about Richards tirade as I did about Mel Gibson's much publicized anti-Semitic rant: If the feelings weren't somehow there to begin with, they would not have been expressed.

I was questioning whether or not there's a distinction between cracker and the n-word.

Does that black guy saying cracker mean he's a racist?

remdog
11-21-2006, 05:42 PM
How would one of our newest Reds, Bubba Crosby feel about this?

I don't know but this would be a good question for him if he shows up at RedsFest. :laugh:

Rem

dabvu2498
11-21-2006, 05:46 PM
I was questioning whether or not there's a distinction between cracker and the n-word.

Does that black guy saying cracker mean he's a racist?

I would say that anyone who makes a judgement or distinction of a person based solely on race is a racist.

WMR
11-21-2006, 05:52 PM
I would say that anyone who makes a judgement or distinction of a person based solely on race is a racist.

Is he making a judgment or a distinction or is he merely hurling an insult without thought or consideration to the larger ramifications of what that word might mean to someone else?

Highlifeman21
11-21-2006, 05:54 PM
I don't know but this would be a good question for him if he shows up at RedsFest. :laugh:

Rem

Oh, I'd have plenty of other questions to ask him at RedsFest. Maybe I'll get that chance down in Sarasota.

Question 1. Realistically, how many PAs do you think you'll get with this ballclub?

Question 2. You don't honestly think you'll be our everyday RF, do you?

They go on from there...

My favorite would be.... "What number are you going to wear, so I can run out and be the only guy not a part of your family to have your jersey?"

dabvu2498
11-21-2006, 05:55 PM
Is he making a judgment or a distinction or is he merely hurling an insult without thought or consideration to the larger ramifications of what that word might mean to someone else?

It's both. The connotation of the slur that he (or both of them) used goes well beyond just calling someone an idiot or an a-hole. It's not just your average insult.

traderumor
11-21-2006, 05:57 PM
I would say this: using derogatory terms in the form of an insult toward another human being, whether it be related to race, gender, sexual preference, intelligence, geographic location, etc. and so forth, shows the character of the person hurling the insult. So, to sit on one's high horse and say "I'd never use the N-word, but I might call you a prick" says just as much about that person as it does the "racist."

dabvu2498
11-21-2006, 05:59 PM
I would say this: using derogatory terms in the form of an insult toward another human being, whether it be related to race, gender, sexual preference, intelligence, geographic location, etc. and so forth, shows the character of the person hurling the insult.

Agreed.


So, to sit on one's high horse and say "I'd never use the N-word, but I might call you a prick" says just as much about that person as it does the "racist."

Is calling someone a prick in any way related to any of the qualifiers above? (Race, gender, sexual preference, intelligence, etc.)

registerthis
11-21-2006, 06:00 PM
So, I just need to get over it. My, now that's an interesting view.

Or you can go on through life getting emotionally distraught everytime someone calls you an idiot. I suppose it's your call. But arguing that "n*****" and "prick" are somehow co-existing in the same realm is an argument divorced from reality.

The reaction on this thread is interesting to me, particularly considering that I just did a quick perusal of the thread dealing with Mel Gibson's arrest and (drunken) anti-Semitic tirade, and the explanations for his behavior were not nearly as forgiving. Which leads me to wonder: if Richards had hurled a string of anti-Semitic slurs and told the heckler that Hitler should have just finished the job, would the reactions here be any different? Would some here still seek to explain Richards' actions as those of a man who was merely pushed to the limit and responded in a way that was not truly indicative of how he felt, or would we be more damning of him?

registerthis
11-21-2006, 06:03 PM
I would say this: using derogatory terms in the form of an insult toward another human being, whether it be related to race, gender, sexual preference, intelligence, geographic location, etc. and so forth, shows the character of the person hurling the insult. So, to sit on one's high horse and say "I'd never use the N-word, but I might call you a prick" says just as much about that person as it does the "racist."

In your world, perhaps. I'm simply not prepared to equate "n*****" with "idiot". If you are, perhaps you have simply progressed to an enlgihtened state the likes of which I can never hope to achieve. More power to you.

remdog
11-21-2006, 06:04 PM
We give too much power to certain words. White America has been told that the 'N' word (see, we can't even bear to write it) is so much more of an intolerent, derisive and obscene term that anyone that uses it is automaticly a vile and discusting person. Meanwhile, terms for other races (including honky, cracker, beaner, raghead et al) are tolerated and we 're told to ignore them or laugh about them.

Words are simply letters and sounds until we give them power. If you want them to lose their power to hurt then don't give them power. Refuse to acknowledge that they can be hurtful. Stand up to them. Say, "yes, I am a _______(fill in the blank). So what."

Rem

registerthis
11-21-2006, 06:08 PM
We give too much power to certain words. White America has been told that the 'N' word (see, we can't even bear to write it) is so much more of an intolerent, derisive and obscene term that anyone that uses it is automaticly a vile and discusting person. Meanwhile, terms for other races (including honky, cracker, beaner, raghead et al) are tolerated and we 're told to ignore them of laugh about them.

That's not how I see it at all. Who is telling you that the N-word is off limits, but other racial slurs are acceptable?

I will say this: the n-word carries particular weight in this nation because of the history of African Americans here. After all, if it did not, then Richards would have had no reason to resort to what some have described as the epitome of all insults.

WMR
11-21-2006, 06:12 PM
Or you can go on through life getting emotionally distraught everytime someone calls you an idiot. I suppose it's your call. But arguing that "n*****" and "prick" are somehow co-existing in the same realm is an argument divorced from reality.

The reaction on this thread is interesting to me, particularly considering that I just did a quick perusal of the thread dealing with Mel Gibson's arrest and (drunken) anti-Semitic tirade, and the explanations for his behavior were not nearly as forgiving. Which leads me to wonder: if Richards had hurled a string of anti-Semitic slurs and told the heckler that Hitler should have just finished the job, would the reactions here be any different? Would some here still seek to explain Richards' actions as those of a man who was merely pushed to the limit and responded in a way that was not truly indicative of how he felt, or would we be more damning of him?

Personally, Mel Gibsons' "Passion" movie and his father being a known and infamous holocaust denier are what led me to believe his drunken tirade belied someone who was an anti-semite.

If it came out that Richards used racial epithets in the past or on the set of Seinfeld it would be another thing.

Red Leader
11-21-2006, 06:13 PM
The respect I had for Richards as an actor / comedian is gone. I hope many others feel the same way. His act, even if he truly didn't*mean* it, was disgusting, cruel, and totally uncalled for. Props to Jerry Seinfeld for trying to stick up for his buddy and being there for him in a very dark and uncomfortable situation. That says a lot to me about Jerry Seinfeld, who I previously didn't like a whole bunch.

WMR
11-21-2006, 06:15 PM
The respect I had for Richards as an actor / comedian is gone. I hope many others feel the same way. His act, even if he truly didn't*mean* it, was disgusting, cruel, and totally uncalled for. Props to Jerry Seinfeld for trying to stick up for his buddy and being there for him in a very dark and uncomfortable situation. That says a lot to me about Jerry Seinfeld, who I previously didn't like a whole bunch.

Yeah that was really stand-up (haha) of Seinfeld to allow any sort of linkage between himself and a PR-nightmare like that.

remdog
11-21-2006, 06:22 PM
Or you can go on through life getting emotionally distraught everytime someone calls you an idiot. I suppose it's your call. But arguing that "n*****" and "prick" are somehow co-existing in the same realm is an argument divorced from reality.

The reaction on this thread is interesting to me, particularly considering that I just did a quick perusal of the thread dealing with Mel Gibson's arrest and (drunken) anti-Semitic tirade, and the explanations for his behavior were not nearly as forgiving. Which leads me to wonder: if Richards had hurled a string of anti-Semitic slurs and told the heckler that Hitler should have just finished the job, would the reactions here be any different? Would some here still seek to explain Richards' actions as those of a man who was merely pushed to the limit and responded in a way that was not truly indicative of how he felt, or would we be more damning of him?


The 'N' word is more heinous (suposedly) than the 'P' word because we, as a society have been conditioned to believe it is so. Once again, we give the word power; it has no such power based upon its' letters and sounds. How many times have we had personal friends and aquaintences that are black and use the 'N' word and it's OK. It's because, in those circumstances, the word has no power. If we, as a society, want to stop the hurtfulness of this word then we, as a society, need to take the power away from this word. And that includes things like understanding that an incident like this one is more than likely not racially motivated.

As for Mel Gibson, there have been a number of occasions in which his racial viewpoints have been questioned while Richards' has never been known to be hostile to other races. That, to me, is the main difference.

Rem

registerthis
11-21-2006, 06:25 PM
As for Mel Gibson, there have been a number of occasions in which his racial viewpoints have been questioned while Richards' has never been known to be hostile to other races. That, to me, is the main difference.

So what is the litmus test for being labelled a racist? How many public expressions of bigotry and/or racism must be expressed before we can safely label that person as a racist human being?

RFS62
11-21-2006, 06:32 PM
The 'N' word is more heinous (suposedly) than the 'P' word because we, as a society have been conditioned to believe it is so. Once again, we give the word power; it has no such power based upon its' letters and sounds.

Rem



That's actually my point. It's how the word is used that makes it hateful or unacceptable. And Richards used it in the worst possible way. He wasn't conflicted about it's usage. He knew exactly the effect it would have. You really need to watch the whole thing if you have any doubts about his intent.

remdog
11-21-2006, 06:33 PM
Just replying with some background (as did WilyMo). If you want to be rightous and indignant then go for it. It's been your theme this whole thread.

Rem

remdog
11-21-2006, 06:50 PM
That's actually my point. It's how the word is used that makes it hateful or unacceptable. And Richards used it in the worst possible way. He wasn't conflicted about it's usage. He knew exactly the effect it would have. You really need to watch the whole thing if you have any doubts about his intent.

And that's actually my point. Of course he used it in the worst possible way. When people are hurt they lash out and try to be as hateful and hurtful as possible to their offender. They look for the biggest bludgon they have at their disposal. It's an irrational act of anger and, unless we are privy to their inner most thoughts and emotions and beliefs then we have no basis for labeling someone a racist over a two minute tirade. Until this incident there has never been anything that I am aware of that would indicate that he is a racist. Are you aware of some such act? At the same time, if the person that it was directed to would refuse to let it be hurtful, the act would be totally ineffective.

To me, hanging a damning label of racist on someone because of a two minute tape, taken out of context, is both unfair and wrong.

Rem

WMR
11-21-2006, 06:59 PM
As for Mel Gibson, there have been a number of occasions in which his racial viewpoints have been questioned while Richards' has never been known to be hostile to other races. That, to me, is the main difference.

Rem

Ahh yes, but is he an anti-dentite?

traderumor
11-21-2006, 07:16 PM
Or you can go on through life getting emotionally distraught everytime someone calls you an idiot. I suppose it's your call. But arguing that "n*****" and "prick" are somehow co-existing in the same realm is an argument divorced from reality.

The reaction on this thread is interesting to me, particularly considering that I just did a quick perusal of the thread dealing with Mel Gibson's arrest and (drunken) anti-Semitic tirade, and the explanations for his behavior were not nearly as forgiving. Which leads me to wonder: if Richards had hurled a string of anti-Semitic slurs and told the heckler that Hitler should have just finished the job, would the reactions here be any different? Would some here still seek to explain Richards' actions as those of a man who was merely pushed to the limit and responded in a way that was not truly indicative of how he felt, or would we be more damning of him?

Why doesn't that argument work going the other way? Why not simply tell the black gentleman in this episode to quit getting "emotionally distraught everytime someone calls you that name?" See, in my reality, calling any human being a disparaging name is a serious offense against my fellow human being. This episode brings up the inconsistency in which this is applied in our culture, and you have been all too happy to carry that torch of inconsistency.

Dom Heffner
11-21-2006, 07:25 PM
I feel the same way about Richards tirade as I did about Mel Gibson's much publicized anti-Semitic rant: If the feelings weren't somehow there to begin with, they would not have been expressed.


See- the flaw in this argument is that you are saying that anytime someone expresses something they mean it. We know this is not true.

Honestly, Registerthis: have you absolutely meant every single thing you have ever said?

Ever heard the saying, "It was in the heat of the moment?"

To me, this is no different than trying to win a verbal argument with someone who just stung you.

I have nothing against short people, but if I wanted to get under somebody's skin who was shorter than I was, all I have to do is bring this up to them, right?

"Hey shrimp..."

It doesn't necessarily mean I actually have something against short people, it could mean I have an understanding that people who are short could be offended by that statement. That understanding is a way by which to get an upperhand in an argument. It does not have to represent the truth. Granted, Richards is a moron for going that way with it.

remdog
11-21-2006, 07:39 PM
Well, as always, it's been 'loverly'....but I have to go. I have a mixed doubles match this afternoon. I'm the Polock/Mick token for my partners the WOP, the Nipper and the Beaner.

We tried to include an 'N'worder in the match but since this Richards' thing they've all been really busy with everybody trying to get them on court so we don't get called racist. :evil:

Rem

Caveat Emperor
11-21-2006, 07:39 PM
That's actually my point. It's how the word is used that makes it hateful or unacceptable. And Richards used it in the worst possible way. He wasn't conflicted about it's usage. He knew exactly the effect it would have. You really need to watch the whole thing if you have any doubts about his intent.

His intent was to vent anger and frustartion at this heckler -- so he went right for the worst possible thing he could call that person. If it had been two women sitting there heckling him and getting under his skin, would the tirade have been about a word starting with the letter "C"? The more I reflect on it, the more I wonder if that just makes you a deplorable jackass and not so much a racist.

