Seinfeld to go on stage again with the bigot Michael Richards aka KKKramer

[ecstatic]

THE cast of "Seinfeld" will reunite for a storyline on next season's "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

Jerry Seinfeld, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jason Alexander and Michael Richards will appear together in several episodes of Larry David's HBO comedy, according to ew.com.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03062009/tv/seinfeld_reunion_158230.htm

I'll pass. :eyes: Geez, did he think everyone forgot what he said?

[DS1]

1. Nope, there will always be someone to bring it up

Clinton got a blowjob!

[cynatnite]

2. I can't see how this will resurrect his career. n/t

[Tangerine LaBamba]

3. Who cares?

I never thought that show was funny. Sure, it had a few moments - Kramer's entrances, the feud with Newman - but all it was, it seemed, was a collection of four small-minded, self-absorbed, selfish adults who weren't at all interesting.

[suston96]

73. "All it was........

..... it seemed, was a collection of four small-minded, self-absorbed, selfish adults who weren't at all interesting."

Exactly! In other words, a show about nothing.

And that is why it was a huge success and is making even more money in reruns three or four times a day.

The "show about nothing."

[mudesi]

4. Oh Give Me A Break

Michael Richards is not a racist. He got angry one time and said things he didn't mean and apologized afterwards. Geez. :eyes:

[Bluebear]

5. 'Michael Richards is not a racist.' - I'm curious how it is you can verify that?

[ddeclue]

7. Nice job shifting the burden of proof - can you prove he IS a racist?

or merely that he said something unfortunate once...

It's not up to Michael Richards to prove his innocence...it's up to the person making the allegation to prove his "guilt".

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

8. Oh no, I got dddeclue's rolling eyes emoticon.

[ddeclue]

24. Oh no! I got Bluebear's NOT answering the question posed...

Why am I not surprised?

[Bluebear]

26. You're not surprised because you didn't want an answer, you just wanted to stir shit as usual.

/ignore

[ddeclue]

29. No no the OP is the shit stirrer just like you..and you STILL haven't answered the question.

[ProfessorGAC]

99. How About His Own Words?

Wouldn't his very own words be at least preponderant proof? To suggest that what he said is proof of a simple mistake is no less valid than to suggest that he meant what he said.

It was a stupid and horrible thing to say, and any attempt to rationalize it seems pathetic and weak.
GAC

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

123. i don't think people just "lose their cool" and start dropping n-bombs like that

:eyes:

[ddeclue]

6. Nice SMEAR job...there's a long way between a few inappropriate comments

that someone has apologized for and as far as I am aware not repeated and being a member of the Klu Klux Klan...

:eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

11. Obviously he's not a member of the KKK but you don't snap and make comments like that

Unless you've harbored those views for a long time.

[Bluebear]

12. "We would have stuck a fork up your ass, nigger!"

Why, that's just INAPPROPRIATE!

He just got ANGRY!

How people justify things is amazing.

[AZ Criminal JD]

23. I wish we had a tape on everything you have said in your life

Then maybe you wouldn't be so sanctimonious.

[Bluebear]

25. Let me ASSURE you I never said anything like that. And it's not sanctimonious.

Some people just aren't racist, sorry to inform.

[AZ Criminal JD]

44. Your anonymous assurances mean nothing.

[Tex-Slim]

114. ON the nose...

What an uneven match... you, fully armed and loaded for bear, and your opponent sadly lacking in anything remotely useful in a battle of wits...

and I mean that!

[ecstatic]

35. Thanks, BB

At least one person understands!

[omega minimo]

50. sounds crazy.

[EFerrari]

42. Stand ups spend hours trying to cap each other

saying the more horrible offensive thing and especially to hecklers. It's a hobby with them and I doubt it has anything to do with actual racism.

[quickesst]

22. You're entering into the realm...

..of logic and common sense, and the mantra will not be swayed. It's hard to argue with someone who's perception of themselves is that they have never said or done anything they have regretted, therefore have never sought out forgiveness, which makes it somewhat understandable that they do not how to show it. Wish I could say the same. I've always wanted to be infallible. Thanks.
quickesst

[ecstatic]

34. Well, you obviously still find Michael Richards to be a funny guy

That all changed for me when I saw his racist rant.

[muffin1]

41. Same here

I can't watch Seinfeld reruns anymore.:-(

[Two Americas]

61. not at all

It was not "a few inappropriate comments" merely said in anger.

[Mojambo]

9. I can't wait to see it. I LOVE Curb.

And let me just say that if a solid progressive like Larry David doesn't have a problem with Richards then neither do I.

He knows him better than any of us.

[Hello_Kitty]

10. Yeah, if one white person vouches for the non-racism of another white person that should be enough.

:eyes:

[Mojambo]

16. Depending on who the "one white person" is, yeah. In this case it's enough FOR ME.

Everybody else can make their own determinations.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. I had no idea that Larry David was such an arbiter of those things.

Sure, he's funny and all, but I didn't realize that gave him credibility on matters outside the realm of comedy.

[MellowDem]

55. What if a black person vouches for it?

Does it make it any better? How about Michael Steele? Your perceptions of race are pretty messed up.

[Raineyb]

57. Michael Aluminum would be as credible as well you.

That is to say not credible at all.

(If Mr. Aluminum had any credibility left it certainly would have gone after that apology to known racist Rush "Gimme an Oxycontin with a Viagra chaser" Limbaugh.)

Regards

[oustemnow]

74. Holy crap, I hope Wanda Sykes has a confrontation with Richards on the show

that would be epic.

[MellowDem]

77. Haha!

That would be pretty funny, and right in line with David Larry material.

[Fuzz]

13. He incorrectly thought he was funny enough and had enough street cred to

pull off something 'edgy' and he failed miserably. That's what happened and he was too stupid to find a good way out of it.

[EFerrari]

40. Precisely. He got the whole calculation wrong. nt

[Lost in CT]

14. Michael Richards is more of a hack than a racist. nt

[MrSlayer]

15. I watch the show.

So I'll watch these episodes.

[Gabi Hayes]

20. Curb has dealt as well with racism as any show I've ever seen.

he's unsparing in his disdain for the racial foibles of all his characters...black, white, hispanic, asian, whoever gets caught in the crosshairs

same goes for religion

the phrase 'equal opportunity offender' is well applied here

remember the episode with Richard Lewis' dermatologist?

or this:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCzdEAy8WOw

[MrSlayer]

21. Yes.

I wouldn't be surprised if he brings up the Richards rant in some way.

[mitchum]

31. "Michael, you've got to let them know that you're a Mason...

not a Jew. You people are the ones who really run the world. Don't hang this on us"

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZBlue]

53. Knowing Larry David, he probably will.

And do it exceedingly well.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. It's just like how you can count on any comic who has "something to offend everyone"

To be able to able to offend everyone who ISN'T the white males who are his target audience.

[Gabi Hayes]

30. have you ever seen the show?

if not, your comment is based on....what....hence worthless

if you have, you've completely misinterpreted what he's trying to communicate, hence your POV is worthless

do you find this offensive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8f7IvDxMiY&feature=related

or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ewr4BSTr8Q&feature=related

[Hello_Kitty]

45. Oh jesus fucking christ

What is cherrypicking 2 clips from it supposed to prove? You are pursuing literally the dumbest line of argument in which I've been engaged in a long time. Since when does Larry David being a good comedian qualify him as an authority on anything other than comedy?

