threaded | unthreaded | newest first

Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

topic posted Mon, November 20, 2006 - 4:11 PM by 
Not Kramer! youtube.com/watch

So how long do you think it will be before he apologizes on his way into rehab?
posted by:
join to post

  • Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

    Tue, November 21, 2006 - 4:13 PM
    I don't really know what to say or add, but it seems like bad onstage behavior, not necessarily just hatred.
    join to post

    • Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

      Tue, November 21, 2006 - 4:31 PM
      "bad onstage behavior"

      Haha! That is an understatement! Poor guy is on his way to a True Hollywood Story on E any day now.
      I'm totally thinking coke rage.
      join to post
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

        Sat, November 25, 2006 - 3:51 PM
        Tell yourselves whatever you want if you need a "good" reason for Michael to have done this. