echi wrote:cjhsa wrote:I'm quite positive I heard a racial epithet tossed at Cosmo before he launched into his.
Not that it matters, much, but can you please provide a link to the specific clip that you saw? I didn't notice anyone else make any racist comment until Richards was already well into his tirade.
Never mind, they called him a "cracker ass", but as it turns out, he had Saltines stuffed in his butt crack.
JLN, In that regard, I'll remain "virtueless." I still see too much discrimination to "understand" why it continues today. I will continue to challenge discrimination of any kind towards any group of humans on this planet.
cjhsa wrote:echi wrote:cjhsa wrote:I'm quite positive I heard a racial epithet tossed at Cosmo before he launched into his.
Not that it matters, much, but can you please provide a link to the specific clip that you saw? I didn't notice anyone else make any racist comment until Richards was already well into his tirade.
Never mind, they called him a "cracker ass", but as it turns out, he had Saltines stuffed in his butt crack.
"Never mind"? Does that mean you take back your accusation? I heard the "cracker" comment, too, and it was definitely
after Richards' comments, not before (at least not that I heard, but I'd still like to see that link, if it exists).
You can find links from drudgereport.com and certainly on youtube. I thought I heard them call him a cracker before he went off.
Again, I'm not defending the guy, but I do see a double standard, evidenced in this video, no matter who said what first. Apparently the first amendment only applies to "minorities" any longer. Thank goodness for the second amendment.
None of us here heard what was said to him before his tyraid. We don't know what was said to make him last out like that.
Since this thread is about the entertainment industry, in that Richards made these comments during a show that people paid to see and he is an entertainer....might I surmise that there are many rude and racist things said about white people, and white women in particular, in those gangsta rap video and shows. Why is it that when things are said, for example that cop killer stuff that went on a couple years ago by some rap group, there is a lot made of it, the album is banned from some stores or whatever....but then it dies down and ends and they go on to fame and fortune? Why can black entertainers be as nasty as they wanna be, but not any other race?
Please don't take this the wrong way and correct me if I'm wrong.
cjhsa,
Fair enough. I thought perhaps you saw a better quality video. Maybe the other guy did start it. I don't know. I was pretty disappointed, as well, when the audience member stood up and made his "cracker" remark (and whatever else he/they said). And I agree that it doesn't really matter who said what first.
What does the 2nd amendment have to do with anything? You wouldn't shoot someone for making a racist comment, would you?
echi wrote:What does the 2nd amendment have to do with anything? You wouldn't shoot someone for making a racist comment, would you?
Depends on what else they were doing at the time.
The truth is we are all racist and ignorant, to some degree. In fact there are many many varying levels of it. His was more than most and uppermost in his mind at that moment in time and he let it out, in a fit of anger. Whoever said 'it had to be in his mind to say it', I agree. Those people who insist they are not racist just do not see it in themselves (even if it is only a tiny smidgeon) and really do believe they are open-minded. Such perfection is not possible.
Having said that, anyone who cannot control themselves and keep their nasty comments to themselves are deserving of the contempt and backlash they receive.
My opinion of the man (Michael Richards) is lessened but not of the Kramer character. Likewise, I think lots of celebrities show their idiocy and biases - like Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, etc.
cjhsa wrote:echi wrote:What does the 2nd amendment have to do with anything? You wouldn't shoot someone for making a racist comment, would you?
Depends on what else they were doing at the time.
Right. Your comment is totally irrelevant, so why did you make it?
happycat wrote:None of us here heard what was said to him before his tyraid. We don't know what was said to make him last out like that.
Since this thread is about the entertainment industry, in that Richards made these comments during a show that people paid to see and he is an entertainer....might I surmise that there are many rude and racist things said about white people, and white women in particular, in those gangsta rap video and shows. Why is it that when things are said, for example that cop killer stuff that went on a couple years ago by some rap group, there is a lot made of it, the album is banned from some stores or whatever....but then it dies down and ends and they go on to fame and fortune? Why can black entertainers be as nasty as they wanna be, but not any other race?
Please don't take this the wrong way and correct me if I'm wrong.
well, in this case repercussions were even less. he wasn't banned fom anything, in fact he performed in the same club the very next day... so while i think i know where you're going with this, this particular case does not work for such comparison.
echi wrote:cjhsa wrote:echi wrote:What does the 2nd amendment have to do with anything? You wouldn't shoot someone for making a racist comment, would you?
Depends on what else they were doing at the time.
Right. Your comment is totally irrelevant, so why did you make it?
Because he has a puerile obsession with guns, and attempts to introduce the subject into every topic he visits.