[Gabi Hayes]

47. after you watch some of his shows, why don't you find the place where

he sets himself of as the arbiter of racism, or comments about the guy's racial insensitivity.

you just pull things out of your ass, don't you


btw, the entire series is composed of vignettes like I posted

you simply don't know what you're talking about

his view is misanthropic: his characters are not archetypes (they're just jerks, race being merely an aspect--not dominant, by any means--of any given portrayal), despite what you ignorantly aver, despite your not having watched the show

thx for the amusing post, though....very entertaining piece of fact-free faux logic

you might try getting down off your high horse and concerning yourself with people who actually have set themselves up as arbiters of your own racially acceptable sensibilities. have fun with that

take your time

meanwhile, you should enjoy another cherry-picked clip immensely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL35da4x0D0

I'll be happy to keep providing examples like this til you'll you're forced to realize that these episodes are regularly ocurring, and make up a substantial segment of whatever 'message' David is trying to project. it's fun watching them again

arbiter.....hiLARious!

[Tex-Slim]

111. Good Point

Obviously he's not an authority on much, if anything, else... but what do I know?

[dysfunctional press]

36. i'm just wondering how they'll pick up the story line this season...?

or will last season turn out to have all been a bad dream? :shrug:

[Gabi Hayes]

48. one of those cherry-picked you tube clips I posted had a comment

from one of the Blacks (Larry's new family, racist-enabling arbiter that he is) who says they've already started taping, and the Black family is definitely in the mix

I wonder if I'll be able to cherry-pick any more instances of race run rampant this year.

seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYNrWKEEzn4&feature=related

[dysfunctional press]

54. suzie's the best.

btw- i don't remember, but is wanda syke's character in the show married? hasn't she 'come out of the closet' relatively recently? perhaps she will on the show, too.

[AZBlue]

52. Krazee-Eyez Killa was one of the best episodes.

[AllieB]

68. 'Crazy-Eyez Killah' is one of my favorite CYE episodes.

David is really an equal-opportunity offender, but with hilarious results.

[elocs]

18. Wow! I bet nobody, absolutely nobody at DU ever, ever watches any Seinfeld reruns.

How could they since they would be supporting a bigot?

[Rage for Order]

19. Well, if people can get past Robert Byrd having been a Klansman

I think they should be able to get past Kramer's screed. Provided, of course, that he is truly remorseful.

[Tex-Slim]

108. NO JOKE!

Funny what some people are & are not willing to "forgive and forget", eh?

[ecstatic]

151. Byrd is not a fav of mine--but he was in the Klan when discrimination

was legal in this country. Richards' rant took place in 2006. There is no excuse for that kind of racism in 2006.

[dysfunctional press]

27. i'll definitely tune in- i like "curb...", "seinfeld", & i've liked michael richards since "fridays"

i don't really give a rat's ass about what he "said" :eyes:...some people really need to get over themselves.

[Gabi Hayes]

33. Friday's was the high point of his career

moments of genius in some of his characters

Kramer was clearly based on his 'ladie's man'

[Occam Bandage]

39. Well I liked him since UHF. Not as long, but, still...so there!

[Tex-Slim]

107. Amen, bro, or is it sis?

I'm with you...

[Clintonista2]

32. I love Curb. Can't wait to watch it.

[CreekDog]

37. This is on Richards' head not Seinfeld's

:hi:

[Occam Bandage]

38. He tried to be "edgy." It ended up being one of the most horribly racist performances in decades.

I think it's reasonable for some to not want to watch him, but at the same time, I'm not going to judge him as a person beyond saying that a person would have to be either deeply disturbed or impossibly self-absorbed to believe that his routine would be considered funny by anyone.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Juche]

43. Who cares

People deserve second chances.

[serrano2008]

46. It's funny how so many people make Michael Richards the "bad guy".

Seriously, there are so many white comics that use the N word and say much worse.

Listen to the Howard Stern show for 1 day and you'll hear at least 10 worse racist jokes but nobody ever picks on Stern or his show buddies. Or Lisa Lampanelli(sp?) or any of those people.

I didn't get to listen last month but for Black History Month, did Stern play the bit where they have Marconi inventing the radio and then it's immediately stolen by a black guy? It's classic!! and nobody ever expects an apology from him or accuses him of being racist.

[Gabi Hayes]

49. I don't think they did, but I've heard it on their endless best-ofs

that said, if you liked the Marconi thing, you'll love these, despite some bad vid/voice sync at the end:

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

[ecstatic]

51. There's a difference between a premeditated "racist" skit

or joke and calling an AUDIENCE member at your show a racial slur. The former is obviously a joke; the latter is personal.

[MellowDem]

56. Comedians get personal with audience members all the time...

especially when they're heckling. Michael Richards said something that was meant to be offensive, but he isn't racist. He doesn't think whites are the supreme race. He just knows that calling someone the N word is one of the most offensive things you could do. So, he did so in the arena of comedy. Some people can get away with it (a lot of comedians do actually). Others, of course, do not. But what do you expect from a society that acts like dumbfucks about race and calls so many things racist that are not.

[Raineyb]

58. Why does your excuse making not surprise me?

This society hasn't even fucking acknowledged the still lingering effects of the racism imposed by law much less the racism that's still lingering by practice, but some wet behind the ears, never been subjected to racism, man-child will comes out and decides what is or is not racist. Yet when grown black people who have actually experienced racism speak out you're quick to poo-poo it.

You have no idea how fucking clueless you are do you?

[MellowDem]

63. If you knew what you were talking about...

you would realize what racism is. Racism is not bigotry or discrimination, or even racial insults. It is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. Now how could assume that about Michael Richards for using the N word at a black heckler, a move that was meant to be offensive and insult, is beyond me. The word is so offensive because of its history, but just using it does not make one racist. That's some simple minded black and white way of looking at race that even a "man child" can see doesn't work in the real world.

And you don't even know me or my experiences with race.

It doesn't matter who has experienced "racism" if people have no clue what it is. And you obviously do not. I've been called "cracker" (as an insult and intimidation) by a group of black kids when I was in high school. They weren't racist. They were bigoted, yeah, and willing to use racially charged language to insult. But they weren't racist. And calling them such does a disservice to real racism and has us focus on the wrong problem. This is a new generation, we don't follow the binaries of the past. I'm glad to be "wet behind the ears" when it comes to race. Because the approaches of some people in the older generations are so lead-footed and idiotic, it's no wonder racial gaps still persist and race relations haven't improved much in the last couple of decades.

When you call someone racist, people automatically think KKK (a great example of which is the title of the OP). So right away, if you are called a racist, the imagery is that you are associated with one of the most extremist hate groups of all time. And racist is thrown around like it's nobody's business. Most of the time I see people use the word "racist", it's for something that's not racist. You can see how this would make it hard for people to ever talk about race or achieve understanding when you are either "racist" and a member of the KKK or not. That's why so many people are so cautious about the subject. It' has become a McCarthyism. Calling everyone a communist for supporting social programs is just as bullying as the way racism is used by the "arbiters of race" nowadays.

