cjhsa wrote: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.
No you weren't, don't peddle lies. You said the 2d amendment, because you always attempt to drag guns into every discussion.
Thank goodness for the second. The first apparently doesn't apply to me any longer.
cjhsa wrote: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.
This is what you wrote, and that is why Echi asked you what the second amendment has to do with it. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand--unless, of course, you meant that "minorities" should be shot to redress your silly allegation that the first amendment only applies to them.
Here, have a bigger shovel, you can did yourself deeper into that hole much faster now.
You're the one digging, sparky.
My name is not sparky, and i'm not the one with the idiotic suggestion that only minorities have first amendment rights, and therefore, thank goodness for the second amendment.
You don't follow along very well. I understand, being politically correct is a hard habit to break.
This has nothing specifically to do with this Kramer thing really, but it's somewhat related, I think, so here it is.
Certain comedians like to push the envelope and say things that are shocking, for the challenge of trying to make it funny. I have a video clip of Bill Hicks going off on a female heckler by running around the stage pretending to be her, yelling, "Hey, everybody! Look at me! I'm a drunk C*NT, so I can yell things at the comedian! I can say whatever I want, because I'm a drunk C*NT! I'm a drunk C*NT!"
Now, reading that, I'm sure most people would automatically heap scorn and derision on him just like they are doing with Richards right now. But somehow in the Bill Hicks situation, nobody got offended to the point that they walked out, and, in fact, most people were laughing throughout the whole thing.
I wonder what the difference is. Is it just that the N-word is so taboo for white people to say that it can't be done in a funny way by any white person? Or it could be because of the way he said it. Or maybe it's just about the expectations of the audience. Or maybe it's just that Bill Hicks was so much better at his craft that the audience trusted him enough to go with it. Either way, I find it fascinating how and where the lines are drawn, what is and what isn't offensive, and how, in different situations, the rules for these things can change.
I follow along perfectly well. You wrote that you believe only minorities have first amendment rights, and therefore, thank goodness for the second amendment.
Either, as Echi points out, there is no reason for the reference to the second amendment, and i was correct that it's just another puerile (that means in the manner of an adolescent) attempt on your part to drag guns into a topic which has nothing to do with guns . . .
OR
You suggest shooting minorities because they are the only ones who have first amendment rights.
Your inability to frame coherent thoughts is only being made more painfully clear by you continuing to attempt to defend your idiocy, but you can be assured that doesn't bother me.
Your inability to address what I was bringing up is only outweighed by your unwillingness to address it a dozen times before. I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable. It's supposed to.
I follow along perfectly well. You wrote that you believe only minorities have first amendment rights, and therefore, thank goodness for the second amendment.
Either, as Echi points out, there is no reason for the reference to the second amendment, and i was correct that it's just another puerile (that means in the manner of an adolescent) attempt on your part to drag guns into a topic which has nothing to do with guns . . .
OR
You suggest shooting minorities because they are the only ones who have first amendment rights.
Your inability to frame coherent thoughts is only being made more painfully clear by you continuing to attempt to defend your idiocy, but you can be assured that doesn't bother me.
I'm going to have to do some googling, but as I recall it, Michael Richards was a kinda gonzo stand-up comic going back to the late 1970's.
I remember him on one of the late night shows doing some stuff that made the host just kinda stare.
He pushes. He pushed wrong, or got the wrong attention. Dunno.
In any case, Michael Richards isn't Kramer. Kramer's a character Michael Richards played. I'm not going to seek out Seinfeld re-runs, but I'm also not going to turn them off because he's in an episode. I'm not PC enough. <shrug>
Too bad about the double post--it's also too bad that things just don't sink in with you.
*************************
I'm not made uncomfortable by yet more evidence that you are racist and entertain violent fantasies. Either your second amendment comment is meaningless in relation to a stupid contention that only minorities have first amendment rights, or you entertain fantasies of dealing with that "problem" by using the guns which are readily available in society.
None of this surprises me, though, nor is it a matter of political rectitude.
I have no doubt that you have private dreams of going out to shoot people with brown skin because you feel threatened by them.
No one has taken away your first amendment rights--you've been making a fool of yourself all across this site all afternoon, and no one has or has attempted to prevent it.
I don't think one has to be a rabid pc policeman or anything for this to turn them off to Seinfeld.
Snood, you and Set can go watch something else.
I'll continue to be un-P.C.
~~~~
first amendment centre ... who knew? apropos? maybe
...and I'll continue to say that characterizing the people for whom this slightly affected TV watching habits as "pc" isn't necessarily accurate.
I didn't watch Seinfeld before this incident, there's no reason to watch it now. I've seen parts of episodes in the past, but never sought it out.
Frankly, i found the characters unbelievable, except that Elaine was often (but not always) plausible. I thought the George character was total BS, and the same for Kramer.
Each to their own, said the old woman as she kissed the cow.
kickycan wrote:This has nothing specifically to do with this Kramer thing really, but it's somewhat related, I think, so here it is.
Certain comedians like to push the envelope and say things that are shocking, for the challenge of trying to make it funny. I have a video clip of Bill Hicks going off on a female heckler by running around the stage pretending to be her, yelling, "Hey, everybody! Look at me! I'm a drunk C*NT, so I can yell things at the comedian! I can say whatever I want, because I'm a drunk C*NT! I'm a drunk C*NT!"
Now, reading that, I'm sure most people would automatically heap scorn and derision on him just like they are doing with Richards right now. But somehow in the Bill Hicks situation, nobody got offended to the point that they walked out, and, in fact, most people were laughing throughout the whole thing.
I wonder what the difference is. Is it just that the N-word is so taboo for white people to say that it can't be done in a funny way by any white person? Or it could be because of the way he said it. Or maybe it's just about the expectations of the audience. Or maybe it's just that Bill Hicks was so much better at his craft that the audience trusted him enough to go with it. Either way, I find it fascinating how and where the lines are drawn, what is and what isn't offensive, and how, in different situations, the rules for these things can change.
I didn't see the Bill Hicks video clip, so can't comment, but I think some of what turned people off, Kicky, was Michael's over-the-top reaction and rage at this guy. It was not proportional to the situation. Plus, why use racist comments - purely irrelevant. I would have used the word Moron, perhaps...
I think Mame has a point . . . he wasn't trying to be funny, he was enraged--he had lost it . . .
Trivia answer for ehBeth: Michael Richards was a regular on the ABC show "Fridays" in the early 1980's.
