PDA

View Full Version : Mel Gibson sympathizes with Michael Richards


DelMonte
Nov 29th, 2006, 11:25 PM
Mel Gibson sympathizes with Michael Richards

‘My heart went out to the guy,’ says troubled director

The Associated Press
Updated: 5:54 p.m. ET Nov. 29, 2006
NEW YORK - Though he’s lost many fans after being captured on video hurling racist epithets at a comedy club audience, Michael Richards has an ally: Mel Gibson.

“I felt like sending Michael Richards a note,” Gibson says in an interview in Entertainment Weekly’s Dec. 8 issue. “I feel really badly for the guy. He was obviously in a state of stress. You don’t need to be inebriated to be bent out of shape. But my heart went out to the guy.”

The 50-year-old actor-director added: “They’ll probably torture him for a while and then let him go. I like him.”

After his Nov. 17 tirade became known, Richards apologized on David Letterman’s “Late Show” on CBS, saying his remarks were sparked by anger at being heckled, not bigotry. He also apologized to the Rev. Al Sharpton and on the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s syndicated radio program.

Gibson, star of the “Lethal Weapon” movies and director of “The Passion of the Christ,” was mired in a scandal of his own this summer for anti-Semitic comments he made to police in Malibu, Calif., during his arrest on suspicion of drunken driving. He publicly apologized.

Are people refusing to work with him?

“No, people aren’t like that,” Gibson tells the magazine. “Those are just the headlines: Mel ostracized by Hollywood! Hollywood is what you make it. There is no great pooh-bah up there saying, ‘Go! You are condemned!”’

Gibson says he’s not anti-Semitic.

“I never have been and never would be,” he says. “But (the incident) hit this fear thing in me. My god, I made people afraid. ... And it was a horrible feeling. That’s when I said, ‘My god, I don’t want to be that monster.”’


His new movie, “Apocalypto,” from The Walt Disney Co.’s Touchstone Pictures, opens Dec. 8. It is a Mayan-language epic filmed in Mexico chronicling the decline of the native civilization.

He’s confident his past remarks will not hurt the movie at the box office.

“It’s primarily entertainment,” he says of his production. “An 18-year-old college guy, out with his buddies, he’s going to get into the chase. The movie will stand on its own, regardless of any unfortunate experience I may have stumbled upon.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15954748/

DelMonte
Nov 29th, 2006, 11:26 PM
Richards isn't really Jewish, publicist admits

Comic had used Judaism as excuse for anti-Semitic remarks

The Associated Press
Updated: 9:26 p.m. ET Nov. 28, 2006
LOS ANGELES - Just when it seemed Michael Richards was about to leave the most troubling incident of his career behind, his publicist is having to explain how the comic could consider himself to be Jewish.

Last week, crisis-management expert Howard Rubenstein acknowledged that Richards had shouted anti-Semitic remarks in an April standup comedy routine — well before his appearance earlier this month in which he harangued hecklers with the n-word. But he defended Richards’ language about Jews, saying that the comic “is Jewish. He’s not anti-Semitic at all. He was role-playing.”

As Rubenstein’s assertion circulated, Jewish organizations and commentators pointed out that the man who played Cosmo Kramer on “Seinfeld” has not converted to Judaism and neither of his parents are Jewish.

Which makes him ...

“Technically, not having been born by blood as Jewish and not formally going into a conversion, it was purely his interpretation of having adopted Judaism as his religion,” Rubenstein told The Associated Press on Tuesday. “He told me, ‘I’m Jewish,’ when I asked him.

“He said there were two mentors who raised him and who had a big influence on his life, and they were Jewish. He said, ‘I agree with the concepts and the religious beliefs of Judaism and I’ve adopted Judaism as my religion,”’ Rubenstein said. “He really thinks of himself as Jewish.”

What do some Jews think?

“You can’t feel Jewish. It’s not a matter of feeling. You can convert to Judaism. You can’t not convert to Judaism and then be Jewish,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

Hier defined being Jewish from two perspectives, if someone hasn’t gone through the process of formal conversion.

“From the Orthodox point of view, if that person has a Jewish mother, he would be considered Jewish,” Hier said. “In the Reform tradition, there’s also a patrilineage. Under those categories, he would not fit.”

Rabbi Mark S. Diamond of the 280-member Board of Rabbis of Southern California agreed.

“There are many people who appreciate Jewish customs, who may embrace aspects of Jewish culture and practice, but that does not make them Jewish,” he said.

After his tirade came to light, Richards apologized on David Letterman’s “Late Show” on CBS, saying his remarks were sparked by anger at being heckled, not bigotry. He also apologized to the Rev. Al Sharpton, and apologized Sunday on the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s syndicated radio program.


Rubenstein said Richards wasn’t available for an interview Tuesday.

“He wants to rest,” the publicist said. “He’s been talking to his psychiatrist.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15937228/

Scotso
Nov 29th, 2006, 11:26 PM
He also sympathizes with Hitler.

Mel Gibson is pure sleeze.

ico4498
Nov 29th, 2006, 11:35 PM
misery luvs company.

Apoleb
Nov 30th, 2006, 12:19 AM
oh my god. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am, mainly because it's a very stupid thing to say, even if he really sympathizes with him.

kabuki
Nov 30th, 2006, 01:01 AM
Totally predictable. :lol:

Freewoman33
Nov 30th, 2006, 01:03 AM
Birds of a feather flock together.

égalité
Nov 30th, 2006, 01:34 AM
:haha:

Maybe now they can frolic through meadows together, holding hands and spouting hate speech :hearts:

RVD
Nov 30th, 2006, 02:23 AM
Anyone know why Mel Gibson chose to comment at all?! :shrug:
It's an odd thing to do since he himself hasn't fully recovered from his own hate-laced remarks. In fact, Mel's sympathy towards Richards may even have the opposite affect, and hurt Richards even more.
That's just an opinion though. :)

Apoleb
Nov 30th, 2006, 02:35 AM
Anyone know why Mel Gibson chose to comment at all?! :shrug:
It's an odd thing to do since he himself hasn't fully recovered from his own hate-laced remarks. In fact, Mel's sympathy towards Richards may even have the opposite affect, and hurt Richards even more.
That's just an opinion though. :)

I think Richards is already done cause what he said clearly makes him a racist. This will really hurt Gibson a lot more cause Richards is pretty much indefensible. That's why I thought it was really stupid of him to come out in support of Richards like that.

geoepee
Nov 30th, 2006, 02:37 AM
Mel Gibson, sit down.
Why comment at all about this, especially when you're in hot water yourself?

quasar
Nov 30th, 2006, 02:41 AM
People empathize with those who have gone through the same rough patches. It's commendable for Mel Gibson to lend his support. He knows a person should not be judged by the one moment they lost their temper. He knows everyone pointing the finger at Richards has had an outburst at one point or another. Richards' tantrum just happenned to have been exposed by the national media.

Bad PR move by Mel. The fact that he chose solidarity over a fellow "fallen soldier" over his own media-standing strenghtens my respect for the guy. (Even though it pisses me off that he keeps filming movies in dead languages!).

Cheers,

Carlos

Apoleb
Nov 30th, 2006, 02:48 AM
People empathize with those who have gone through the same rough patches. It's commendable for Mel Gibson to lend his support. He knows a person should not be judged by the one moment they lost their temper. He knows everyone pointing the finger at Richards has had an outburst at one point or another. Richards' tantrum just happenned to have been exposed by the national media.

Bad PR move by Mel. The fact that he chose solidarity over a fellow "fallen soldier" over his own media-standing strenghtens my respect for the guy. (Even though it pisses me off that he keeps filming movies in dead languages!).

Cheers,

Carlos


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: fucking please.

Anyone that has a couple of brain cells can tell that Richards is a disgusting racist. Not only did he pour out racial slurs, but disgusting ones too, refering to segregation and slavery. I can't believe there are people who would even dare to make the argument otherwise. People get angry all the time, and they don't just "accidentally" make racial slurs.

quasar
Nov 30th, 2006, 03:29 AM
fucking please right back at ya, mate.

When people get angry--and I mean Hulk-angry--they lose touch with reason and say/do things they wouldn't otherwise. It's unfair to condemn someone based on a moment of insanity, especially when he didn't damage anyone (unless you consider verbal abuse to be inflicting tragic damage).

This has been blown out of proportion because, unfortunately, this kind of crap sells. The media doesn't care if they fuck someone's life as far as their bottom line is favored. I really wonder why there's no information forthcoming regarding Richards' past attitudes towards the black community. It appears to me this is an isolated incident...

Cheers,

Carlos

RVD
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:57 AM
fucking please right back at ya, mate.

When people get angry--and I mean Hulk-angry--they lose touch with reason and say/do things they wouldn't otherwise. It's unfair to condemn someone based on a moment of insanity, especially when he didn't damage anyone (unless you consider verbal abuse to be inflicting tragic damage).

This has been blown out of proportion because, unfortunately, this kind of crap sells. The media doesn't care if they fuck someone's life as far as their bottom line is favored. I really wonder why there's no information forthcoming regarding Richards' past attitudes towards the black community. It appears to me this is an isolated incident...

Cheers,

CarlosWhen I get this angry, I get very VERY quiet. :scared: My kids run to their rooms and wifie sends me outdoors. And that's at home.

Out in public, I get just as quiet, and stand their studying my adversary...discovering their weaknesses. As an Oaktown native, you learn to react accordingly [with so many cops and gangsters around] so as not to get shot. :angel:

Having said that, it's a very 'mentally' weak or sick individual who cannot control his/her temper in or at a public venue. And as an performer [and especially a comedian], this is primary to success on any level. I would hope that of all the people Michael Richards would seek to avoid, Mel Gibson would have to be the #1 pariah. :lol:
I mean honestly now, Mel Gibson is not known for his 'strength-of-character' or 'morals'. Especially since his own outburst exposed the world to his own dark side?
I can't help but believe that Gibson's acts are the products of a Hollywood personality salvaging his ability to secure future income? :hehehe:

Again, we are talking about actors here. :angel:

Kunal
Nov 30th, 2006, 06:30 AM
both are numbnuts

BUBI
Nov 30th, 2006, 08:21 AM
I sympathize with him too! Does that make me a bad person? Poor Kramer :sad:

controlfreak
Nov 30th, 2006, 09:48 AM
Richards isn't really Jewish, publicist admits

Comic had used Judaism as excuse for anti-Semitic remarks

However, my sources tell me..... he IS black!! Thus making his comedy outburst totally acceptable! The joke is on you, hecklers!

Sam L
Nov 30th, 2006, 11:33 AM
My respect for Richards is non-existent now especially after he pretended to be Jewish, if that is true.

I've always known Mel Gibson is anti-semitic scum so what's new?

Beat
Nov 30th, 2006, 12:40 PM
When people get angry--and I mean Hulk-angry--they lose touch with reason and say/do things they wouldn't otherwise.
yes, they say things they wouldn't otherwise, but it doesn't mean they don't think them. the fact that these words come out of their mouths means that they have crossed their minds before. why else would they suddenly appear?

samsung101
Nov 30th, 2006, 04:47 PM
Mel is selling that new movie of his, no matter what. He's
on tv confessing to this and that, with Diane Sawyer, getting
ABC to give his movie one hour of promo time, I'm sure he'll
be with Barbara soon doing another tell-all.


So, here he is with Richards.

Mel, don't speak on this.
Don't speak on anything like this.

From a guy I liked, whose movies I enjoyed, to a guy I
want to just go on a 6 month vacation...away from the
camera. All of them.


Richards screwed up on camera. He got away with until
it became public. Thank goodness for YouTube.

Without that, he'd have just gone on by w/o notice.

May he return to this post-Seinfeld obscurity soon.

quasar
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:47 PM
ReeVeeDinasty:

I mean honestly now, Mel Gibson is not known for his 'strength-of-character' or 'morals'. Especially since his own outburst exposed the world to his own dark side?
See, this is what I don't get about American media. They make a big deal about him being anti-semitic, when his real crime was driving drunk (and I mean, really inebriated!), putting him in a position to accidentally kill innocent people and wreck families apart!

This is what bothers me about these "news". Everybody focuses on the "politically correct" tangent of the story (coz it's the flavor of the day and therefore it sells), even when there are far more important issues at hand (drunk driving, in Gibson's case).

When I get this angry, I get very VERY quiet. My kids run to their rooms and wifie sends me outdoors. And that's at home.
Congrats! You're one of the few who can control they Hyde-an side. :)

Having said that, it's a very 'mentally' weak or sick individual who cannot control his/her temper in or at a public venue.
Probably true. Or perhaps he was going through a really stressful time in his personal life. After all, the dude is what, 56, and this is the 1st time he gets caught for such behavior. If these outbursts were frequent, we would have heard about them before.

Beat:

yes, they say things they wouldn't otherwise, but it doesn't mean they don't think them. the fact that these words come out of their mouths means that they have crossed their minds before. why else would they suddenly appear?

You make a good point, but let me try to explain why personally I don't think that applies to everyone. If I were confronted by someone and got really angry (which fortunately is unlikely coz I got a good temper :) ), I would sure shout out all kinds of societal stereotypes--not personal ones--because they give you ammunition in a verbal war. Sure, most stereotypes I would use would be stupid and I would be fully aware of that fact, but will still use them, simply because, well, it's not a debate we're talking about, it's an infantile tantrum in which two people lose their cool and basically the idea is to come up with the best insults to get your opponent mad or to feel stupid. What you say in such cases does not necessarily represent your personal views of the matter.

BigB08822
Nov 30th, 2006, 06:35 PM
Of course Mel Gibson sympathizes, from one racist to another...

timafi
Nov 30th, 2006, 07:58 PM
Mel just shut the fuck up please and don't associate yourself with that jackass:rolleyes:
worry about your own damn self

LoveFifteen
Nov 30th, 2006, 08:14 PM
What a big fucking surprise that Gibson feels so "bad" for poor Richards, and not for the black guys who bore the brunt of KKKramer's fury. :rolleyes:

Denise4925
Nov 30th, 2006, 08:37 PM
My respect for Richards is non-existent now especially after he pretended to be Jewish, if that is true.

Oh now you lost respect for him :rolleyes:

I've always known Mel Gibson is anti-semitic scum so what's new?

How? Because his father is or because you just knew it?

Mighty funny that when someone white calls someone black, a ****** and talks about lynching them, there must be mitigating circumstances and if we thought "outside the box" we might see that they are not racist.:rolleyes:

Denise4925
Nov 30th, 2006, 08:45 PM
I would sure shout out all kinds of societal stereotypes--not personal ones--because they give you ammunition in a verbal war. Sure, most stereotypes I would use would be stupid and I would be fully aware of that fact, but will still use them, simply because, well, it's not a debate we're talking about, it's an infantile tantrum in which two people lose their cool and basically the idea is to come up with the best insults to get your opponent mad or to feel stupid. What you say in such cases does not necessarily represent your personal views of the matter.

Oh really??!! :weirdo:

It wouldn't occur to me to use societal racial stereotypes for ammunition in an argument, but that might be because I don't think on that level and it seems just a tad bit ignorant. I can think of better arguments in a fight. Personally, if I'm that mad, I'm getting personal, but not racial.

Denise4925
Nov 30th, 2006, 08:46 PM
Oh Mel :banghead: put the bottle down. :rolleyes:

Wigglytuff
Nov 30th, 2006, 08:55 PM
yes, they say things they wouldn't otherwise, but it doesn't mean they don't think them. the fact that these words come out of their mouths means that they have crossed their minds before. why else would they suddenly appear?

exactly!!!

RVD
Nov 30th, 2006, 10:40 PM
ReeVeeDinasty:


See, this is what I don't get about American media. They make a big deal about him being anti-semitic, when his real crime was driving drunk (and I mean, really inebriated!), putting him in a position to accidentally kill innocent people and wreck families apart!

This is what bothers me about these "news". Everybody focuses on the "politically correct" tangent of the story (coz it's the flavor of the day and therefore it sells), even when there are far more important issues at hand (drunk driving, in Gibson's case).Agreed.
Unfortunately, the media often dictates to the public what issues they feel warrants scrutiny. And more often than not they get it wrong. But they do it because certain topics sell papers. Their only concern [again, unfortunately] is to make money. Period. :mad:
Congrats! You're one of the few who can control they Hyde-an side. :)I don't know if congratulations are in order. :lol: But I do know that I subtract time off my life by doing this. Constrained stress can kill a sucka.
Probably true. Or perhaps he was going through a really stressful time in his personal life. After all, the dude is what, 56, and this is the 1st time he gets caught for such behavior. If these outbursts were frequent, we would have heard about them before.With age should come wisdom. :angel:

The fact that Richards is so disturbed and unbalanced in his life as to spout such hatred, and in fact establish a pattern of racists outbursts, is just unforgivable. How can such an act be excused?

.....Except by someone who has done the same, and or feels the same [Mel Gibson].

People can feel sorry for the man all they want. But it still doesn't change what he is nor what he's done. And I would bet my left arm that those few who do feel sorry for Richards wouldn't if their people were attacked in the same way. But I fully understand that we live in a very hypocritical society.

RVD
Nov 30th, 2006, 10:45 PM
Oh now you lost respect for him :rolleyes:



How? Because his father is or because you just knew it?

Mighty funny that when someone white calls someone black, a ****** and talks about lynching them, there must be mitigating circumstances and if we thought "outside the box" we might see that they are not racist.:rolleyes::tape: :tape: :worship:
There are birds of a feather flying around out there....



...and in here. :tape:

What's really funny is that they have no shame in showing their true colors. So do what I do and keep a running tab, and just remember that these folks are what they are. :shrug: :wavey:

RVD
Nov 30th, 2006, 10:52 PM
Oh really??!! :weirdo:

It wouldn't occur to me to use societal racial stereotypes for ammunition in an argument, but that might be because I don't think on that level and it seems just a tad bit ignorant. I can think of better arguments in a fight. Personally, if I'm that mad, I'm getting personal, but not racial.When I was much younger and hanging wit da boys, we'd never call a white guy by a derogatory term..., because none truly exist that were vile enough. Or as vile as the 'N'-word [for them]. However, we would talk smack about their mothers and fathers till everyone within earshot was bust'n with laughter.

As far as I know, and maybe someone can correct me on this, but I'm not aware of any derogatory word or term that carries the same level of hatred and history as the 'N' word. :shrug:

Cat's Pajamas
Nov 30th, 2006, 10:57 PM
I know I'm realllllly far behind on this, I just now saw the video, didn't know there was one :o

but omg Kramer :scared: :o

Totally uncalled for and I'm not sure if he is racist or not now, it sure seemed like their was some resentment in his heart that finally surfaced or something. He could've been just soooo mad that he started saying words that he would normally never say. IDK :o :lol:


What exactly did the black guys say to him that made him so mad?

RVD
Nov 30th, 2006, 11:19 PM
I know I'm realllllly far behind on this, I just now saw the video, didn't know there was one :o

but omg Kramer :scared: :o

Totally uncalled for and I'm not sure if he is racist or not now, it sure seemed like their was some resentment in his heart that finally surfaced or something. He could've been just soooo mad that he started saying words that he would normally never say. IDK :o :lol:


What exactly did the black guys say to him that made him so mad?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15855423/

“I just told him ‘Hey, my friend doesn’t think you’re funny’ and after that happened, he turned around and looked at me and flipped me off and told me ‘F-you n-word,’” Doss said.

quasar
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:34 AM
ReeVeeDinasty:

Constrained stress can kill a sucka.
So you're like Adam Sandler in Anger Management! :)

And I would bet my left arm that those few who do feel sorry for Richards wouldn't if their people were attacked in the same way.
I do not feel sorry for the guy (albeit I think he's being the receptacle of racial tensions that go way back, i.e., being scapegoated in order to satisfy the agenda of the so-called black community leaders--Sharpton and J. Jackson--as well as the always opportunistic media).

Personally, I wouldn't mind if people of my race, country or whatever, were verbally abused. I side with whom I believe speaks the truth, regardless of group affiliation. (Although I respect the deeper sense of belonging that African Americans, Jews, Native Americans (...), may have due to the shared unfair treatment they have received throughout good part of history).

And hereby, I should also mention that my somewhat lackadaisical view of the matter may be distorted but not having personally experienced such racial tensions. It's easier to be a monday morning QB and analyze things from afar than actually being in the "field of battle".

The fact that Richards is so disturbed and unbalanced in his life as to spout such hatred, and in fact establish a pattern of racists outbursts, is just unforgivable. How can such an act be excused?
There's a phrase I like a lot: "Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence." Applying it to the current argument, to me there's no sufficient evidence to prove the presence of racism in Richard's mind. One isolated event does not a racist make. As I mentioned before, if people came forward to offer testimony of how they have been mistreated by Richards throughout the years, that would go a great deal in convincing me. As long as that evidence is not forthcoming, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, attaching to him a Roger Maris-like asterisk, and leave it at that till further proof comes along.

Cheers,

Carlos

quasar
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:53 AM
Denise 4925:

It wouldn't occur to me to use societal racial stereotypes for ammunition in an argument, but that might be because I don't think on that level and it seems just a tad bit ignorant. I can think of better arguments in a fight. Personally, if I'm that mad, I'm getting personal, but not racial.
This is an example of why we must rejoice in our diversity and forge empathy towards others in order to achieve truly meaningful and peaceful communication. To me personal insults are way harsher than racial ones, but I guess that comes from our own personal backgrounds and experiences. And when I say that all kind of verbal vitriol is fair game in a heated discussion, I mean it under the assumption that emotions have overcome reason (as I suspect was Richards' case) and thus your inner-beast has been unleashed (the Hyde-an, Vader-esque side that all of us--to different degress--have ruminating within the confines of our minds) and you have briefly ceased to be your usual self.

(Of course, I don't advocate such behavior, but it's a fact of life that people sometimes lose their cool. I just consider that one's life and accomplishments should not be judged solely based on such atypical instances. To analogize, in a condom-producing line, some will have defects and be thrown away by QC personnel; the fact that defects are present does not mean that all Trojans suck. We must judge integrally to have a better chance of arriving at the truth).