[noamnety]

64. I hope at some point

you do some serious reading or go to a seminar about white privilege.

Your definition of racism, btw, is wrong. It encompasses bigotry and discrimination as well as a belief in superiority of one race over another.

Your attempt to draw an equivalency between you as a white kid being called a cracker and a black person in our culture being called the N word is an embarrassment.

[MellowDem]

67. Already have...

and white privilege is for the most part, a joke. You are an embarrassment. I never tried to draw equivalency. But under that person's understanding of racism, they would be considered racist. Obviously, you have no idea how complicated of a subject this is.

Bigotry and discrimination can be used to support a racist ideology. But bigotry and discrimination themselves are not racist. People are bigoted and discriminatory on a huge number of levels, and race is only one option of many.

As for white privilege. I can't stand that word. It's so damaging to race discussions as it is. What people refer to as "white privilege" is really mostly "economic privilege". And as it is, not every "white" person has these privileges. It has to be the most idiotic theory I've heard of for a while. But shit, just like a lot of other "ideas" about race, it has become gospel.

I want you to go to a white community in poverty and lecture them on all of their white privilege. No, seriously, go to some trailer park and give a seminar. People who throw around "white privilege" have a lot of nerve and no understanding of race and racism, much less poverty and what keeps people there.

Some whites, in some places, can get advantages for their skin color, but in other places, it's not an advantage. And the advantages they get from income make up a much greater part of their privilege than their skin color ever will. It is the same with all races. Your income is the big decider of your privilege, race has very little to do with it.

The reason that there remains racial gaps between some racial groups (and not others, as it were) is because of income. Income is the biggest decider of "privilege" by far for the vast majority of Americans. But let me ask you this. How did Asians ever get to where they are as a group in the US without white privilege? And with all the discrimination and bigotry against them? And how are so many white communities that have always been in poverty STILL in poverty, if white privilege is the big deal that it is? That's why affirmative action failed horribly as a program. It did nothing to close the racial gap. And why? It focused on race as the obstacle to minorities getting out of poverty, when all along it was income in this economically stratified society. Poverty was keeping them in poverty, not race. And the people who benefitted most from affirmative action were those for whom it wasn't intended, middle class minorities, those who had already "made it". By the way, how much was poverty mentioned in the campaign? None. And why? Because it has become synonymous with race, thanks to ideas like "white privilege" and assholes on the right who rail against welfare and food stamps as some sort of government giveaway to minorities.

So the idea of white privilege not only helps sidetrack poverty as an issue ever to be addressed, but it also give the wrong medication for the problem of racial disparity. It's disgusting.

[noamnety]

70. You're wrong on your definitions, and your grasp of basic concepts.

This is incorrect: "But bigotry and discrimination themselves are not racist." You may have personally decided to ignore that definition from pretty much all standard dictionaries' entries on racism, but that doesn't make it true. Your misunderstanding is similar to the "separate but equal" justifications - as long as we don't say one group is "superior" to the other, it's not racist, eh?

If you understood white privilege to mean all white people must be rich or no white people live in poverty, you didn't grasp the concept at all. I'd suggest studying more on it. NOBODY has ever made that claim (except people trying to argue that white privilege doesn't exist). It's something you seem to have made up and attributed to the concept.

If you thought racial advantages were really the result of income - you are ignorant of a lot of studies. The achievement gap in test scores, for instance, remains true among races even when income is accounted for. There is a significant gap between white students whose families earn 70,000 a year and black students whose families earn 70,000 a year. Welcome to institutionalized racism.

[MellowDem]

71. Wrong

If you refuse to understand the basic definitions of bigotry and discrimination, there's not much I can do for your understanding of race. Bigotry and discrimination by themselves have nothing to do with race.

And I understand white privilege to mean that all whites have certain privileges due to their skin color. This would mean that, over time, whites would have a much easier time getting out of poverty and achieving economic success than minorities. As it were, I think you are making a good case for calling "white privilege" something else, as you yourself say that not all whites have the same privileges (some are rich and others live in poverty). That's a pretty good indication that "white privilege" is a misnomer at best and a name that implies broad generalizations.

Racial advantages are the result of income. Some minorities, like blacks, are disproportionally poor to the rest of the population because of the history of slavery and discrimination in this country. But what keeps them disproportionally poor is income much more than race. You are mixing historical causes for poverty with present ones. As for the gaps that happen even when income is accounted for, a lot of that can once again be attributed to history as well as culture. But as you can see, the gap shrinks significantly when income is accounted for. Environment explains a lot of the rest. And how does that account for Asians? After all, they do BETTER than whites on achievement tests. How is that possible? Their culture and environment at home, which of course goes back to history.

The vast majority of learning happens at home, and if you come from a background that does not value education (for whatever reason), it will make a big impact on your grades and willingness to learn.

[noamnety]

72. Your sense of logic is very odd.

Yes, there is bigotry and discrimination based on sexism, classism, many other isms in addition to racism. That is unrelated to the fact that bigotry and discrimination fall within the definition of racism.

You need a logic class because you are doing the logical equivalent of saying "fruits don't include apples - because look - this is an orange, and it's a fruit."

Racism includes racial discrimination - and yes, we all get that other types of discrimination also exist.

American Heritage Dictionary: Racism. Definition 2: Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

So let's stop claiming that the definition doesn't include discrimination or bigotry.

[MellowDem]

79. Racism is an idea...

Bigotry and discrimination can be used in support of that idea. If you say they are one and the same, I think it can confuse the issue. For example, let's say a taxi driver discriminates by race who he decides to pick up. He has seen crime statistics in his city, and through his own experiences, he knows that blacks are much more likely to be poor and desperate and commit crimes against a taxi driver like himself. This is a steryotype that he uses in order to discriminate against blacks.

But is it racist? After all, he is discriminating based on race. The answer is no. It is not racist. It is racial discrimination, it is still harmful, but it is not based on the idea of racism. It is based on the (very logical) generalizations and stereotypes that human beings have been using to avoid danger since the beginning of time. But if racial discrimination = racism, then everyone who discriminates by race must consider their race to be superior. Which of course is not the case. Like I said, it's more complicated than the way society has portrayed it to be. And if we call that taxi driver a racist, now we have misdiagnosed the problem, meaning that it will never be solved. The taxi driver does not consider himself racist, because he in fact is not. But now he is KKK, and the underlying issue, the fact that blacks are disproportionally poor and living in desperate conditions that lead to high crime rates, facts on which people will continue to stereotype and generalize regardless, is never addressed.

As much as we hate to admit it, stereotypes and generalizations can be very useful things, and that is why all of us use them to some extent or other on a whole range of issues.

[noamnety]

80. Again, your concept of "logic" is flawed.

"If you say they are one and the same," Have I said apples and fruits are the same?

Logic first, debate second.

The dictionary definition of racism includes discrimination and prejudice. You can opt to be in denial about that, or not.

[MellowDem]

82. It depends on the dictionary you look at...

after all, the definition of racism has changed over time (unfortunately) to include a whole host of different definitions. I have seen definitions that don't include discrimination or prejudice, but you could say that racism often leads to those things (obviously).

I find it hard to rely too much on dictionaries for definitions of certain things. After all, dictionaries have their own societal bias. So being critical of definitions as put out by dictionaries is not a bad thing. For example, here is a definition from the Random House dictionary:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Now I agree with the first two, but the third really has nothing to do with racism per se, or at the very least is too short. If it said hatred or intolerance based off of racial beliefs of superiority, that would make sense. But there are other reasons people are hateful or intolerant of other races that has nothing to do with racist ideology. Hence, I would disagree with that definition.

Here's another from American Heritage dictionary:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Now, based on the second definition, that taxi driver definitely is racist. Which means this definition definitely is bullshit and detrimental to our society's discussion of race. It's from such definitions we have got the (now tired) old diatribe that "everyone is inherently racist", which is so stupid and untrue but which also helps shut down any discussions or solutions for racism and racial divide. After all, if everyone is inherently racist (as everyone generalizes and discriminates to some degree or other) then what's the point of trying to solve these problems? They can't be fixed.

Definitions have a lot of power, and the definitions our society has applied to racism, and the confusing and unclear nature of these definitions, have been a big part of the problem. I never understood why so many people put so much faith in dictionaries. They're just like the MSM, they have their own biases and goals.

[noamnety]

83. Both your quoted definitions include discrimination.

You seem to be very strongly in denial that this is included in the definition of racism.

This ... this is a piece of work here, especially in the context of defending a white guy addressing a minority by a racial slur: "there are other reasons people are hateful or intolerant of other races that has nothing to do with racist ideology"

[MellowDem]

84. You are avoiding a lot

or ignoring it. The quoted definitions were to show how it is possible to disagree with dictionaries. You have done nothing to defend your definition of racism, besides saying over and over again that dictionaries include it. Well great, so what? It doesn't make it right. You still have to defend it. You have used no logic or reasoning, only the "authority" of dictionaries. As if they've never been wrong before.

And how am I defending Michael Richards? All I have said is that what he said does not necessarily make him racist. That's all. I think what he said was still very offensive and insulting towards black people. Using racial insults because they have more power is disgusting. But it doesn't automatically make you racist.

And your last point illustrates what is so wrong with racial discussions. This binary thinking, this idea of race and racism as this black and white thing. Yes, there are other reasons people are hateful or intolerant of other races that has nothing to do with racist ideology. For example, a black man who hates white people in general because of past discrimination. He doesn't believe that blacks are superior to whites. But now he is "racist" according to this definition. Do you see how stupid and undiscerning, how unaware of complexities in the real world this definition is?

Or how about a construction worker (of any color) working in California who loses his job and can't find a new one with as good a wage due to illegal immigrants. So now this worker has a hatred for Hispanics because of his experience. Sure, he is bigoted and prejudiced, but he doesn't think he is superior to Hispanics, he is angry at a whole group for the experiences he's had. This happens all the time. An American who suddenly hates Arabs after 9/11 because of what "they did" to his country. He doesn't consider himself superior, he considers the "other" as a threat to him and his safety.

All of this bigotry is based off of ignorance, much like racism, but to call it racism and put it all under one tent is a mistake. How you would help educate and treat each of these cases is very different. But if you label them all KKK, you misdiagnose the problem and you dumb down the discussion.

[noamnety]

85. I ignored pretty much all parts of your posts

that were based on faulty premises, like not understanding the definition of racism. In geometry, we can't argue proofs if we can't agree upon the postulates. Here, we have you arguing that something is or isn't racism - based on a definition you made up.

This is one of the joys of dealing with white privilege - people who have it believe they get to define/redefine words that affect others more than themselves. They get to define pretty much the whole world and interpret the experiences of minorities from a position of "authority" cause the minorities aren't capable of doing it "right" themselves.

This is one aspect of white male supremacy (which not all white males fall into, and thank you to the ones who don't).

An example of white male supremacy combined with cluelessness would be a white dude telling a woman of color what is or isn't racism - even though he is in the position to have experienced it far less than her, and is not the expert here. Especially funny is when a white dude does that - and follows it with stating that he's more capable of rational thought than the woman of color, she can only argue from "emotions."

Believe it or not, I've seen that happen, right on this board even - and the folks who do it believe they are not racists - in fact they think they are anti-racist. They will say that right to the women of color as they are telling them that their ability to analyze racism is superior to the people who experience it daily. Crazy world we live in.

[MellowDem]

91. You are showing your ignorance and prejudice

You ignored all parts of my post because you have no answer or no reasoning. You refuse to discuss any of your views.

Then you throw out some bullshit "white male supremacy" semi-accusation. Man, you have proved everything I said above correct.

I'm not telling you what is and isn't racism. And I never said I'm more capable of rational thought. I'm telling you my opinion. And it's a one way conversation because you offer nothing back. This is all on you. And shame on you, seriously, for calling this an example of white male supremacy. You're a race-baiter and accuser, in many ways much worst than real racists out there. You keep race and racism alive and well. Congratulations!

What makes a person an expert on racism? You don't know me, but for some reason you assume you are the expert. I've never laid claim to any sort of expertise or more knowledge. I'm just sharing my opinions from my experiences. But it is obvious you have blinders on. You think that because I'm a white male, you can just stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalala". After all, only colored women can discuss race and racism. Lord forbid that everyone who is effected by it, much less those damn evil white males, even say an opinion. We should just cut them out of the conversation all together, or accuse them of white supremacy. That's worked well for us in the last few decades, hasn't it?

Shit, I don't know if I should be mad or sad that you're accusing me of white supremacy for having the "gaul" as a white guy to discuss race. Mostly, I'm just sad. Maybe your experiences have made you prejudiced towards white guys like myself. You're holding back my generation. And it sucks.

[fishwax]

94. lol

A few quotes from your most recent post: “I'm not telling you what is and isn't racism. And I never said I'm more capable of rational thought. I'm telling you my opinion.”
“I've never laid claim to any sort of expertise or more knowledge.”

In fact, you’ve spent plenty of energy in this subthread doing exactly what you claim here not to be doing: telling noamnety (and Raineyb before that) what is and isn’t racism and that you have a particular knowledge/expertise about race that they lack:

#63: "If you knew what you were talking about... you would realize what racism is.”
#63: "It doesn't matter who has experienced "racism" if people have no clue what it is. And you obviously do not."
#67: “You are an embarrassment … Obviously, you have no idea how complicated of a subject this is.”
#67: “Your income is the big decider of your privilege, race has very little to do with it.”
#71: “Wrong If you refuse to understand the basic definitions of bigotry and discrimination, there's not much I can do for your understanding of race. Bigotry and discrimination by themselves have nothing to do with race.”

In other words, you know what racism is and they don’t. You’re not simply “telling (your) opinion,” but rather (despite your protests to the contrary) telling them what is and isn’t racism, insulting their intelligence and reason, and dismissing their understanding of racism. Just like noamnety said you were.