Being a racist means something entirely different then getting mad at someone and letting a racially charged word slip.

Once he got on about lynchings, though -- that removed a lot of doubt.

traderumor
11-21-2006, 07:48 PM
In your world, perhaps. I'm simply not prepared to equate "n*****" with "idiot". If you are, perhaps you have simply progressed to an enlgihtened state the likes of which I can never hope to achieve. More power to you.What is most interesting about your position is that you imply that we can assume you are not a racist because you profusely refuse to use such a word, yet the actions of Richards (again, which are despicable, make no mistake about my feelings there) proves he is racist, in your scheme of things. Really, from a logical standpoint, neither argument is sound.

CougarQuest
11-21-2006, 08:45 PM
-Watching that video, it felt like the camera was under the influence.

-There was more than one person making racial comments. Is it ok to say racial comments once racial comments are made towards you? If one is labled racist, shouldn't the other also?

-There was more than one person that was outlandishly rude.

-Right before Richards walks off the stage, does someone say they are going to sue him?

-Was someone attempting to make a bootleg video of Richard's comedy? Are they now making a bunch of money off this incident?

-After watching that "apology", Krammer came off a lot more mentally stable than Richards.

-Did anyone notice how red David Letterman's face was when he was talking to Richards?

Ltlabner
11-21-2006, 09:26 PM
That's actually my point. It's how the word is used that makes it hateful or unacceptable. And Richards used it in the worst possible way. He wasn't conflicted about it's usage. He knew exactly the effect it would have. You really need to watch the whole thing if you have any doubts about his intent.

This is where I fall on the spectrum. It would be one thing if he simply used the N word once and went on about how the hecklers momma was fat, or they didn't understand the jokes or some other standard comedian comeback. That would be very poor judgement indeed but certinatly not "proof" of being a racist.

But it's the context. It's a lengthy tirade (the parts I can understand). It's the use of the N word specifically with the intent to hurt or cut down the hecklers. That's coupled with the intentional inferences of lynchings and "interupting white people". It's his intent to make clear that the hecklers know his anger vis a vis calling all that goes with those charged ideas.

Dom, I've probably said things I didn't mean in the heat of the moment, but after thinking about this today, I think the essence of everything I've ever said has been true. For example, in a heated argument I may say something mean to Ms Ltlabner. The words might not actually be what I am thinking (probably over dramticized) the the essensce of my anger or what I am fealing is most certinally true.

I think it's the essence of what Richardson communicates that gives one reason to question his motives.

GAC
11-21-2006, 10:21 PM
I watched the video and due to it's poor quality couldn't understand a thing that was said. So I'll have to take what everyone else is saying. :lol:

What he did was obviously wrong.

Was it the result of drugs and/or alcohol? Who knows.

I'm not justifying at all what he did.

But to those same individuals who are condemning him - have they, at any time in their lives, ever said wrongful, inappropriate, and yes, even hateful words towards just not another ethnic group, but other cultures or peoples in different regions of the country who are simply different?

And I am talking about isolated situations, not a proven pattern of behavior.

And it may have been as a result of drug/alcohol use, which causes people to do really stupid and ignorant things. Things that you won't make in "normal" situations, and also don't adhere to.

In my younger days I know that I have. I regretted it, and thankful enough learned and grew from the experience.

It's what you do (and learn) from those experiences that counts.

I'm not going to label the guy a racist over one situation. Just that I am disappointed and hope he learns from it and knows what he did (and mabe believes) is wrong.

Mutaman
11-21-2006, 10:51 PM
This thread is great, just like the old days when we used to be able to argue politics. I won't call Richards a racist until somebody here defines that word, but I will certainly call him an Ass----. (Definition: "a jerk").

Reds Nd2
11-21-2006, 11:46 PM
You really need to watch the whole thing if you have any doubts about his intent.

Which brings up something that I've pondered all day. What were the hecklers saying before the tape began rolling?

WMR
11-21-2006, 11:55 PM
Why did the black guy call him a "cracker-ass MF'er" after Richards called him a ******?

Does that mean that that black guy thinks all white people are crackers? That word applied to every other white person in that room... that guy must really hate whitey.

Reg, still waiting for your response.

WMR
11-21-2006, 11:57 PM
Which brings up something that I've pondered all day. What were the hecklers saying before the tape began rolling?

Hmmm, yeah was the one time we heard "CRACKER" on tape the only time that particular EPITHET was uttered?

Before we send Mr. Richards to the gallows, it'd be nice to know.

Reds Nd2
11-22-2006, 12:43 AM
Hmmm, yeah was the one time we heard "CRACKER" on tape the only time that particular EPITHET was uttered?

Before we send Mr. Richards to the gallows, it'd be nice to know.

I don't know. I wasn't there, but it would be nice to hear the entire interaction between Michael Richards and the crowd before the outburst occurred.

Razor Shines
11-22-2006, 03:22 AM
I was watching Seinfeld tonight and it was the one where Jerry goes to visit his parents and takes the "World's Best Dad" T-shirt to his dad. Before he leaves Kramer asks if Jerry bring back some Cubans for him. Jerry says no and Kramer responds with "Oh come on, help a brother out." And I laughed and I laughed, how fitting that that episode was on.

I've heard some people today say that they won't watch Seinfeld anymore and was wondering if any on this board felt that way. Personally I'll still watch. If I didn't watch movies/shows because I didn't agree with or like what a certain actor/actress did or said in their personal life then I probably would watch none. In the same way I wouldn't watch a crappy movie or show just because some actor/actress is a good person, let's be honest Larenzo Lamas could discover the cure cancer or AIDS or both but we still wouldn't watch "Terminal Justice" (flipped through the channels for a good example).

The Baumer
11-22-2006, 06:08 AM
As Yogia Berra once said:

"If he talks like a racist, and walks like a racist, he is probably just a poor schmuck who got angry once and let the N word slip for 3 minutes in a row."

Yachtzee
11-22-2006, 12:36 PM
Did anyone else, while watching the video, secretly hope that someone would have yelled "Hey Kramer! The Jerk Store called and they're all out of YOU!" Am I the only dork here?

Dom Heffner
11-22-2006, 10:49 PM
After seeing more of the video and watching an interview with the men that Richards fought with- my opinion is shifting away from Richards.

We'll wait and see who corroborates what, but according to the men, Richards started in on them before they even "heckled" him.

That changes everything, if true.

It'll be interesting to watch this play out.

RedFanAlways1966
11-22-2006, 11:07 PM
After seeing more of the video and watching an interview with the men that Richards fought with- my opinion is shifting away from Richards.

We'll wait and see who corroborates what, but according to the men, Richards started in on them before they even "heckled" him.

That changes everything, if true.

It'll be interesting to watch this play out.