Cheers,

Carlos

meyerpl
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:01 AM
"With so many people advocating tolerence, why do so many people have trouble tolerating Gibson's and Richards' racism?"

- John Rocker

ico4498
Dec 1st, 2006, 03:17 AM
"With so many people advocating tolerence, why do so many people have trouble tolerating Gibson's and Richards' racism?"

LOL!

that's great comedy! the kind that makes yah go "hmm" after you're done laughing.

the serious aspect of the comedy is that i've always known some folks harbored racist beliefs difficult to expose. hell, employment, money earned, criminal prosecution, these discrepancies don't happen in a vacuum. these folks exist and that aint no mystery.

the really funny side of the comedy is that suddenly the apologists want multiple instances (ala quasar) of previous proof. won't even mention that this aint Richards first publically exposed offense .... oops!

any honest and cagey racist (ok, the honest racist bit was a stretch) knows myriad methods of shielding their true intentions. go the Rush Limbaugh method and only mention black folks when it's negative. go the Dubya method and decline any opportunity to meet with black folks. there's a book written in fine print, eight inches thick, about English colonial policies. etc ...

truth is, it's almost impossible to expose a careful hater, now they want multiple instances.

some funny shit there, comics hit paydirt.

quasar
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:44 AM
ico4498:

the really funny side of the comedy is that suddenly the apologists want multiple instances (ala quasar) of previous proof. won't even mention that this aint Richards first publically exposed offense .... oops!
If you have read my posts, you should know I'm not a Richards' apologist (I'm not justifying what he did!); I'm merely pointing out that every argument can be contended both ways and the treatment he's getting seems one-sided and unfair. No apologist of him, I'm, though. (Sorry, I just rewatched Ep III). :)

...won't even mention that this aint Richards first publically exposed offense .... oops
It's to my knowledge (I'm not a scholar on his life, nor plan to become one!), but if it isn't, don't let us hanging! Pray tell! I'm always willing to re-evaluate a situation when knew informations comes to light. Only that way can one hope to approximate to the truth.

meyerpl:

"With so many people advocating tolerence, why do so many people have trouble tolerating Gibson's and Richards' racism?"

- John Rocker

As much as I dislike Rocker, I do respect his sincerity and disdain for political correctness (which 90% of the time is hypocritical, anyway). Sure, his quote abusively leverages semantics to arrive at an apparently logical reasoning, but if rephrased as:

"With so many people advocating tolerence, why do so many people have trouble tolerating other's passive racism?"

I would totally agree with it. Everyone has the right to hold their own personal ideology, as long as they don't actively use it to the detriment of others. And even if one doesn't respect said mindsets, they sure have to be tolerated, if one expects to receive the same treatment. Tolerance is a two-way street.

Cheers,

Carlos

Wigglytuff
Dec 1st, 2006, 05:15 AM
LOL!

that's great comedy! the kind that makes yah go "hmm" after you're done laughing.

the serious aspect of the comedy is that i've always known some folks harbored racist beliefs difficult to expose. hell, employment, money earned, criminal prosecution, these discrepancies don't happen in a vacuum. these folks exist and that aint no mystery.

the really funny side of the comedy is that suddenly the apologists want multiple instances (ala quasar) of previous proof. won't even mention that this aint Richards first publically exposed offense .... oops!

any honest and cagey racist (ok, the honest racist bit was a stretch) knows myriad methods of shielding their true intentions. go the Rush Limbaugh method and only mention black folks when it's negative. go the Dubya method and decline any opportunity to meet with black folks. there's a book written in fine print, eight inches thick, about English colonial policies. etc ...

truth is, it's almost impossible to expose a careful hater, now they want multiple instances.

some funny shit there, comics hit paydirt.

exactly!!! you could even have a video of him calling blacks "******s" and saying they should be hanged and tortured and STILL some people would say he's not racist. :tape: :tape: :tape:

truth is that some people want to justify some kinds of behavior, and no amount of reason or video is going to affect how they view a situation.

Wigglytuff
Dec 1st, 2006, 05:18 AM
"With so many people advocating tolerence, why do so many people have trouble tolerating Gibson's and Richards' racism?"

- John Rocker

you know NAMBLA feels the same way about having sex with children. :help: :help: :help: :help:

Crazy Canuck
Dec 1st, 2006, 05:19 AM
What a tool-bag.

ico4498
Dec 1st, 2006, 05:24 AM
yah know, the nature of racial discussions is a curious study.

apologists will never claim their berth in the dynamic. Richards, in no uncertain terms, claims black folks would be better as cottonwood ornaments and quasar says ...i need more proof, but i'm no apologist. err ... uh-huh.

btw, his previous indiscretion is public record. google it, Richards, anti-Semitic ... anything i tell yah would need more proof.

none so blind, as those committed to ignorance.

regards,
ico

ico4498
Dec 1st, 2006, 05:36 AM
truth is that some people want to justify some kinds of behavior, and no amount of reason or video is going to affect how they view a situation.

sad but true.

RVD
Dec 1st, 2006, 08:23 AM
ico4498:


If you have read my posts, you should know I'm not a Richards' apologist (I'm not justifying what he did!); I'm merely pointing out that every argument can be contended both ways and the treatment he's getting seems one-sided and unfair. No apologist of him, I'm, though. (Sorry, I just rewatched Ep III). :)


It's to my knowledge (I'm not a scholar on his life, nor plan to become one!), but if it isn't, don't let us hanging! Pray tell! I'm always willing to re-evaluate a situation when knew informations comes to light. Only that way can one hope to approximate to the truth.

meyerpl:



As much as I dislike Rocker, I do respect his sincerity and disdain for political correctness (which 90% of the time is hypocritical, anyway). Sure, his quote abusively leverages semantics to arrive at an apparently logical reasoning, but if rephrased as:

"With so many people advocating tolerence, why do so many people have trouble tolerating other's passive racism?"

I would totally agree with it. Everyone has the right to hold their own personal ideology, as long as they don't actively use it to the detriment of others. And even if one doesn't respect said mindsets, they sure have to be tolerated, if one expects to receive the same treatment. Tolerance is a two-way street.

Cheers,

CarlosQuasar, judging from many of your posts, you seem to be a moral-minded very intelligent individual. That said, and as ico4498 has already pointed out, you should consider Googling Michael Richards using tirades, rants, and racist as your keywords. It's all there documented in black and white that this is not his first out-of-control racist offense or rant. It's all there. :shrug:

BUBI
Dec 1st, 2006, 09:48 AM
Lost episode of Seinfeld ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r0nnFn48VM

quasar
Dec 1st, 2006, 05:32 PM
ReeVeeDinasty:

That said, and as ico4498 has already pointed out, you should consider Googling Michael Richards using tirades, rants, and racist as your keywords. It's all there documented in black and white that this is not his first out-of-control racist offense or rant.
I really am not interested in dedicating time to researching his past. I trust you sufficiently for your assertion that he has, indeed, engaged in racial offenses in the past, to become proof enough that he's a racist and that this particular incident was the first to publicly blow up in his face.

As to Richards' racist streak, I'm now convinced (not that it makes him an evil person, though. He could have several virtues that must be considered against his absurd sense of superiority when judging him, integrally, as a person. Just like I've noticed people in this board mistreating whom they judge intellectually inferior--and I'm not forming judgment solely on that--it's only fair than one gives this dude the same treatment).