And then you have the nerve to accuse her of not engaging you critically, just because she doesn’t accept your bullshit definition of racism. :rofl:

[Karenina]

97. "After all, only colored women can discuss race and racism." n/c

[MellowDem]

101. Do you understand discussion?

It is quite possible to disagree with somebody, to think they are wrong. In fact, if you have an opinion on something, that means you think others who do not hold it are wrong. If they can't handle that, well then boohoo.

I never insulted their intelligence, considering there never was even a discussion. Just accusations and avoidance. That I will insult.

She has not engaged at all, and your defense of her is sad. Taking quotes out of context, damn, why didn't I learn to do that! :toast:

[fishwax]

128. oh please

there's no context missing from what I quoted. It shows you doing exactly what you claimed you weren't doing.

And noamnety has engaged, you've just refused to acknowledge it because she hasn't engaged you on your terms by accepting your bullshit definition of racism.

[MellowDem]

131. I'm not asking her to accept terms or definitions...

just to discuss them. Heck, she "refused to acknowledge" my opinion because it didn't fit hers. She said it herself. I acknowledged a definition of racism and then proceeded to say why I thought it was wrong. That's discussion.

[fishwax]

135. you weren't asking her to discuss them, you were telling her she was stupid

for not knowing/accepting them. In your first post to noamnety you call her an embarrassment and tell her that she has "no idea how complicated" the subject of race/racism is. Now, you may think that is simply asking her to discuss your definition of racism, but most of us recognize it as arrogant and condescending.

The arrogance and condescension carries over into later posts as well, for example when you say "If you refuse to understand the basic definitions of bigotry and discrimination, there's not much I can do for your understanding of race." As if she needs your help understanding race. :rofl:

[Raineyb]

138. Yes you are

You've decided that racism means one rather narrow act and any discussion that implies that it is larger than that you've decided comes from someone who doesn't know what racism is. You are doing exactly what you claimed you aren't doing.

What's worse, you're actually telling people of color that you, a white man, know more about what racism is than they do and no person of color is going to have a discussion with anyone who pulls some shit like that.

Regards

[noamnety]

98. Again, logic problems

Again, stemming from an inability to distinguish large sets from subsets.

Incorrect statement: "you're accusing me of white supremacy for having the "gaul" as a white guy to discuss race"

I have no problem with white guys discussing race. Lots of them do it intelligently.

I do have a problem with a subset of superior white guys who believe they have the right to dictate the terms of that debate, including:

- demanding that they get to redefine words and others must abide by their new definitions
- deciding how minority groups should self-identify (cause lord knows they aren't smart enough or responsible enough to decide for themselves)
- deciding they are MORE qualified to discuss race than People of Color (not "allowed" to discuss, or "equally qualified" but "more qualified")
- announcing that, by default, people who have experienced racism are LESS qualified than white guys to discuss it. (paraphrasing: "If I were black, my arguments would be based off emotions, not logic" - I find this amusing in the face of so many logical fallacies here)

White Privilege:
"30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have."

[MellowDem]

113. Look here:

- demanding that they get to redefine words and others must abide by their new definitions
- deciding how minority groups should self-identify (cause lord knows they aren't smart enough or responsible enough to decide for themselves)
- deciding they are MORE qualified to discuss race than People of Color (not "allowed" to discuss, or "equally qualified" but "more qualified")
- announcing that, by default, people who have experienced racism are LESS qualified than white guys to discuss it. (paraphrasing: "If I were black, my arguments would be based off emotions, not logic" - I find this amusing in the face of so many logical fallacies here)

I never did any of these things. I have never said any of these things (except the last quote, which you have taken out of context from another thread, a real desperate move). You have resorted to accusing me of these things in order to avoid discussion. Since I have a low post count, I won't be taken seriously I guess.

Somehow having an opinion turns into "demandind, deciding, announcing". If that's the case, how have you acted any less entitled than me? Here's what you have done.

- berating those who choose to dare to question the definition of words, and accusing them of imposing it on others.
- deciding they are MORE qualified to discuss race than people they do not know, but especially white people they do not know, in fact, white people should not discuss race with them, but "only if they're smart about it" (ie: don't disagree with you).
- accusing those who dare to challenge and discuss the status quo of the way we have approached race as white supremacists

Gosh, this is easy! Who knew it was so easy to sabotage discussions with wild accusations and avoidance! Pulling quotes out of context from other thread of other subjects... Reminds me of the Bush years. But this is the internet, this is not the best form of communication. It's easy for people to read into things or take things in certain ways they aren't supposed to I guess.

This discussion has denigrated into race McCarthyism. Challenging the status quo remains as perilous as ever, even on progressive message boards.

[Number23]

95. You win the Internet.

An example of white male supremacy combined with cluelessness would be a white dude telling a woman of color what is or isn't racism - even though he is in the position to have experienced it far less than her, and is not the expert here.

My GOD that's good stuff. :applause: And you deserve a medal of Valor or at least one of Patience for trying to have the conversation that you are having with the person you are having it with.

I've seen that happen, right on this board even - and the folks who do it believe they are not racists - in fact they think they are anti-racist.

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?? Absolutely astounds me.

[MellowDem]

117. No one is "the expert" on race...

it's the wrong way to think of it. I never claimed expertise. I guess by discussing my opinion somehow I have claimed to be an expert? Really, I think the real crime to you is that I even discuss race at all "without out the proper expertise".

The internet is dumb.

[noamnety]

125. Who do you think has the best understanding of racism?

Those who are in oppressed minorities?
Or those who aren't?

Have you ever come across the theory that the most objective perspectives of race dynamics are those of marginalized people? You understand why that is?

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noamnety]

129. logic problems again

subsets, large sets. Please figure them out.

I asked who has the most objective perspective of oppression, and suggested the people most oppressed have the most objective view. You took that to mean: "You don't think the oppressor knows a thing or two about oppression."

I haven't said you, as a white man, know nothing about oppression. I have suggested that the more objective opinion might come from somebody who HAS to understand BOTH their circumstances and the white male perspective in order to survive in this culture.

White men, on the other hand, have the luxury of having the option to dismiss the perspective of oppressed minorities without understanding it. They have the luxury of being able to convince themselves they have "opted out" of being identified by their race, and they have the luxury of believing their lives aren't affected by race.

I was in a group recently where we were asked what percent - from 0 to 100 - our race had influenced our lives.

[MellowDem]

130. It could be either

Those with the best understanding of racism are those who understand all aspects of race and how it works in this society. I wouldn't necessarily say that those who are marginalized would automatically have the most objective perspectives, in fact, they could be skewed because of their marginalization. But I do understand what you are saying. Those who experience racism would know it best, generally.

I'm not quite comfortable with the idea that any one group of people's experiences make them have a better understanding of racism in general. I think they have a better understanding of what it's like to be on the recieving end of racism. But it doesn't necessarily mean they have a broader understanding of the history and many different perspectives and experiences aside from their own of race and racism in their locale. I feel it is too complicated a subject to be able to make that kind of generalization.

I do think that minorities in general have a greater understanding of how race operates in our society, because it is something they have to deal with, whether they want to or not, much more often than the majority. It is something they have to think about a lot, they are much more racially aware. But not necessarily more objective.