Heard this tonight, Dom... the men are also filing a lawsuit (represented by Gloria Allred) against Richards for pain-and-suffering. Therefore, I'd take anything they say with a huge grain of salt.

jmcclain19
11-23-2006, 04:06 AM
http://media.collegehumor.com/ch6/7/b/collegehumor.297c887782a043c6a136b6cb36dadcad.jpg

GAC
11-23-2006, 05:50 AM
We all know that what he did was wrong. I just don't like the fact that it is being made into such a HUGE issue, and mainly because Richards is white.

What bothers me most in our society is the hypocrisy. The media will make a huge issue of what Richards did... a white man slinging racial slurs at blacks.... but nothing much is said of black comedians (Chris Rock and others), as well as a lot of today's rap musicians, who consistently use the term "cracker" in their routines/music??

And what about the huge popularity, within rap/hip hop music, and now within the young black culture, of the use of the derivative of the "N" word where they have dropped the "er" off the end and use "a"?

I was a huge fan of Richard Pryor and Redd Foxx when I was younger. They used the "N" word alot.

My question is.... Is there a context/setting when using the word is somehow acceptable/appropriate?

It's OK to use it to get a laugh, but not OK when the emotion of anger is behind it?

Is the word hurtful or not?

If Richards had controlled his emotions when these hecklers started in... and were these guys the hecklers (I don't know)?..... and used the "N" word in a humorous sense to make fun of his hecklers, like these black comedians use the word "cracker" to characterize whites, would it have been more acceptable or palatable?

Or are the rules of political correctness mainly only written for whites?

I listened to those two young men last night, as well as their high-profile lawyer, keep talking about a money settlement, yet they say it's not about the money.

Do some of you really believe that? I don't.

I personally am not one who has bought into or accepted this ridiculous defense of being "psychologically and emotionally traumatized" over words being spoken at you, in the sense of getting a money settlement.

The money settlement eases that emotional trauma?

It's OK to use a word that is deemed emotionally and psychologically hurtful and demeaning in a humorous atmosphere.... but not when spoken in anger?

And once Richards started on his tirade, it was OK then for these men to sling derogatory racial epitaphs back?

I wonder if any whites in the audience were emotionally hurt by what they said and should sue? ;)

Here is an interesting article by a black hip hop blogger (Byron Crawford). He says he has no problem with himself and other backs using those various terms because he found it a convenient way to refer to black people.

But he doesn't like some cracka-a** crackas doing it. But it's OK for him to use that term consistently to characterize whites?

http://xxlmag.com/online/?p=3314

RFS62
11-23-2006, 08:32 AM
Nothing the other people in the audience did is any excuse for what he did. Nothing.

He's a comedian. Handling hecklers is part of the turf.

Their behavior is on them. Richards is responsible for his own behavior. Because he's a celebrity, his actions get the attention.

It's all on him.

GAC
11-23-2006, 08:56 AM
Nothing the other people in the audience did is any excuse for what he did. Nothing.

I agree. Not excusing or making excuses for what he did/said.

But are their responses justified, or just as bad?

RFS62
11-23-2006, 09:03 AM
I agree. Not excusing or making excuses for what he did/said.

But are their responses justified, or just as bad?


Just as bad. And totally irrelevent to Richards' actions.

I'm not a fan of the new PC world either. It's taken a lot of humor out of everyday life for fear of offending people.

This isn't about PC.

traderumor
11-23-2006, 10:09 AM
Or are the rules of political correctness mainly only written for whites?White Males because you know the world is screwed up from our dominance and advantages that we all enjoy.

GAC
11-23-2006, 12:37 PM
This isn't about PC.

Oh, I agree. This particular episode (rant) is not about PC. But why don't people get just as upset when Chris Rock starts throwing out the cracker word all the time? Where is the attention then?

I guess my point is that the black culture, especially among the young, seems to readily use the "N" word and it's slang variations quite commonly any more.

That is why I don't accept that it's usage is so pschologically and emotionally damaging.

It's wrong, derogatory, and could get you a punch in the mouth.... but emotionally damaging? Not buying it.

Falls City Beer
11-23-2006, 12:41 PM
I guess my point is that the black culture, especially among the young, seems to readily use the "N" word and it's slang variations quite commonly any more.

That is why I don't accept that it's usage is so pschologically and emotionally damaging.

It's wrong, derogatory, and could get you a punch in the mouth.... but emotionally damaging? Not buying it.

Because the harm done by language has nothing to do with the race of the person uttering it.

I'm glad we've got a bunch of white guys to settle this issue for us.

RFS62
11-23-2006, 12:47 PM
The question isn't what harm it did to the people there who heard it.

I'm sure they've heard it before, and as you said, some of them responded in kind with the "cracker" remarks.

The story here is a look into the mind of a celebrity and the surprise is that there are some pretty dark and racist thoughts bouncing around in there.

The lawsuits, if filed, are ridiculous. Anyone trying to profit from this thing is a scumbag.

The whole story is about the look inside a popular man's mind when his inhibitions are down. He said himself that he lost control in a state of rage. It wasn't a bit or a routine.

RANDY IN INDY
11-23-2006, 12:55 PM
Anyone can invent a word that is derogatory to a race. None are any better than another, and they all serve the same purpose. That anyone gets any more upset about one word, above another is pretty ludicrous. There are plenty of hurtful words out there to go around and plenty of people of all races that are using them. They are all guilty.

Falls City Beer
11-23-2006, 01:00 PM
Anyone can invent a word that is derogatory to a race. .

This isn't true at all. Language is a social construct.

It's the Humpty Dumpty principle--when he says, "A word means whatever I say it means," you know you're down the rabbit hole.

If I say I'm going to make up a word that attacks Malaysians, and that word will be "Zemptnus," does that word have cachet, thunder, authority, power? Even if I scream it through gritted teeth at every Malaysian I see?

Of course not.

RANDY IN INDY
11-23-2006, 01:01 PM
And someone initially comes up with a word that is derogatory and starts using it and for whatever reason, it catches on.

Dom Heffner
11-23-2006, 03:57 PM
The story here is a look into the mind of a celebrity and the surprise is that there are some pretty dark and racist thoughts bouncing around in there.

He didn't say anything that any one of us couldn't have come up with if we were trying to shut someone up.

Again- I know that if a woman puts on 100 lbs, she would be hurt if I mentioned it.

It doesn't mean I am thinking about mentioning it, that I hate fat people or anything else. It simply means I am aware of the fact that the statement is hurtful.

If my intent is to hurt someone, then I go for the jugular.

I'm not sure where Richards stands, honestly. I just don't like to brand somebody a racist because they are familiar with what hurts other people.

He did choose to wield it, yes, but that alone doesn't convince me. I've said things to girlfriends that I absolutely never meant in repsonse to things they probably didn't mean, either.

It happens.

I want to see if more truth comes out to see if we can get a better indication of what happened before I make my mind up.

I really hate the argument that just because Richards said these things, he had some deep dark racist thoughts.