Heeven wrote:My opinion of the man (Michael Richards) is lessened but not of the Kramer character. Likewise, I think lots of celebrities show their idiocy and biases - like Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, etc.
I'm not with ya on this one darlin' . . . i think Cruise and Gibson are great braying jackasses, so i don't watch their stuff. I think Picasso was a cruel bastard, so even if could afford his work, and liked it, i would not buy it. I think Wagner was a hateful anti-semite, so i don't listen to his music.
Different strokes, of course, so this is not a condemnation of you. I just ain't with ya on this one.
one of the best points to his nasty comments :::
Heeven wrote: anyone who cannot control themselves and keep their nasty comments to themselves are deserving of the contempt and backlash they receive.
So I wanted it repeated.
Since I agree with you 100% that we all have SOME kind of prejudice, I cant really elaborate because I will only be paraphrasing exactly what you said.
you just said it better.
I agree with Heeven and Shewolfnm. I don't care what the patrons said. There was no excuse for the retort that he made.
On the other hand, I think that tarring and feathering him is way out of line. He screwed up, and he will probably feel it, in his pocket book. Let's move on.
I agree; we all react differently in similar situations. Some will still like him and his style of "comedy." That's their choice, and I will not be for a hanging just because I react differently. Some reacted to his outburst from the beginning, and some laughed with him. After his apology, some will forgive him, and that's fine with me.
Setanta wrote:Heeven wrote:My opinion of the man (Michael Richards) is lessened but not of the Kramer character. Likewise, I think lots of celebrities show their idiocy and biases - like Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, etc.
I'm not with ya on this one darlin' . . . i think Cruise and Gibson are great braying jackasses, so i don't watch their stuff. I think Picasso was a cruel bastard, so even if could afford his work, and liked it, i would not buy it. I think Wagner was a hateful anti-semite, so i don't listen to his music.
Different strokes, of course, so this is not a condemnation of you. I just ain't with ya on this one.
I was inferring that Michael Richards behavior does not detract from the fondness I have for the Kramer character. It does help that he does not continue as this character because perhaps I would feel a little less likely to be a fan of future shows. In the case of Tom Cruise, well I always thought he was a jackass and have never liked any of his work. Never understood why he was a mega-star. Gibson on the other hand, I loved him in Braveheart and found him enjoyable in a handful of other things. I wouldn't rush out to see him in a movie any time soon however, and that is probably as a result of his verbal diaarhea.
Setanta wrote: I think Wagner was a hateful anti-semite, so i don't listen to his music.
Interesting. Daniel Barenboim defiantly conducted a Wagner program in Israel, but later regretted doing so. Barenboim originally stated that Wagner's music should be appreciated in spite of Wagner's anti-semitism. Not long after the performance in Israel, Barenboim admitted he made a mistake by offending so many people.
Heeven: I think i was more offended by Gibson in Braveheart than in any other motion picture--but then, that entire motion picture was a heavy-handed assault on history, and did not have the redeeming virtue of having been very well done. I also found him ridiculous in Bounty, which was a film, however, which i nevertheless enjoyed, both because of Anthony Hopkin's excellent acting and because of the high quality of the production values. Basically, i only enjoyed Gibson in the "Road Warrior" series, which was never intended to be taken seriously and had no pretensions to cinematic art.
*****************************************
Wandel: Barenboim ought to have been embarrassed, that was pretty damned thoughtless. I heard a radio interview in which someone attempted to suggest that it had actually been some kind of triumph--i wasn't buying it though.
I'm not a total fanatic though. I do love the overture to Parsifal, the liebestot (sp?) passage--which i consider to have been the only really good piece music that Wagner ever wrote. In my never humble opinion, his other work is not even very well written--i don't think he displayed any virtuousity. I wouldn't spend any money to get a recording of it, though.
Setanta wrote:Because he has a puerile obsession with guns, and attempts to introduce the subject into every topic he visits.
Actually, I was talking about the 1st amendment and double standards about what constitutes free speech vs. hate speech. But that double standard has been swept under the rug here at A2K as evidenced by my thread on the topic over a year ago.
Cicerone: "JLN, In that regard, I'll remain "virtueless." I still see too much discrimination to "understand" why it continues today. I will continue to challenge discrimination of any kind towards any group of humans on this planet."
Good response, C.I., but I was referring to the understanding of the psychological basis of particular actions like Richards' rather than the sociological understanding of bigotry in general. The sociological understanding of the determinants of discrimination would be invaluable, but it has little to do with the political struggle against racism, in that I agree with you.