That does not mean white people cannot be as well, through their own experiences and learning. I think about race a lot, and have to deal with it myself on a day to day basis working in a 95% black school. It is something I am very aware of.

As for obectivity, one could argue that those who have a greater stake in race, that being minorities, could be even less objective than those who do not, that being the majority. You could just as easily say that because a white person does not have to deal with race a lot and does not have as much pressure to identify with the constructs of race society has set up for them, you could very well say they are MORE objective in some ways. They have an "outsiders" perspective, a privilege of being white, but a useful perspective as well, considering that is the point we hope to one day reach, where everyone won't have to consider race or racism.

Personally, I don't think any one group holds the monopoly on racial understanding or objectivity. I think all of us have a hard time being objective, considering society has put this mantle on us from birth. All of us are automatically loaded up with stereotypes that we either can live up to or not and face the consequences. Those with the best understanding usually have a very wide range of experiences with a diverse range of people.

And then we have to take into account what society has defined as race and racism. Does it include all perspectives? Is it aware of all the dynamics? The history? It's healthy to question these definitions I believe, especially if they are deemed to be part of the problem. Personally, I think they are. I'm not trying to redefine these definitions per se. I'm challenging whether they really work in our society.

[noamnety]

132. I think you've left out one possibility

which is that people who live with the effects of racism daily are both more emotional about it, and more objective. They can understand it in both ways - intellectually and emotionally. Understanding an issue emotionally does not negate one's ability to also understand it intellectually.

White people are more removed - I'll grant you that. But don't confuse being detached with being objective. Mostly what their status does is render many of the dynamics invisible to them.

Looking at gender, for example, many women "get" that men randomly expect them to act a certain way, as appeasers and comforters for everyman. We "get" that strangers feel entitled to come up to a woman who looks too serious, and tell them to "smile." It's not our job to be concerned with matters of consequence. Many men, on the other hand, are completely unaware of that phenomenon. Men are both more detached from it and less objective/less informed about it, because it's rendered invisible to them. They don't view it as male privilege that they are allowed to walk in public while looking serious. That's just the norm from their perspective, and when they tell a woman to "smile" - they don't see it as sexist, they see it as being friendly. Women tend to see the larger picture, because we are aware of how often it happens to us, and we see that men don't go up to other men they don't know on the street on a regular basis to tell them to smile.

That's a very small example, but a handy way for me to illustrate two perspectives, and how the person on the receiving end can have the most clear picture of the dynamics (even while getting pissed about it) while the person doing the oppression can be clueless - which is not synonymous with objective.

[MellowDem]

133. I agree with you generally

But I don't think that saying that since one person has a certain skin color, we can automatically assume that they have the most understanding of race. I think this is one issue that has to be taken on an individual level, given how complicated it is and all the factors in it. For example, if a black man has lived in the rural south all his life, experiencing discrimination, and has never been to anywhere else, would he have the best full understanding of race and racism? Or just a good understanding for the setting he was in? I would think a white man who had lived in many different places around many different races could have just as good if not a much broader and holistic understanding of race and racism.

I just don't like that when I question preconcieved notions (many influenced and created by whites) about race and racism, I'm automatically discounted not by my reasoning, but by the color of my skin. I don't think that should be the basis for discussion. I think recognizing I'm white can be a good way to see where I'm coming from, but even then, you can only assume the experiences of someone based only on their skin color so much (not much at all, really).

And I do think that whites definitely can (and do) understand race in emotional as well as intellectual ways. I don't think that understanding race emotionally automatically makes you more objective either. Blacks are just as biased as whites in general when it comes to understanding race. And trying to understand race or have discussions about race on the basis of the race of the person talking is one sure way not to be objective.

[noamnety]

134. In another thread

you were doing exactly that, though - discounting people's views because of their skin color. And when asked what if you were born a black woman, would your arguments then be based on emotions (as opposed to being objective, as if those are opposites and mutually exclusive) you answered yes, you'd likely be basing your arguments on emotions, and your conclusions would be wrong.

I automatically assume - until proven otherwise - that a person who has experienced a thing first-hand is in the best position to understand it and describe it. That's why when I've been asked to speak locally about Iraq, for example, my first question is always "have you also invited an Iraqi to be a speaker?"

As for racism and skin color, I disagree with your statement that we can't deduce so much about your experiences based on skin color. My assumptions might not be 100% accurate ... but I assume as a white male you haven't been pulled over while driving just fine because of your race, I assume you haven't been incarcerated for a crime you didn't commit, I assume when you went to elementary and high school the textbooks you read featured primarily people of the same ethnicity/gender as you. I assume when you watch tv or read a newspaper, the people in authority positions there are mainly your skin color and your gender. I assume the shows you grew up watching on tv featured people of your gender/race mostly holding down full time jobs, I assume you never had people treat you in patronizing ways because you could speak proper English. I assume when you make an appointment on the phone with someone and then meet them in person, they don't greet you with "Oh. I thought you were (insert wrong race)" and leave a big silence for you to find an appropriate response. I assume when you submit job applications, you don't have to stop and think about whether to write just your first initial, because you are afraid if you spell out your name and it looks too "white" you won't get an interview. I assume when you begin talking during a meeting at work, people don't just talk right over you, time and time again, as if you don't exist. I assume if you didn't turn in assignments at school, or had poor attendance, your teachers didn't blame it on your race.

For each one of those assumptions, there are exceptions. But I'm willing to guess most of it is true for you.

Based on your posts, I assume you feel that the only "real" oppression is the type of oppression YOU can experience (classism), and that people of color should change the way they talk about oppression to focus more on oppression from a white person's perspective - as it affects white people.

I don't know any black people trying to convince the world that racial discrimination and bigotry isn't racism. When I read statements like that, I assume the author is white, and I certainly don't view them as "challenging the status quo" in any way, even if they claim they are doing that by refusing to acknowledge the definition of racism. From my perspective, that ain't challenging shit - it's UPHOLDING the status quo.

[MellowDem]

136. Well bringing in another thread out of context

isn't very useful. I don't have the search feature, but if I remember correctly I said that if I was a black person who had experienced a lot of discrimination, it would be more likely that I would have a harder time discussing race not as a personal issue, but in a theoretical setting, then it is now. I never discounted people's views because of that, just stating the facts. I never said that that means that people who have been discriminated against have less understanding of race and racism, or can't talk rationally about the subject. I just honestly answered your question. Like you said, you can have a lot of emotions and still argue rationally about a subject.

And everyone experiences race first hand, just in different ways, and we need all of those perspectives to get a full understanding.

As for your long list of "white privilege", it is sorely misplaced and misfocused (and in many cases, irrelevant, and in many other cases, ironically based in class more than race). You do realize that a ton of the negative stereotypes associated with blacks have to do with their general condition, not their skin color? You are focusing on the wrong issue here. I'm not just making this up. I don't think racism is the main factor keeping blacks in poverty. You can discount me and say that it's just because I'm white that I say that. But try to back it up. I have backed up my position with solid reasons why, I'm not just assuming this is the case out of nowhere. Believe me, that has been the rational the past couple of decades and the policies we have made have been totally ineffective because it's not the main problem. In fact, poverty is helping keep racism, bigotry and discrimination alive and well. As long as there is inequality of condition, discrimination will continue. And if the gap increases, the discrimination will just get worst.