It doesn't take a genius- or a racist- to come up with something horrible to say in the heat of the moment.

remdog
11-23-2006, 04:59 PM
Thank you, Dom. Probably the most rational post in the entire thread.

Rem

RANDY IN INDY
11-23-2006, 05:16 PM
I'm with Dom and rem. Great, rational post, Dom.

Falls City Beer
11-23-2006, 06:26 PM
He didn't say anything that any one of us couldn't have come up with if we were trying to shut someone up.

Again- I know that if a woman puts on 100 lbs, she would be hurt if I mentioned it.

It doesn't mean I am thinking about mentioning it, that I hate fat people or anything else. It simply means I am aware of the fact that the statement is hurtful.

If my intent is to hurt someone, then I go for the jugular.

I'm not sure where Richards stands, honestly. I just don't like to brand somebody a racist because they are familiar with what hurts other people.

He did choose to wield it, yes, but that alone doesn't convince me. I've said things to girlfriends that I absolutely never meant in repsonse to things they probably didn't mean, either.

It happens.

I want to see if more truth comes out to see if we can get a better indication of what happened before I make my mind up.

I really hate the argument that just because Richards said these things, he had some deep dark racist thoughts.

It doesn't take a genius- or a racist- to come up with something horrible to say in the heat of the moment.


That's right, I'm guessing. This has more to do with anger (and at this stage in the guy's career, self-hatred) than racism. On its face that's what it looks like. And, yes, racism is far more than words uttered in the heat of the moment.

vaticanplum
11-23-2006, 11:23 PM
I'd guess both. I really believe that racism is not as bad as it was decades ago--I truly believe that progress has been made. While I have no doubt but that many people have also learned to hide their racism as it is not socially acceptable, the fact that racism is not socially acceptable is a sign of some progress.

I agree. We cannot really know whether internal, deep-seeded racism is better or worse than it used to be, but one of the reasons we can't know that is because it is definitely less socially acceptable. There are a handful of people who are still outwardly racist, but most people recognize that, regardless of their own feelings, voicing racist comments will be greeted with disdain, argument and anger. And to a degree, that's all society at large can do is to deal with the acceptability of it, and from that (and education, of course) ideally springs a nice little circle of people realizing that it's not socially acceptable for a reason, ie. it's not acceptable, period.

Which relates directly back to the situation of Michael Richards. I see a lot of questioning in this thread of whether he really "meant" what he said or whether he is truly a racist deep down. So we're questioning whether he's a racist or said racist things. My question is, who cares? Is there really a difference in the context of the situation? If I were dating Michael Richards, sure, I'd want to know whether he had racist feelings deep down or not. But I know nothing about Michael Richards personally and I don't really care to. I know him as an entertainer on a very public stage, one who knows damn well that any tirade like this, no matter from whence it sprung (anger, true hatred, what have you) is going to be picked up on and dissected. So the fact that he chose to carry it out, regardless of reason or motive, is a show of highly questionable judgment at the very least. He's not being tried, he didn't commit a crime, so his motives, while worth speculation, are not actually relevant. But he made statements that inarguably reflect badly on him -- whether because of his beliefs or his judgment alone -- because he is well aware of the social acceptability talked about above and the position he's in. And this will affect the way people think about him and possibly his career. Will I make it a point to never give money to any project with which he's involved? Probably not, but I will likely think of this every time I see him.

GAC
11-24-2006, 07:16 AM
Because the harm done by language has nothing to do with the race of the person uttering it.

It doesn't? Then why is Richards getting so much attention, and being labelled a racist?

I fully understand that Richards was directed out of anger. But when I HAVE listened to Rock and others, even in a comedy setting, I think there's is also directed out of anger.

Of course I'm sure you're going to come back and say theirs is somehow justified, and therefore permissible?


I'm glad we've got a bunch of white guys to settle this issue for us.

Sounds like a bunch of white guys (media) already have. ;)

And no one, including myself, is trying to make excuses or justify what Richards did. He was entirely in the wrong. That point has been explicitly made on here.

if the "N" word is such an emotionally and psychologically harmful word... and I don't say that to say it's OK to use it....As well as other racially offensive language....WHY is it OK for one ethnic group to use the same derogatory terms, even integrate it into their everyday language/conversations.

Why does one ethnic group seem to get a "pass" on using that word, and also derogatory words characterizing whites, but a guy like Richards is all of a sudden branded a racist?

And you're going to try and say race has no play in it?

So are you saying it's simply HOW, and in what context, the word(s) are being used, which then makes it OK?

GAC
11-24-2006, 07:31 AM
Excellent post Dom.

That has been my whole thought and point. Maybe I just wasn't as eloquent in expressing it.

If Richards had been black, and his hecklers white, where he goes off on them and calls them a bunch of "M-F in' crackas", would it have gotten as much media coverage and/or been as serious of an issue?

I would hope so; but I doubt it.

I'm not debating the wrongness of what he did. Nor am I trying to say he should escape accountability. I'm an accountability guy. ;)

He is going to have to live with this episode, and the image it portrays him as, for the rest of his life.

I hope he can somehow redeem himself through a sincere act of repentance over what he did.

My problem is that there is an atmosphere of hypocrisy within our society and media whenever it involves a high profile figure, such as an actor, and that person happens to be white.

I've been "Googling" and finding all types of op-ed pieces, including on some hip hop sites, who are weighing in on this Richards issue.

And I find it disturbing to be reading on some of those hip hop sights, where they are saying "That cracker is a racist!"

Yet they aren't expressing a racist attitude that is no better then his?



He didn't say anything that any one of us couldn't have come up with if we were trying to shut someone up.

As a Christian who believes in the utter sinfulness of the human heart, we are all very capable of it.

I don't want to turn this into religious discussion, but I heard a well known and respected preacher once tell a person who said they didn't believe in the concept of man's fall (original sin) that we are alot closer to Adolph Hitler then Jesus Christ when it comes to the evil potential that resides in man's heart.



It doesn't take a genius- or a racist- to come up with something horrible to say in the heat of the moment.

Anger forces alot of us to say things we would (or should) regret later. It just makes it harder to make amends once it comes out.

vaticanplum
11-24-2006, 12:36 PM
GAC, I agree that racism should be noted across the board, not just from one group. But at this point in our country's history, the reality of it is that we're still dealing with levels of racism. The word "cracker" simply does not carry with it the social implications and the history that the n-word does. I, as a cracker myself, have never had the word thrown at me during an argument and I doubt that any of my ancestors did. Most black people probably cannot say the same about the n-word, and its intent as it stands now, post-civil rights, cannot be misconstrued.

I would love nothing more than for all racist speech -- and more importantly, the feelings behind it -- to be permanently removed from this country in a genuine, voluntary manner. But these things take time and happen in stages. So the fact is that the group that has been most traditionally, publicly, horrifyingly oppressed in this country is still going to get the most attention when any remnant of that -- regardless of intention -- is brought to light. It's not totally fair, no. But it's understandable, and in the human race as we know it now, it is probably the quickest and most direct way to move on the stepladder toward eliminating as much racism as possible across the board.

vaticanplum
11-24-2006, 12:50 PM
As a Christian who believes in the utter sinfulness of the human heart, we are all very capable of it.