As a side note--and elaborating on the aforementioned--it's a curious sociological phenomenon that people discriminating based on intelligence is mostly OK, but race is a no-no. After all, both are genetic traits. It appears that it takes the human race to cruelly victimize a set of people, to realize the error of its ways (as in genocide or slavery). I wonder if it would be necessary that a disturbed dictator rounds-up all the "intellectually-challenged" and tortures or enslaves them, for people to understand the unfairness of laughing at less intellectually-gifted individuals, and slur against them to be categorized as politically incorrect, just like racial-related ones.

Cheers,

Carlos

RVD
Dec 2nd, 2006, 12:56 AM
ReeVeeDinasty:


I really am not interested in dedicating time to researching his past. I trust you sufficiently for your assertion that he has, indeed, engaged in racial offenses in the past, to become proof enough that he's a racist and that this particular incident was the first to publicly blow up in his face.

As to Richards' racist streak, I'm now convinced (not that it makes him an evil person, though. He could have several virtues that must be considered against his absurd sense of superiority when judging him, integrally, as a person. Just like I've noticed people in this board mistreating whom they judge intellectually inferior--and I'm not forming judgment solely on that--it's only fair than one gives this dude the same treatment).:) Frankly, I was hoping you'd check and be as surprised as I was. :lol: But thanks all the same. :wavey: By the way, you've composed a logic and fair post.
As a side note--and elaborating on the aforementioned--it's a curious sociological phenomenon that people discriminating based on intelligence is mostly OK, but race is a no-no. After all, both are genetic traits. It appears that it takes the human race to cruelly victimize a set of people, to realize the error of its ways (as in genocide or slavery). I wonder if it would be necessary that a disturbed dictator rounds-up all the "intellectually-challenged" and tortures or enslaves them, for people to understand the unfairness of laughing at less intellectually-gifted individuals, and slur against them to be categorized as politically incorrect, just like racial-related ones.

Cheers,

CarlosWhen I first started posting here, there was a member who labeled me "simple". I recall who it was, but I never held it against him. I just restated my position and beliefs and why I posted sans an abundance of 'power words' and left it at that. I’m by no means a prolific orator with a membership with the Toastmasters [though I've been invited to join ;) ], however I’ve certainly done my share of public speaking, conducted employee training courses, and chaired corporate meeting. Add to that an instructional stint at a trade school [Healds institute of Technology]. So I feel comfortable within my own skin and intelligence level. I also intend to return to college and take courses with my kids. Not for the grade, but because I LOVE learning and discovering, and because what I know is not enough to satisfy my desire for ever more knowledge. :wavey:

quasar
Dec 2nd, 2006, 02:35 AM
ReeVeeD:

When I first started posting here, there was a member who labeled me "simple". I recall who it was, but I never held it against him. I just restated my position and beliefs and why I posted sans an abundance of 'power words' and left it at that.
I, for one, find your posts both eloquent in their presentation, as well as meety as far as content is concerned. But yeah, intellectual "snobism" is quite an arrogant trait that should definitely be eradicated.

I’m by no means a prolific orator with a membership with the Toastmasters
Ignorance: What're the Tostamasters?

I also intend to return to college and take courses with my kids.
That's really cool. I can just imagine the pop trying to copy off his kid's exam! :lol:

Not for the grade, but because I LOVE learning and discovering, and because what I know is not enough to satisfy my desire for ever more knowledge.
None other than Newton said (I'm paraphrasing): I feel like a small kid playing with the sand alonside the coast, while the vast ocean of knowledge lays imperious before me.

Personally, I consider college more a pragmatic necessity than a Mecca for learning. A much more edifying university is the Internet itself, a place where you can investigate across a broad spectrum of subjects at your own pace, and in accordance with your inquisitive goals. College is great at giving you a fair shot at making a living; the Internet, when properly used, is your best bet at getting closer to the elusive concepts of knowledge and truth--for those of us who happen to appreciate them. :)

Cheers, Merry Xmas and Joyeux Noel, all rolled into one,

Carlos

RVD
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:46 AM
ReeVeeD:

.
I, for one, find your posts both eloquent in their presentation, as well as meety as far as content is concerned. But yeah, intellectual "snobism" is quite an arrogant trait that should definitely be eradicated.Thank you. And believe me, the compliment is greatly appreciated. And the feeling is mutual, I assure you. :wavey:
Ignorance: What're the Tostamasters?Check out this link. http://www.toastmasters.org/
And they are fairly world-wide now. They can be a pompous lot though. :o

That's really cool. I can just imagine the pop trying to copy off his kid's exam! :lol::lol: Yeah, and hopefully he can wake me when I fall asleep in class. You know how us old folks are. :tape:

None other than Newton said (I'm paraphrasing): I feel like a small kid playing with the sand alonside the coast, while the vast ocean of knowledge lays imperious before me.Surprisingly, I can relate. :lol:
Personally, I consider college more a pragmatic necessity than a Mecca for learning. A much more edifying university is the Internet itself, a place where you can investigate across a broad spectrum of subjects at your own pace, and in accordance with your inquisitive goals. College is great at giving you a fair shot at making a living; the Internet, when properly used, is your best bet at getting closer to the elusive concepts of knowledge and truth--for those of us who happen to appreciate them. :)

Cheers, Merry Xmas and Joyeux Noel, all rolled into one,

Carlos:worship: I see your point. And honestly, I've gained more knowledge through internet research and debating on membership sites than I could hope to imagine in a classroom environment. One major advantage that the internet offers is a more worldly P.O.V. that you just don't get for various reasons. I suppose the anonymous nature of the net would account for that. Still, it would be fun to compete with a classroom full of young pups. :lol: ;)

And a Feliz Navidad to you too. :wavey:

Veritas
Dec 2nd, 2006, 12:23 PM
I can't say I feel sorry for Richards; that outburst was insane :eek: He had the chance to stop himself earlier, but he went on and obviously the issue with him is more about self control - most are prejudiced and the only difference is the extent we use it in day-to-day life.

It can be tough standing in front of a crowd, but his language is really similar to the ones used back when civil rights didn't exist. It was more than just the "n word"; he referred to things such as the lynchings that makes this more serious than a name-calling competition.

I liked Kramer and still think he's the best character out of Seinfeld, but I now find it easier to distinguish between the actor and the acted. He's taken the steps to do some damage control, but IMO, he needs to work hard for years to come.

Actually, scratch that. It's amazing how despite everything, there are plenty of apologists out there who aren't even KKK :rolleyes: Check out some of the comments to the YouTube video of the incident. I won't be surprised if all is forgotten in just a year. Civil rights just doesn't seem as intense and people have gotten complacent.

Lost episode of Seinfeld ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r0nnFn48VM

:rolls:

mykarma
Dec 2nd, 2006, 02:18 PM
I sympathize with him too! Does that make me a bad person? Poor Kramer :sad:
Does it? :rolleyes:

mykarma
Dec 2nd, 2006, 02:20 PM
My respect for Richards is non-existent now especially after he pretended to be Jewish, if that is true.