How were Asians able to succeed so well in a society with all the privileges you mentioned above denied to them? And all the discrimination and bigotry? How was it possible? According to you, it could not be possible, racism would have kept them down. Or why are Hispanics relatively better off than blacks in general? It just does not fit the theory that racism is the main culprit. All minorities should be pretty equally downtrodden if that was the case. And equally discriminated against. But I guarantee you that blacks are discriminated against far more than Asians nowadays (though it didn't always used to be the case).

As for discrimination and bigotry. All I am trying to do is show you that racism cannot be pursed in this black and white, "you're either with us or against us" way. There are more grey areas than that. You can't deal with racism, bigotry, and discrimination as one thing, because they can be very different. I never said that racial discrimination or bigotry are not racism, I said they aren't necessarily racist or based in racist ideology. It's something to note if you want to educate the ignorance that is out there. Telling someone over and over again "skin color doesn't mean we are inherently different, all races are equal" will do nothing if they were discriminating on race for other reasons. You're preaching to the choir and missing the point.

As long as we focus on racism as the main issue and poverty is ignored, racial gaps will remain and blacks will remain disproportionally in poverty. Lifting people out of poverty is the best way to end discrimination. For those who profit off of racial identity politics and having a permanent underclass, having the issue of poverty ignored or framed as a only a race issue is intentional. And it has worked incredibly well. Race is the distraction, and poverty is the problem that perpetuates discrimination, bigotry, and racism. As it is viewed right now, race is the problem, and poverty is a footnote. We are putting the cart before the horse.

And please stop with the accusations and putting words in my mouth!

[Raineyb]

141. There isn't a thing out of context in that post. I remeber it quite well and she practically quoted

you word for word.

You did imply that if you were a black woman that you'd be more "emotional" with the implication that as you weren't emotional you were more objective (a notion which is complete crap btw)

And your notion of poverty being the actual problem doesn't ring true. When you have poor white people refusing to join their equally poor black brothers and sisters and actively vote against their own economic interests for a party that will keep them poor, because they can't give up their whiteness, I find it rather laughable to argue that poverty is the problem which leads to discrimination. Apparently whiteness is so valuable in this country that some people will rather starve than give it up. But race is not the problem that causes discrimination? I find that a rather strange argument.

Regards

[MellowDem]

146. Obviously you didn't...

According to the search, it wasn't a black woman, just being black. And yes, emotion would factor in more for me personally if I had been discriminated against. And yes, arguing from nothing but emotion is not inherently objective, no matter what the subject.

And my notion of poverty is backed up by the way poor whites actively vote against their own economic interests. In fact, it proves it perfectly. Poor whites vote against their economic interests not because they would be giving up their "whiteness". They do it because poverty is not an issue. Their economic interests are not a priority. It's a race issue, it's affirmative action and "white privilege". A small side issue compared to abortion and gay marriage. Really! And of course, whites who live in poverty aren't starving. In fact, they're mostly quite the opposite. But white poverty culture has been celebrated and treasured as something to take "pride" in. So don't expect poor whites to vote on poverty until it is actually discussed in the public forum and becomes a real issue. Until then, they will revel in their more "pure" culture. It's the whole "salt of the earth" idea. That's why Palin would always go to small town America and call it "real America". Because telling people who are poor or live in poverty that they're the heart and soul of the nation makes them feel better, unfortunately.

People discriminate against blacks so much more than, say, Asians, because of the condition of so man blacks who live in poverty. With that comes a lot of negative stereotypes and discrimination. Poverty is associated with ignorance, crime, laziness, dependency, etc. in America. And therefore it is also associated by many with blacks. Poverty isn't an American issue, it's a black issue. That's the approach to poverty, and that is the problem. That's why we didn't hear one word about poverty in the campaign. We have to change our approach and perception of poverty.

So yes, discrimination has to do with race, but more specifically, it has a lot to do with race AND income.

[Raineyb]

149. And what exactly is the rationale for people who discriminate against well to do blacks?

Your theory is utterly wrong on its face. And as you've already been quoted I'll be waiting for your apology as I was correct.

Regards

[noamnety]

142. google works as a search feature.

"I don't have the search feature, but if I remember correctly I said that if I was a black person who had experienced a lot of discrimination, it would be more likely that I would have a harder time discussing race not as a personal issue, but in a theoretical setting, then it is now. I never discounted people's views because of that, just stating the facts."

context:

K: Perhaps you would feel differently if you were born black?
MD: Maybe I would... but if I did, it would be based off of emotion, as it has been for decades.

This is interesting to me:

How were Asians able to succeed so well in a society with all the privileges you mentioned above denied to them? And all the discrimination and bigotry? How was it possible? According to you, it could not be possible, racism would have kept them down.

followed by "please stop with the accusations and putting words in my mouth!"

see the problem?

[MellowDem]

147. Sucks, doesn't it?

Now why don't you call me a white supremacist again or say that I was arguing that racial discrimination and bigotry are not ever racism?

See the problem?

[Raineyb]

139. Thank you.

That is my point exactly and may I add, beautifully said.

:applause:

Regards

[Name removed]

105. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raineyb]

137. Like I said, you have no idea how clueless you are.

And every word in your rather arrogant diatribe proves it.

Since you refuse to let go of your definition of racism, or even consider that it may be wrong, and as you're so arrogant as to tell me a black woman that I don't know what racism is, despite the fact that I and not you are the one who is on the receiving end of racism in this country; there's absolutely no point in even attempting to continue what has clearly turned out to be a rather tiresome conversation.

Go back to your privileged bubble since you're clearly not interested in actually listening.

Regards

[Karenina]

152. Not interested in listening

AND in a position of "authority" in an inner city school. :freak:

[Raineyb]

153. I weep for the students in that school.

No doubt that's exactly what those kids need to hear some thinks he knows what they're going through twit coming in telling them things that they know damn well aren't true.

I can't imagine that it goes well.

Regards

[serrano2008]

88. So according to your explanation here - the NY Post cartoon wasn't racist either?

It was certainly premeditated cause he drew it and it had to pass editors and such.

[ecstatic]

118. FAIL

:eyes:

[Tex-Slim]

106. Woah there hoss

Look, if you even bothered to review what happened, this guy was riding Richards and he snapped.

Now don't say I'm defending him, excusing him, supporting him, or any of that tripe.

I'm just stating the facts.

Richards was wrong, but isn't it time we worried about CURRENT EVENTS and stopped punishing one dumb mistake for the rest of his life?

I mean, your whole premise, "There's a difference between a premeditated 'racist' skit" is an obvious attempt to be disingenuous - in your continuation you acknowledge you know it was no such thing. You know that he was responding to a heckler and he screwed up. SO he apologized - forgive and forget, already.

moveon.org, you know?

[XemaSab]

59. To everyone making excuses: If Michelle Obama called you up

and asked you to go to Washington DC and personally explain to her how what Richards said wasn't really racist and he didn't really mean it, would you be willing to go explain it to her? :shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

60. I love all of the defenders of white folks calling black folks "nigger" in this thread.

Fuckers.