I don't want to turn this into religious discussion, but I heard a well known and respected preacher once tell a person who said they didn't believe in the concept of man's fall (original sin) that we are alot closer to Adolph Hitler then Jesus Christ when it comes to the evil potential that resides in man's heart.

I don't believe that. I believe that the human heart has more good than bad. Or more to the point, we all may carry original sin within us, but it is the goal of life -- religiously speaking or not -- to live well and make the choices not to carry out that sin as often as we can. That's why I take Richards to task for comments like this. It's not because he has anger or hatred or what-have-you inside, the same as we all do. It's because he made the CHOICE to carry out hateful speech and direct it towards others.

GAC
11-24-2006, 01:58 PM
GAC, I agree that racism should be noted across the board, not just from one group. But at this point in our country's history, the reality of it is that we're still dealing with levels of racism. The word "cracker" simply does not carry with it the social implications and the history that the n-word does.

It's not about history though and which word has been around the longest.

It's about the intent behind the word to those it is directed. They are both hateful, meant to inflict harm, and not only demean that group it is directed at, but also to incite anger back.


I, as a cracker myself, have never had the word thrown at me during an argument

Not in an argument, but in an after work locker room setting where a couple black co-workers loved to vocally throw the word cracker and redneck around quite a bit at us in a general sense. They thought it was funny to do so, could do so with impunity, and most standing around felt they did it to try and incite white co-workers to rise up in anger and say something they would regret.

There were several such incidents like these, and on a daily basis while they were in our department. They have since transferred to other divisions.

I confronted him one time when he was in the locker room spouting off. Not to me personally, but just spouting off about white people in general. Most ignored him a majority of the time; but I just got tired of hearing it. I told him I wasn't going to run to admin to report him, but that he simply needs to stop it as it wasn't funny anymore. He then tells me to my face that he didn't like white people. I sarcastically said "No kidding? And yet none of us here, and as long as we've worked next to you, has ever done a darn thing to you to deserve such treatment from you. I think you're a bigger racist then anyone in this locker room."

Now if I said I didn't like black people, what do you think would have happened to me?


Most black people probably cannot say the same about the n-word, and its intent as it stands now, post-civil rights, cannot be misconstrued.

I agree if you're referring to the older generation. They understand far greater the implications behind the word and it's origin. But the younger hip hop generation does not, and throws the word around, and it's variations, quite frequently in reference to each other.

Race relations, and improving them, is a two-way street. And there has to be a better balance within our society at how ALL racially motivated and derogatory terms at treated.

It shouldn't be terrible for one group, and yet not so bad and/or some what acceptable for another.

GAC
11-24-2006, 02:03 PM
I don't believe that. I believe that the human heart has more good than bad. Or more to the point, we all may carry original sin within us, but it is the goal of life -- religiously speaking or not -- to live well and make the choices not to carry out that sin as often as we can. That's why I take Richards to task for comments like this. It's not because he has anger or hatred or what-have-you inside, the same as we all do. It's because he made the CHOICE to carry out hateful speech and direct it towards others.

I agree. He made the choice and should be held accountable. I've made that clear. I just don't like the rush to judgment that the guy is a racist over one incident, when there hasn't even been a pattern of such behavior by the guy previously.

My point about "original sin" is simply that that "potential" for doing evil... that same potential that rose up and motivated Richards... resides in us all. And at times within our lives we all, at some point, will (or have) yielded to it and do/say stupid things. Even as we try to live circumspect lives.

And when we do, we should be held accountable, and understand the consequences.

vaticanplum
11-24-2006, 02:47 PM
I confronted him one time when he was in the locker room spouting off. Not to me personally, but just spouting off about white people in general. Most ignored him a majority of the time; but I just got tired of hearing it. I told him I wasn't going to run to admin to report him, but that he simply needs to stop it as it wasn't funny anymore. He then tells me to my face that he didn't like white people. I sarcastically said "No kidding? And yet none of us here, and as long as we've worked next to you, has ever done a darn thing to you to deserve such treatment from you. I think you're a bigger racist then anyone in this locker room."

Now if I said I didn't like black people, what do you think would have happened to me?

It's not a tit for tat, though. I think you were totally justified in what you did and said. You and I agree that all racism should be dealt with. I'm just trying to provide an explanation of why one kind of racism is jumped on quicker than another: because it has far more history and connotation to it. I am not saying it's right, I'm just saying that this is why it happens.


I agree if you're referring to the older generation. They understand far greater the implications behind the word and it's origin. But the younger hip hop generation does not, and throws the word around, and it's variations, quite frequently in reference to each other.

This I patently disagree with. I am part of that generation. They understand very well what that word means and what it implies. Some may choose to ignore it and try to "reclaim" the word as their own. But that is an educated choice, not an ignorant oversight, and a choice I don't agree with, for the record. There is just too much tied to that word.

I guarantee that all of my little white cousins, pretty sheltered kids who albeit live in a pretty racially diverse neighborhood, have never heard the word "cracker". But they know the n-word and they know that they would be punished heavily if they used it, at home or at school.

savafan
11-24-2006, 03:38 PM
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23375603-details/Kramer's+career+in+freefall+after+fresh+claims+of+ racism/article.do

Richards launched a furious rant at two black hecklers during a standup show in Los Angeles last weekend.

At the request of pal Jerry Seinfeld, Richards later appeared via satellite on the David Letterman Show to apologise.

But he has now been accused of making anti-Jewish comments during a stand-up routine as well.

Richards allegedly lashed out at Jews during performance earlier this year, yelling at one audience member: "You're a f***ing Jew. Your people are the cause of Jesus dying."

Carol Oschin, who was at the show, said: "We didn't know if this was part of the act. He was getting very (verbally) violent, very agitated."

Dom Heffner
11-24-2006, 04:07 PM
Richards allegedly lashed out at Jews during performance earlier this year, yelling at one audience member: "You're a f***ing Jew. Your people are the cause of Jesus dying."


His agent has said that he was role playing during the act.

Richards himself is Jewish, so if he is anti-semitic that would be a surprise.

RANDY IN INDY
11-24-2006, 04:55 PM
Quite interesting that this thread has stayed alive for 7 pages while the Brandon Claussen human interest story died at 2 pages.

traderumor
11-24-2006, 05:39 PM
His agent has said that he was role playing during the act.

Richards himself is Jewish, so if he is anti-semitic that would be a surprise.By current standards, he has the right to call someone a Jew because he is one ;)

GAC
11-25-2006, 01:59 PM
This I patently disagree with. I am part of that generation.

I was referring to the older black generation (60+) prior to the civil rights movement. Sorry I didn't clarify that.