I've always known Mel Gibson is anti-semitic scum so what's new?
Oh, so the problem you have with Richards is because he pretended to be Jewish. :lol::lol::lol: Between you and Lord Nelson, you never cease to amaze me. :sad:

mykarma
Dec 2nd, 2006, 02:41 PM
ReeVeeDinasty:

So you're like Adam Sandler in Anger Management! :)

I do not feel sorry for the guy (albeit I think he's being the receptacle of racial tensions that go way back, i.e.,[quote] being scapegoated in order to satisfy the agenda of the so-called black community leaders--Sharpton and J. Jackson--as well as the always opportunistic media). :fiery: Somethings are better left unsaid.
I side with whom I believe speaks the truth, regardless of group affiliation. What truth has Richards spoken?
There's a phrase I like a lot: "Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence." Applying it to the current argument, to me there's no sufficient evidence to prove the presence of racism in Richard's mind. What evidence do you need?
One isolated event does not a racist make
Why not? That's like saying that to kill one person doesn't make you a murderer.
As I mentioned before, if people came forward to offer testimony of how they have been mistreated by Richards throughout the years, that would go a great deal in convincing me.He did the same thing against the jewish community. Is that enough for you?

mykarma
Dec 2nd, 2006, 02:44 PM
LOL!

that's great comedy! the kind that makes yah go "hmm" after you're done laughing.

the serious aspect of the comedy is that i've always known some folks harbored racist beliefs difficult to expose. hell, employment, money earned, criminal prosecution, these discrepancies don't happen in a vacuum. these folks exist and that aint no mystery.

the really funny side of the comedy is that suddenly the apologists want multiple instances (ala quasar) of previous proof. won't even mention that this aint Richards first publically exposed offense .... oops!

any honest and cagey racist (ok, the honest racist bit was a stretch) knows myriad methods of shielding their true intentions. go the Rush Limbaugh method and only mention black folks when it's negative. go the Dubya method and decline any opportunity to meet with black folks. there's a book written in fine print, eight inches thick, about English colonial policies. etc ...

truth is, it's almost impossible to expose a careful hater, now they want multiple instances.

some funny shit there, comics hit paydirt.
The excuses are amazing.

quasar
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:39 PM
ReeVeeDynasty:


I see your point. And honestly, I've gained more knowledge through internet research and debating on membership sites than I could hope to imagine in a classroom environment. One major advantage that the internet offers is a more worldly P.O.V. that you just don't get for various reasons. I suppose the anonymous nature of the net would account for that.
Completely agree! :)

And a Feliz Navidad to you too. :wavey:
¡Muchas gracias! :)

mykarma:
Somethings are better left unsaid.
Others are better when articulated to the audience (as in the present case). :)

What truth has Richards spoken?
None. If you re-read what I said, you'll see my point is that one should side with whomever's right, regardless of elements exogenous to the issue in contention (such as race of the participants, for instance).

Preemptively, I will make clear I think Richards was the main culprit in this abhorrent spectacle. Nonetheless, the dudes that provoked him by telling him he wasn't funny--while he was working--conducted themselves inappropriately, and are not to be praised.

In any case, and just to be clear, I'm not excusing Richards' actions. He was definitely way out of line. My point is that people are rushing to conclusions way too quickly, as I have already commented. Simple as that.

What evidence do you need?
If you read my posts above, you'll see what my requests for evidence were, as well as my admission that they were sufficiently satisfied.

Why not? That's like saying that to kill one person doesn't make you a murderer.
And is murder necessarily always wrong? Is it an absolute? If a soldier kills someone in combat, is he evil? Are American troops in Iraq evil, then? If someone tries to rape your child and you kill him/her in self-defense, are you a ruthless, despicable person?

If people are stranded in a mountain without food and one of them is agonizing painfully without any real hopes of making it alive, is it really that bad for the still-healthy individuals to put an end to his suffering and eat his meat to survive a couple more days?

All I'm saying is that, when reaching conclusions, a holistic approach should be favored in order to understand the circumstances and context of that which is being scrutinized. Only seeing beyond the surface can we expect to grasp a fairer assessment of a situation. That goes not only for Richards' case, but for everything in life.

He did the same thing against the jewish community. Is that enough for you?

See above. :)

Cheers, Merry Xmas and Joyeux Noel, all rolled into one,

Carlos

Rocketta
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:12 PM
None. If you re-read what I said, you'll see my point is that one should side with whomever's right, regardless of elements exogenous to the issue in contention (such as race of the participants, for instance).

Preemptively, I will make clear I think Richards was the main culprit in this abhorrent spectacle. Nonetheless, the dudes that provoked him by telling him he wasn't funny--while he was working--conducted themselves inappropriately, and are not to be praised.

In any case, and just to be clear, I'm not excusing Richards' actions. He was definitely way out of line. My point is that people are rushing to conclusions way too quickly, as I have already commented. Simple as that.



if you want people not to rush to judge maybe you should investigate what actually happens before you decide to play Ghandi to a situation. Had you bothered to do that you would know that the guys did nothing to provoke him other than walk in late and order drinks. Richards started making racial jokes about blacks and mexicans to which the guys responding you're not funny. Sometimes things are quite simple and when you look for ways to make it complicated you just make yourself look like a sympathizer. :rolleyes:

quasar
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:33 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Rocketta. :) Then the fellas were totally justified in their actions and Richards' should bear all the guilt pertaining to this incident.

Btw, I'm not trying to complicate things; the place I read about Richards' having been offended 1st, ommitted the fact that he was using offensive material himself prior to being heckled.

Cheers, Merry Xmas and Joyeux Noel, all rolled into one,

Carlos

mykarma
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:41 PM
ReeVeeDynasty:


Completely agree! :)


¡Muchas gracias! :)

mykarma:

Others are better when articulated to the audience (as in the present case). :)


None. If you re-read what I said, you'll see my point is that one should side with whomever's right, regardless of elements exogenous to the issue in contention (such as race of the participants, for instance).

[quote] Preemptively, I will make clear I think Richards was the main culprit in this abhorrent spectacle. Nonetheless, the dudes that provoked him by telling him he wasn't funnyHe's suppose to be a professional comedian. All other professional comedians that spoke about it said that Richards was wrong. George Lopez, a REAL standup comedian was there and said there was no reason for Richards to go off like that. Comedians get heckled all of the time. As a matter of fact, a lot of them will pick someone out of the audience to harass if no one heckles them.

A professional is the one with them mic and it he/she is worth a damn will have the crowd laughing at the heckler. When these people walked in, Richards started in on them. If his ass isn't funny, he's just not funny. You don't go on a racial tirate that's so bad that people walk out on your act. If you want to make excuses for him that's your right but to blame those guys is crazy. They weren't in church where you sit an listen to the preacher, they were at a comedy club listening to a not so funny has-been.

What does he have to do for some people to see him for what he is, kill some damn body.

It's like I heard on access holiday (I think), this guy said that Richards and Gibson could have a klan meeting. Instead of wearing sheets, the would be driving their mercedes. :lol:

mykarma
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:42 PM
if you want people not to rush to judge maybe you should investigate what actually happens before you decide to play Ghandi to a situation. Had you bothered to do that you would know that the guys did nothing to provoke him other than walk in late and order drinks. Richards started making racial jokes about blacks and mexicans to which the guys responding you're not funny. Sometimes things are quite simple and when you look for ways to make it complicated you just make yourself look like a sympathizer. :rolleyes:

:worship::worship::worship:

Sam L
Dec 2nd, 2006, 11:16 PM
the guys did nothing to provoke him other than walk in late and order drinks.

Bullshit! They were heckling him. It doesn't excuse what he did and I'm not a sympathizer but they were provoking him.

mykarma
Dec 3rd, 2006, 01:24 AM
Bullshit! They were heckling him. It doesn't excuse what he did and [quote]I'm not a sympathizer Now that's what :bs:

RVD
Dec 3rd, 2006, 02:34 AM
Bullshit! They were heckling him. It doesn't excuse what he did and I'm not a sympathizer but they were provoking him.I believe what is being stated is that Richards attacked them during his stand-up routine first [when the men arrived late to the club. After which is when the "hecklers" said he wasn't funny.
This was already confirmed in earlier posts and articles. :wavey:
Pretty easy to comprehend when the proper sequence of events are posted. ;)

Rocketta
Dec 3rd, 2006, 03:33 AM
Bullshit! They were heckling him. It doesn't excuse what he did and I'm not a sympathizer but they were provoking him.