[noamnety]

65. Well, you know, the white folks have all been in those shoes.

I can speak with authority on this issue because I was called cracker once. I get what it is to be a victim of racism.

:sarcasm:

[serrano2008]

89. Yeah...black folks ain't never said nuthin' bout white folks.

Really, I don't think I've ever heard of anybody calling a black guy racist for saying something derogatory to a white person for being white.

[ProfessorGAC]

100. Thought The Same Thing, Bloo

Sorry folks, but i don't think there is ANY defense that works. White folks, (like me), simply are not allowed to use that word. Ever.
GAC

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bridgit]

62. A show about nothing my ass it was all about money; Seinfeld keyed on four Jewish friends...

in what Jesse Jackson once referred to as Himey-Town yet not a one of them wore a funny little black hat, black garb, and side locks in the course of making fun of everyone around or en route to bubble boys, gated Jewish retirement condos in Florida, anti gravity ball point pens and sponge worthy him-bo's now just how fucking plausible *is* that?

[mucifer]

66. a little fyi here. michael richards isn't Jewish. Of the characters on the show, only

Seinfeld and maybe Kramer were supposed to be Jewish. Although it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe George Castanza and his parents weren't Jewish!

I'm very curious about what Larry David is going to do with the actors. Too bad I don't have HBO.

[bridgit]

76. Mentioning 'seinfeld' keyed as such little establishes RL g-pool; Richards is another matter

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/michael-richards-is-not-j_b_34772.html

[mucifer]

78. wow I have NO idea what that sentence means.

keyed? RL g-pool? I'm so confused. Maybe I'm just old. 43 doesn't feel that old. Oh well.

[bridgit]

81. 'keyed' used as a ref ref'ing media format or product, 'RL g-pool' ref's gene pool still...

Charles Bronson was no indian...IRL, but we still judge the books by their covers its what we do the very best here at DU

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorGAC]

120. Castanza Would Be Italian, Right?

At least that's what i always thought. Trust me, there were italian families like that, too. Had them in my family.
GAC

[sufrommich]

69. Only Seinfeld was jewish on the show. Not even sure

what your point is.

[ecstatic]

115. I really used to like the show too

I ignored all the obvious racism on the show for years but now I have no doubt in my mind that everyone in the cast knew of Richards' views and even shared them.

[Taverner]

75. Hmmmm it shall be interesting

Didn't Michael Richards check into rehab afterwards - even though he had no addictions?

[deaniac21]

86. He should be put to death!

[WI_DEM]

87. Love 'Curb' can't wait to see it.

[Raine]

90. I LOVE Seinfeld, LOVE the show

but for a long time the pleasure and fun went out of it after Richard's disgusting rant. It took a long time before I was able to enjoy it again, Kramer is one thing but Richards I can't stand. x(

[Naturyl]

92. I may get flamed, but...

I honestly am not convinced that Richards is actually a racist.

What?!?!?

Yeah. While Richards' remarks were horrible and inexcusable by ANY decent standards, I don't think they were necessarily motivated primarily by racism. Rather, I think that Richards simply completely lost his temper and said whatever he felt would be the most outrageous thing he could say - the most offensive and damaging. In his rage, he wanted to absolutely destroy people.

While this may not compute for some people, those of you who have dealt with anger issues in your own lives will understand exactly what I am talking about. Think about it.

Then again, I could be wrong. Richards could be a huge bigot. If he is, to hell with him.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[npk]

93. May I inquire. What did he say (sorry out of the loop)

Who did Michael Richards insult/ call a racist name. I heard about the controversy when it happened, but never what led to it.

[ecstatic]

109. the youtube video and transcript:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pp6WC1Ocz4

TRANSCRIPT

MICHAEL RICHARDS: Shut up! 50 years ago we'd have you upside-down with a f...ing fork up your arse!

(Sound of laughter and cheering from the crowd)

You can talk, you can talk, you can talk, you're brave now, motherf...er. Throw his ass out. He's a n****r, he's a n****r, he's a n****r...

AUDIENCE MEMBER 1: Oh my God.

MICHAEL RICHARDS: A n****r, look there's a n****r.

(Sound of surprise from audience)

MICHAEL RICHARDS: Ooh, Ooh!

MARK SIMKIN: Richards, who played Kramer in Seinfeld, ripped into a heckler.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 2: (inaudible) ... calling me a n****r?

MICHAEL RICHARDS: (inaudible) ... you calling me (inaudible), n****r?

AUDIENCE MEMBER 2: That ain't necessary.

MICHAEL RICHARDS: Well, you interrupted me, pal. That's what happens when you interrupt a white man.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lilyeye]

150. I don't see how anyone here could excuse this bullshit .

[LooseWilly]

96. Okay, I'll say it.

I don't really care if he's a racist.

Then again, I don't have cable anymore... so I probably won't ever get around to watching.

All things considered, my guess is that he's had some "run ins" with the black folk... and when "they" started heckling him, he lost his shit and the racist shit was what came out...
It happens.

It's not pleasant... and apparently I haven't heard the half of it cause the fork up the ass thing... wow, that's some awful stupid shit to say on stage... and I'm not sure that it's even forgivable... but one stressful moment should not a crucifixion make (or no one here should ever watch anything ever made by Mel Gibson (anti-semitic) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (sexist) ever again.

Hell, people suck... and then there are the roles we watch them in. If the role isn't racist/sexist/anti-semitic... and the actor isn't completely onerous (donating generously to prop 8 or what have you), then I think a little personal failing slack should be given.
I know I've had friends who were assholes... and relatives that had some bigot in them. I didn't murder any of them over it. Or starve them.

I mean, it's just a thought. If anyone disagrees, feel free to boycott. Hell, if you are really juiced up about it, go ahead and really go crazy and go on a manhunt. A nice .30-06, or an SKS with a couple of strip clips... you can really serve up some justice.
It's a free country, after all. On the other hand, hunting rifles aren't free... they get you coming and going, don't they?...

[ecstatic]

110. So if Rush Limbaugh or David Duke or Mike Phelps

joined the cast of your favorite show, you'd be OK with it? Sorry, I have boundaries. Can't watch the guy who joked about lynching while tossing racial slurs at audience members.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pp6WC1Ocz4&feature=channel_page

[LooseWilly]

145. Ok... you have a point.

The clip was a lot worse than I'd figured.

I might not be able to watch him anymore myself, now...
I'd figured it was just a heated moment in some sort of heated exchange... but that was just... painful to watch. Way way past a heated moment when some deep lurking racism one might've been raised with might rear its head...

[Name removed]

102. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherine Vincent]

140. No, I haven't forgotten

He may have apologized but some of us will always remember what came out of his mouth. He can't ever take that back.

[MadBadger]

143. Sounds Pretty Good

Prettttty, Pretttty, Pretty good.

[tangent90]

144. Yanno, there has been -way- too much outrage wasted on this one silly guy.

But then some people make a career out of elevating dudgeon.
:shrug:

[Think82]

148. He apologized. He got angry at hecklers and said something I don't think he means

That being said, he's one of the most talented comedic actors ever imho.