That generation fought long and hard, gained territory, earned respect, and endured a lot that today's young black youth seem to take for granted. And alot of that older black generation has stepped forward, shown alot of skepticism and anger at the hip hop generation, and said that the black youth today, while still facing some hurdles, never had to face what they did, and are not taking advantage of the gains their parents/grandparents fought for; but are wasting those opportunities.

How would you feel if you were from that older black generation, and you understood what the "N" word and numerous other derogatory words, when directed at them, was meant to imply..... yet you hear your grandchildren using those very same words/vernacular in everyday conversations with their peers?

I could understand that older generation showing greater anger whenever they hear that word. But now they are having to hear it coming from the mouths of their own children when interacting with each other.

GAC
11-26-2006, 07:14 AM
Now I find this interesting. Richards is to appear on Jesse Jackson's radio show to attempt to find some closure to this situation.

What I found interesting in this article is Jackson saying to Richards.... "Why do you hate blacks?" and that Richards needs psychiatric help.

I think at that stage I might have asked Jesse, using that same logic and line of reasoning, if he hates Jews because of ill-conceived comments he has made in the past, and did he get professional assistance? ;)

Now it may very well be true that Richards MAY have a problem that needs professional help. But unless it can be shown that he has a history of showing a similar pattern of behavior, then this one incident does not necessarily prove the guy needs psychiatric help. And I don't think Jackson, of all people, is qualified IMO to be making that assessment.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/16097757.htm

Jackson: Richards' participation in radio program a chance to apologize

Associated Press

CHICAGO - Actor Michael Richards will appear on the Rev. Jesse Jackson's nationally syndicated radio program to discuss his racist rant at a Los Angeles comedy club, Jackson said Saturday.

Richards' participation in the "Keep Hope Alive" program is a chance to reach out and apologize to the black community, Jackson said.

"He is embarrassed," said Jackson, who spoke to Richards by telephone this week after being contacted by the actor's publicist. "I think he wants to recover from the pain he now feels and the pain he's caused others."

While he called Richards' words "hateful," "sick," and "deep-seeded," Jackson said his inclusion in the radio show would be a chance for a broader discussion about black actors, writers and directors' "cultural isolation" in the entertainment industry.

"We might turn this minus into a plus," Jackson said.

Richards, who played Jerry Seinfeld's wacky neighbor Kramer on the TV sitcom "Seinfeld," was performing at West Hollywood's Laugh Factory last week when he lashed out at hecklers with a string of racial obscenities and profane language. A cell phone videocamera captured the outburst, and the incident later appeared on TMZ.com.

Richards appeared via satellite on the "Late Show with David Letterman" on Monday, when he said the tirade was fueled by anger at being heckled and not bigotry. He also apologized to civil rights leader the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Richards' publicist, Howard Rubenstein, has said his client also wants to apologize to two men he insulted, but hasn't been able to locate them.

Jackson said Richards apologized to him, but his "public meltdown" showed he needs psychiatric help.

"I asked him, 'Why do you hate blacks? Have you been robbed or accosted or molested in some way?'" Jackson said. "He said, 'No, I can't quite explain it.' I said, 'That's why you need to talk it out."

Richards' publicist, Howard Rubenstein, did not immediately return telephone calls for comment Saturday by The Associated Press.

Chip R
11-26-2006, 11:13 AM
Quite interesting that this thread has stayed alive for 7 pages while the Brandon Claussen human interest story died at 2 pages.


Is there some reason this thread should be closed?

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 12:21 PM
Is there some reason this thread should be closed?

It's both political and religious?

I don't think it's fair to try to have it both ways. Because there's a bunch of things I'd like to say on this thread (legitimate opinions) that I know would get this thread shut down in a Detroit minute.

I agree with Randy--this thread should be shut down.

westofyou
11-26-2006, 12:23 PM
Because there's a bunch of things I'd like to say on this thread (legitimate opinions) that I know would get this thread shut down in a Detroit minute.
Me as well, I spent good money on a liberal arts education to beat down many of the arguments being touted as truth in this thread.

Dom Heffner
11-26-2006, 01:42 PM
Everybody has behaved on here- there is nothing overtly political or religious.

We are addressing a current issue in the news that is not being voted on by anybody, not on any church agendas, etc.

There are certainly ways to express opinions that don't cross political or religious lines as well. I would love to hear what WOY or FCB have to say concerning this and there are creative ways for them to do so if they feel they have to cross into rough territory.

Also- Was Randy saying the thread should be closed or was he saying that a more important thread faded into oblivion and this one has stayed on the front page (I'm not familiar with the Claussen thread, so forgive the ignorance) or was that thread race related and closed for political or religious reasons?

Chip R
11-26-2006, 01:47 PM
It's both political and religious?



It is? How? :confused: I haven't seen this get political or religious at all. Just because you're upset at that other thread being closed doesn't mean this one should be.

Dom Heffner
11-26-2006, 01:51 PM
It is? How?

I agree, Chip. Race can be a political issue but inherently it is not.

westofyou
11-26-2006, 02:11 PM
Does that black guy saying cracker mean he's a racist?

IMO things like this detract from the issue, it attempts to deflect and equalize words that have complete distinct and different histories.

First if you look at those who might be crackers and you see that they are the majority when compared to blacks. There is no time in history where the majority didn't have the power over the minority. Use of both words are emitted from two different positions, power and submission. Both come from anger, but only ones history has the deep roots of pain and abuse. So in short, no they aren't equal and they come from completely different states of mind.

RANDY IN INDY
11-26-2006, 02:45 PM
Race has always been a hot-button political issue.

Dom Heffner
11-26-2006, 02:58 PM
There is no time in history where the majority didn't have the power over the minority. Use of both words are emitted from two different positions, power and submission. Both come from anger, but only ones history has the deep roots of pain and abuse. So in short, no they aren't equal and they come from completely different states of mind.


I agree wholeheartedly. Name a time a white mother had to teach her children about the dangers of racism being used against them in the world.

Every black mother tells (or should tell) her kid about this.

The difference between cracker and the n-word is seen in that I could type all of one out on here, yet had to represent the other with a replacement.

Some would see that as a double standard, I would argue it shows how hurtful one word is over the other.

You can call me the former all day, to be honest, it really doesn't mean anything to me and I believe that is because it does not hold the history that the latter does.

Slavery, true prejudice. Those are immensely hurtful things. Calling me "cracker" as an equalizer falls a little hollow because there is absolutely nothing to tie it to. I will never be held out of a job because I'm white, pretty much never be denied anything. My relatives were not slaves held captive simply for the color of their skin.

A small story. One time I was lost in Camden, New Jersey at around 10 at night. Not the place you want to get lost, believe me. When I realized I was in the middle of the projects, I turned my car around in the middle of the road. When I faced the other way, there were about twenty African american kids throwing bricks and rocks at my car while screaming "cracker" at me. Sure, it was a racist thing to say and damaging my car was not nice, either, but I tell you, I escaped and while driving home I had no idea what they meant by cracker. My black friend had to tell me. When I found out, it didn't sting at all. How could it?