One who the hell was talking to you? and Two, you are talking out of your ass unless you think the man yelling '******' at the top of his lungs is telling the truth. Oh wait you probably do. :tape:

Rocketta
Dec 3rd, 2006, 03:36 AM
I believe what is being stated is that Richards attacked them during his stand-up routine first [when the men arrived late to the club. After which is when the "hecklers" said he wasn't funny.
This was already confirmed in earlier posts and articles. :wavey:
Pretty easy to comprehend when the proper sequence of events are posted. ;)

well you have to read the actual stories and watch the actual videos for comprehension to even have a chance. :o

Sam L
Dec 3rd, 2006, 03:40 AM
I believe what is being stated is that Richards attacked them during his stand-up routine first [when the men arrived late to the club. After which is when the "hecklers" said he wasn't funny.
This was already confirmed in earlier posts and articles. :wavey:
Pretty easy to comprehend when the proper sequence of events are posted. ;)

I saw the video and I saw otherwise.

One who the hell was talking to you? and Two, you are talking out of your ass unless you think the man yelling '******' at the top of his lungs is telling the truth. Oh wait you probably do. :tape:

I don't think he's telling truth but neither do I think the black hecklers were telling the truth. I'm not going to take sides. My position on this from the beginning has been to view it with objectivity and without partiality. And that's exactly what I'm doing.

I've seen the video and they heckled him and he responded. He's wrong but it doesn't change the fact that they heckled him.

Rocketta
Dec 3rd, 2006, 03:53 AM
I saw the video and I saw otherwise.



I don't think he's telling truth but neither do I think the black hecklers were telling the truth. I'm not going to take sides. My position on this from the beginning has been to view it with objectivity and without partiality. And that's exactly what I'm doing.

I've seen the video and they heckled him and he responded. He's wrong but it doesn't change the fact that they heckled him.

Please, talk about :bs:

First off are you trying to say that you believe the video recording started at the exact second the encounter started? How would the person know to cut their video phone on? Also, all those people walking out was because what? They were disgusted because it was just a comic responding to a heckler? Please, get real. If that's what you believe it's because that's what you want to believe it has zero to do with objectivity. :rolleyes: Also, if those guys were lying about how it went down, wouldn't there be other people coming forward saying what happened?

Rocketta
Dec 3rd, 2006, 04:12 AM
and for the record the guys say they were not the one calling out "Cracker" but other people in the crowd. Michael Richards wouldn't sign the release of the video to the Laugh factory. It sure isn't because the video is going to show the guys in a worse light. :tape:

Rocketta
Dec 3rd, 2006, 04:22 AM
and finally I'll leave with the guys words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx_m_gyE04M


and Paul Rodriguez who was there says this about the supposed 'heckling' (Its the last part of the video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx_m_gyE04M

mykarma
Dec 3rd, 2006, 04:39 AM
Please, talk about :bs:

First off are you trying to say that you believe the video recording started at the exact second the encounter started? How would the person know to cut their video phone on? Also, all those people walking out was because what? They were disgusted because it was just a comic responding to a heckler? Please, get real. If that's what you believe it's because that's what you want to believe it has zero to do with objectivity. :rolleyes: Also, if those guys were lying about how it went down, wouldn't there be other people coming forward saying what happened?
You know that Saml and a few unnamed others will use any opportunity to side against anyone black for any reason. I think he and and the unnamed believe in the old saying that; "If you white, you alright, if you brown stick around, If you black, get back. "

Rocketta, don't continue to argue with him because you know he changes like the wind. First he has to see all of the evidence even though he listened to the link. Then he's thinking out of the box, then it's the black hecklers (as Saml calls them)fault. BUT, when he found out it was proven that Richards did the same sort of things to Jewish people, and that Richard was lying about being Jewish, he didn't like him. :lol: Now he's back blaming the black hecklers again. :lol: He is so transparent, he's laughable.

Rocketta
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:12 AM
You know that Saml and a few unnamed others will use any opportunity to side against anyone black for any reason. I think he and and the unnamed believe in the old saying that; "If you white, you alright, if you brown stick around, If you black, get back. "

Rocketta, don't continue to argue with him because you know he changes like the wind. First he has to see all of the evidence even though he listened to the link. Then he's thinking out of the box, then it's the black hecklers (as Saml calls them)fault. BUT, when he found out it was proven that Richards did the same sort of things to Jewish people, and that Richard was lying about being Jewish, he didn't like him. :lol: Now he's back blaming the black hecklers again. :lol: He is so transparent, he's laughable.

I know girl. :lol:

harloo
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:33 AM
First he has to see all of the evidence even though he listened to the link. Then he's thinking out of the box, then it's the black hecklers (as Saml calls them)fault. BUT, when he found out it was proven that Richards did the same sort of things to Jewish people, and that Richard was lying about being Jewish, he didn't like him. :lol: Now he's back blaming the black hecklers again. :lol: He is so transparent, he's laughable.

:haha: :haha: :rolls: :rolls: I wonder what's next? Honestly, I've never heard anyone pull the "thinking outside the box" trump card before to defend racist actions. :tape:

meyerpl
Dec 3rd, 2006, 10:50 AM
In my opinion, incidents like the Richards' tirade are destructive to an entertainer who is enjoying immense popularity to begin with; however, if an entertainer's career is faltering it could breathe new life into it. By "new life", I mean it could give his career a bump, but it isn't going to catapult his career to the top because there are too many people, myself included, who are going to be turned-off.

As for whether Richards was actually heckled or not, I don't think it's relevant. In my mind, Richards' verbal attack was so ugly and vicious, it's unjustified under any circumstance. It's like debating whether a man's wife, prior to him beating her up, actually screwed-up supper or not. Either way, what he did was wrong.

Whoever responded to Richards by returning racial epithets was also wrong, in my opinion, however; by degrees Richards behavior was far more egregious. For one thing, Richards was on a stage, with a microphone and in front of a room full of paying customers, which places him in a greater position of responsibility. For another, Richards' was far more vicious and persistent than whoever responded in kind.

RVD
Dec 3rd, 2006, 09:50 PM
In my opinion, incidents like the Richards' tirade are destructive to an entertainer who is enjoying immense popularity to begin with; however, if an entertainer's career is faltering it could breathe new life into it. By "new life", I mean it could give his career a bump, but it isn't going to catapult his career to the top because there are too many people, myself included, who are going to be turned-off.

As for whether Richards was actually heckled or not, I don't think it's relevant. In my mind, Richards' verbal attack was so ugly and vicious, it's unjustified under any circumstance. It's like debating whether a man's wife, prior to him beating her up, actually screwed-up supper or not. Either way, what he did was wrong.

Whoever responded to Richards by returning racial epithets was also wrong, in my opinion, however; by degrees Richards behavior was far more egregious. For one thing, Richards was on a stage, with a microphone and in front of a room full of paying customers, which places him in a greater position of responsibility. For another, Richards' was far more vicious and persistent than whoever responded in kind.:worship: :worship:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to meyerpl again.
Bottom line!

mykarma
Dec 3rd, 2006, 11:07 PM
:haha: :haha: :rolls: :rolls: I wonder what's next? Honestly, I've never heard anyone pull the "thinking outside the box" trump card before to defend racist actions. :tape:
You know he wasn't the only one. :lol::lol::lol:

Wigglytuff
Dec 3rd, 2006, 11:09 PM
In my opinion, incidents like the Richards' tirade are destructive to an entertainer who is enjoying immense popularity to begin with; however, if an entertainer's career is faltering it could breathe new life into it. By "new life", I mean it could give his career a bump, but it isn't going to catapult his career to the top because there are too many people, myself included, who are going to be turned-off.

