Miller wrote:
Whites were killed in the South, because they were from the North, and were intent on minding the business of the South instead of their own.
If New Yorkers really wanted to help "mankind", they should have stay in NY and cleaned up their own garbage dump, instead of venturing South.
I hope you realize that the North is far more racist than the South could ever be and some of the most liberals of liberals were stinking slave owners.
North and South shall never see eye to eye.
END OF STORY
Your ignorance is stunning. I think you mistook this thread for "Ignorance to Make You Gasp".
Ludicrously, Miller, who probably is old enough to remember the civil rights era, demonstrates that she is just as ignorant as D.I. That was really breath-taking.
kickycan wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:I think...
I disagree.
OCCOM BILL wrote:A saint, I am not. I laugh at racist jokes without remorse if they are funny, and no one who'd be offended is within earshot... and to the extent that makes me a racist; I am guilty.
So you only laugh at black people when they're not around. How proud you must be to be so sensitive.
OCCOM BILL wrote:However; I cannot fathom a circumstance of any amount of hardship where I'd respond with a hatred I've never felt. Were a black man beating me to death; I doubt the term "nigger" would come to mind... any more than if an Israeli man were beating me to death; "jew" would come to mind, etc... let alone if they were just heckling me. That kind of racism has to exist before you can let it out because you're angry.
Again, I disagree. I don't think you have to have hatred for blacks to know what words and phrases are likely to offend and/or shock them. I don't think you can tell a thing from this one little clip about what's inside the man's head on a daily basis. I know that pro-life people probably are offended by dead baby jokes or flip attitudes toward abortion. But it's possible that I might think of a dead baby joke or two in a combative situation with a pro-life person, and if I'm flustered, I might even say something I regret later, just to shock them. That doesn't mean I have any special hatred for all pro-life people. It just means I know what the hot-button words are.
That being said, I agree that it is entirely possible that he is a vile, hateful racist human being. I just don't think it's a foregone conclusion, given the situation.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Two listens to Richards' rant were sufficient to demonstrate that he wasn't reaching for hurtful words, rather, he was angry enough for his thoughts to come out uncensored. His uncensored thoughts were overtly racist and I've little choice but to assume his apologists are trying to justify identifying with them.
You mean like you did when you told us you laugh at racist jokes?
And for the record, trying to look at the possibility that he isn't just a raving hateful racist is not the same as being an apologist.
Kick: Print out and frame this mother. Excellent.
Joe(nailed'em)Nation
PS I still love you Bill
Oh, and by the way....
Setanta and Green Witch are right on (hey, it is the sixties!!) regarding Miller.
But hey, they could'a done that with one finger.
Joe(Jesus, the depth of the ignorance---is there any better word? )Nation
I wasn't surprised that D.I. believed the BS he was peddling, after all, he's young, he wasn't there, he's not an American--the only problem i had is that he would peddle that crap when he must know that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Miller ought to know better--that **** reveals a lot about her mentality.
setanta, you are right, I was not marching with the crowds down south. I did not know that you were down there with the civil rights movement.
.
Or perhaps you googled some info and wrote an opinion, just like I did.
.
The difference is: you mix your opinions with vulgar personal attacks. That makes your posts much less valid. Relax and follow the rules of debating.
I think there was some aspect of freer intermingling in the 60's and 70's as a part of all the "make love not war" and "peacenik" attitudes, lubricated by cheap pot.
That's not all it was lubricated by... oh yeah...
I don't get the dumps on DI, whom I appreciate in general and agree with some fair amount of the time, not that that is any kind of convincer, except to myself.. I think you misapprehend him, Set.
Whatever, I always listen to his points posted, and often have to scroll through yours of an excoriating nature. Yes, yes, I'm very glad you post, Setanta, for the content, the sometimes near priceless content.
The dump stuff, not.
This was about a comedian having a public meltdown. Now we watch to see who acts with mercy in the face of his apologies. The two hecklers were on tv last night intimating that they were thinking about filing a lawsuit saying that they didn't think the apologies thus far given were sufficient.
His own publicist is describing the situation as a "tremendous wound that he's inflicted on the American public, and on the African-American community".
What?
This is about a comedian having a public meltdown.
This gets our attention?
This makes the front page.
Darfur rages.
Chad tetters on the edge of chaos.
Africa achieves holocaust levels of death several times over
Michael Richards apologies are insufficient.
Perhaps he should have shot some Amish girls in the head
Joe(at least then he would have found forgiveness)Nation
Let's put Michael Richards in a room with the other big newsmaker of the day.... O. J. Simpson. We'll give each of them a couple of different hand to hand type weapons, leave 'em alone and let Richards start hollering nigger, and let the cameras run.
The pay for view profits can be split between the Goldmans, Smiths, and OJ's kids.
The infotainment shows are still riding it like a pony.
Joe(they intend to kick the **** out of it)Nation
I think this deserves just as much attention as the anti-Jew rant of Mel Gibson.
I din't even know they used pitchforks to lynch people - why would anyone know that?
I think these were things inside Richards that he probably has kept hidden. I don't think that those kinds of words come out of someone if they're not racist, contrary to what some have said here- that anyone might say those things under the same kind of duress.
It's unfortunate that some vultures and ambulance chasers have predictably honed in on this event, but I also don't think that this kind of thing should be simply absorbed as status quo, and casually accepted after the "I'm sorry".
Just so I get this clear in my head -
Phoenix, when Mel Gibson went off on Jews, it got national attention because Gibson was a mega-millionaire with mega media influence, so for him to have these attitudes was news.
For Michael Richards to be exposed as a racist is newsworthy because he created a nationally beloved, ditzy character named Kramer, and people have a right to know if the media figures they spend their time watching are scumbags.
Why is one inane, and the other not?
And, lest I forget - a happy and peaceful Thanksgiving....
snood I thought for sure you'd see the poetic justice in my suggestion.....
and Happy Thanksgiving dude.
Didn't see it, BPB -I like, I like....
I'm going to eat too much and watch marathon movies, starting in about 4 hours....
I don't know "Krammer" but I guess he's just another bigot, how unusual.