There is a huge difference in the meaning of the words and that is why there appears to be a double standard when there is not.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 03:32 PM
Everybody has behaved on here- there is nothing overtly political or religious.

?

That's not the point, really. The point isn't that we be nice on political and religious threads, the point is that they are forbidden on the site, civil or not. I was involved in many civil political discussions when they were permitted on the non-BB side; I was also involved in many undignified discussions. But to the best of my knowledge, they were ALL swept away, no matter their relative "niceness."

For the record, I got a very nasty pm over the Claussen thread, and I didn't say ANYTHING even remotely offensive. I was just having some random fun.

redsupport made a slightly offensive post and was completely ganged up upon. But I guess since redsupport irks people with his historical posts, it's okay, right?


But I am ALL for bringing back political and religious threads whole-hog, if the mods are up to it.

traderumor
11-26-2006, 03:38 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. Name a time a white mother had to teach her children about the dangers of racism being used against them in the world.


Every black mother tells (or should tell) her kid about this.

This type of advice seems to promote excuse-filled living, IMO.

Dom Heffner
11-26-2006, 03:40 PM
That's not the point, really. The point isn't that we be nice on political and religious threads, the point is that they are forbidden on the site, civil or not.

FCB- to clarify, I didn't mean we were behaving as in we are being polite- though we were and still are- I meant that we behaved in the sense that no one had crossed any lines, political or religious.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 03:42 PM
FCB- to clarify, I didn't mean we were behaving as in we are being polite- though we were and still are- I meant that we behaved in the sense that no one had crossed any lines, political or religious.

Come on. This thread is about as political a thread as I've ever seen!

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 03:44 PM
Just because you're upset at that other thread being closed doesn't mean this one should be.

Upset?

I was the one lobbying for the Claussen thread to be shut down.

Chip R
11-26-2006, 03:55 PM
Come on. This thread is about as political a thread as I've ever seen!


Perhaps you should have your vision checked.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 03:56 PM
Perhaps you should have your vision checked.

Just because it's civil doesn't mean it's not very, very political. Race is political. Political is much bigger than politicians, laws, and governance.

Dom Heffner
11-26-2006, 03:57 PM
Come on. This thread is about as political a thread as I've ever seen!


Please.

A liberal Jewish man goes on a racist tirade and both liberals and conservatives can't agree on if the guy is a racist.

When GAC, Traderumor, and I agree on something, trust me, it isn't political. :)

Now, would you just let it go? Pretty please? :)

TeamCasey
11-26-2006, 04:03 PM
http://lastperson.suncircle.org/index.php?topic=606.new#new

I made a thread over here. That should solve the problem.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 04:14 PM
Now, would you just let it go? Pretty please? :)

That's fine.

(I just wish all political threads were allowed on here; those were incredibly great discussions that I learned an assload from).

Shrug.

traderumor
11-26-2006, 05:11 PM
When GAC, Traderumor, and I agree on something, trust me, it isn't political. Truer words never spoken. Now, to shock the world, I'd also agree with FCB, not that this thread is political/religious but that those types of threads are not allowed on here. Let's buy the whole world a Coke and teach it harmony.

GAC
11-26-2006, 06:28 PM
Everybody has behaved on here- there is nothing overtly political or religious.

We are addressing a current issue in the news that is not being voted on by anybody, not on any church agendas, etc.

I agree. I haven't seen anything on here that overtly justifies shutting it down.

If it does... then close it.

Haven't seen it yet.

But everyone has been respectful and pretty even keeled IMO.

GAC
11-26-2006, 06:34 PM
Just because it's civil doesn't mean it's not very, very political. Race is political. Political is much bigger than politicians, laws, and governance.

It's become political simply by the number of times you've typed the word "politics". ;)

Talking about race (relations) does not always involve politics.

It has been more abut people expressing their personal opinions on the subject, with very little politics involved.

If we started a discussion on the politics of baseball, would it have to be shut down simply because it involves politics?

Reds Nd2
11-26-2006, 07:17 PM
IMO things like this detract from the issue, it attempts to deflect and equalize words that have complete distinct and different histories.

First if you look at those who might be crackers and you see that they are the majority when compared to blacks. There is no time in history where the majority didn't have the power over the minority. Use of both words are emitted from two different positions, power and submission. Both come from anger, but only ones history has the deep roots of pain and abuse. So in short, no they aren't equal and they come from completely different states of mind.

This really is a very enlightening post. Thank you for sharing it.

(And no, that's not meant to be sarcastic.)

savafan
12-01-2006, 12:19 PM
Wow, Seinfeld the lost episode...

http://zine.nationallampoon.com/index.php?option=com_jambozine&layout=article&view=page&aid=247&Itemid=32

dabvu2498
12-01-2006, 12:26 PM
Wow, Seinfeld the lost episode...

http://zine.nationallampoon.com/index.php?option=com_jambozine&layout=article&view=page&aid=247&Itemid=32

That may be the funniest thing I've ever seen.

Razor Shines
12-01-2006, 12:46 PM
That's funny and awefully clever.

westofyou
12-01-2006, 01:12 PM
That's funny and awefully clever.

I heard that PJ O'Rourke came up with that idea. ;)

pedro
12-01-2006, 01:42 PM
Wow, Seinfeld the lost episode...

http://zine.nationallampoon.com/index.php?option=com_jambozine&layout=article&view=page&aid=247&Itemid=32

that's pretty funny.

Yachtzee
12-01-2006, 03:04 PM
I heard that PJ O'Rourke came up with that idea. ;)

That PJ, what will he think of next?

RFS62
12-01-2006, 03:10 PM
That was hilarious

pedro
12-01-2006, 03:25 PM
That PJ, what will he think of next?

I hear he has an idea about a movie where a family goes on a vacation.

whackiness ensues.

traderumor
12-01-2006, 05:50 PM
I hear he has an idea about a movie where a family goes on a vacation.

whackiness ensues.Wonder if that concept would work as a Christmas film?

pedro
12-01-2006, 05:57 PM
Wonder if that concept would work as a Christmas film?


I'm thinking "Turkish Prison Vacation". Will Farrell plays the dad and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the loser brother in law that get's him busted.

Hijinks ensue as the wife, played by Lisa Kudrow, tries to spring them with the help of hapless taxi driver played by Kal Penn from Harold and Kumar.

GAC
12-03-2006, 06:59 AM
Hilarious yes. But if I was black I would be offended by the scenes utilized that had the monkey references, even if it was done for the humor aspect.

WMR
01-04-2007, 03:46 PM
In other Seinfeld-related news, I saw that the Jesse Jackson and Rainbow Coalition-boycotted Season 7 of Seinfeld was the fastest selling Seinfeld DVD to date.

Maybe Mel could ask Jesse to boycott Apocalypto when it is released on DVD.