As for whether Richards was actually heckled or not, I don't think it's relevant. In my mind, Richards' verbal attack was so ugly and vicious, it's unjustified under any circumstance. It's like debating whether a man's wife, prior to him beating her up, actually screwed-up supper or not. Either way, what he did was wrong.

Whoever responded to Richards by returning racial epithets was also wrong, in my opinion, however; by degrees Richards behavior was far more egregious. For one thing, Richards was on a stage, with a microphone and in front of a room full of paying customers, which places him in a greater position of responsibility. For another, Richards' was far more vicious and persistent than whoever responded in kind.
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Denise4925
Dec 4th, 2006, 10:13 PM
Denise 4925:


This is an example of why we must rejoice in our diversity and forge empathy towards others in order to achieve truly meaningful and peaceful communication. To me personal insults are way harsher than racial ones, but I guess that comes from our own personal backgrounds and experiences. And when I say that all kind of verbal vitriol is fair game in a heated discussion, I mean it under the assumption that emotions have overcome reason (as I suspect was Richards' case) and thus your inner-beast has been unleashed (the Hyde-an, Vader-esque side that all of us--to different degress--have ruminating within the confines of our minds) and you have briefly ceased to be your usual self.

That's because you've never been the victim of a racial assault and you just cannot identify with it.

(Of course, I don't advocate such behavior, but it's a fact of life that people sometimes lose their cool. I just consider that one's life and accomplishments should not be judged solely based on such atypical instances. To analogize, in a condom-producing line, some will have defects and be thrown away by QC personnel; the fact that defects are present does not mean that all Trojans suck. We must judge integrally to have a better chance of arriving at the truth).

Cheers,

Carlos

How many times does someone have to use/spout racially derogatory terms/epithets/slurs in order to be categorized as a racist? :confused: Is it always excused if it's said in the heat of anger only once, everytime you lose your cool in a heated argument with a person of a different race or every once in a while? Are you racist if you spout a racist slur in everyday casual language once, or does it have to be more than once? I'm confused about your personal parameters for distinguishing between who is racist and who is not.

I'm going to ignore the condom analogy. :tape:

Denise4925
Dec 4th, 2006, 10:17 PM
ico4498:


If you have read my posts, you should know I'm not a Richards' apologist (I'm not justifying what he did!); I'm merely pointing out that every argument can be contended both ways and the treatment he's getting seems one-sided and unfair. No apologist of him, I'm, though. (Sorry, I just rewatched Ep III). :)


It's to my knowledge (I'm not a scholar on his life, nor plan to become one!), but if it isn't, don't let us hanging! Pray tell! I'm always willing to re-evaluate a situation when knew informations comes to light. Only that way can one hope to approximate to the truth.

meyerpl:



As much as I dislike Rocker, I do respect his sincerity and disdain for political correctness (which 90% of the time is hypocritical, anyway). Sure, his quote abusively leverages semantics to arrive at an apparently logical reasoning, but if rephrased as:

"With so many people advocating tolerence, why do so many people have trouble tolerating other's passive racism?"

I would totally agree with it. Everyone has the right to hold their own personal ideology, as long as they don't actively use it to the detriment of others. And even if one doesn't respect said mindsets, they sure have to be tolerated, if one expects to receive the same treatment. Tolerance is a two-way street.

Cheers,

Carlos

Anytime someone has a racist idealogy, believe me someone is going to get hurt, discriminated against or abused in some form or fashion as a result of that person's thoughts and the behavior that results therefrom. Therefore, no we don't have to tolerate it. No one has to tolerate abuse in any form.

Denise4925
Dec 4th, 2006, 10:33 PM
[

And is murder necessarily always wrong? Is it an absolute? If a soldier kills someone in combat, is he evil? Are American troops in Iraq evil, then? If someone tries to rape your child and you kill him/her in self-defense, are you a ruthless, despicable person?



I don't think she said it was wrong. She asked if you only kill one person with the intention of killing them, does it not make you a murderer?

But, your analogy being that using racial slurs is not always wrong? That using a racial slur once doesn't make you a racist, because it's not an absolute. That there are circumstances under which you are justified in using a racial slur. Am I correct so far?

Rocketta
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:24 PM
:yawn: :zzz: :shrug:

Stamp Paid
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:59 PM
It's good to see the hypocritical, PC, racist media finally crack down on other blacks using the N-word. Of course there won't be as much fake outrage from black "leaders" as when Michael Richards said it. It's always a white person that they focus on but we all know that blacks are the biggest purveyors of the N-word.

:weirdo::weirdo:

Wigglytuff
Dec 7th, 2006, 07:04 PM
:weirdo::weirdo:
exactly!!! :smash:

RVD
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:35 PM
It's good to see the hypocritical, PC, racist media finally crack down on other blacks using the N-word. Of course there won't be as much fake outrage from black "leaders" as when Michael Richards said it. It's always a white person that they focus on but we all know that blacks are the biggest purveyors of the N-word.

Laugh Factory bans, fines Wayans for use of racial slur
December 7, 2006

Damon Wayans became the first famous offender of the Laugh Factory's ban on the use of the n-word, and was fined and banned from the club for three months as a result, Wayans' publicist told TMZ.com.

After the Michael Richards incident on Nov. 17, the club decided to ban use of the word and fine comedians $20 for every offense. Wayans took the stage in Hollywood Sunday during a showcase of African-American comedians called "Chocolate Sundaes." Wayans opened with the line, "Give yourselves a big round of applause for coming down and supporting ' N---r Night.'"

According to the Los Angeles Times, Wayans used the word 15 more times during his 20-minute appearance.

That's a $320 contribution to the Laugh Factory's swear jar. Wayans' representative had no further comment other than to confirm the fine and temporary ban.

Meanwhile, Andy Dick has apologized for using the same racial slur. Dick, a former co-star of the '90s sitcom "NewsRadio," jumped onstage during a routine by Ian Bagg at the Improv in Los Angeles on Saturday night and used the word in an apparent attempt to joke about Richards.

The 40-year-old actor-comedian issued an apology through his publicist.

"I chose to make a joke about a subject that is not funny," said the statement, which was provided to the Los Angeles Times.

"In an attempt to make light of a serious subject, I have offended a lot of people, and I am sorry for my insensitivity. I wish to apologize to Ian, to the club and its patrons and to anyone who was hurt or offended by my remark.":haha: Late AND wrong as usual. :lol: :rolleyes:

Wigglytuff
Dec 7th, 2006, 09:31 PM
:haha: Late AND wrong as usual. :lol: :rolleyes:

basically.

Stamp Paid
Dec 8th, 2006, 09:36 PM
I love how the stark truth always renders the black racists here silent and dumbfounded. :cool:

LOL yeah, thats what it is.

mykarma
Dec 8th, 2006, 09:53 PM
LOL yeah, thats what it is.
I was hoping no one bothered to respond to him but since you did. :lol::lol::lol:

Wigglytuff
Dec 8th, 2006, 11:34 PM
LOL yeah, thats what it is.

:haha: :haha: :haha: :bowdown: :lol: :lol: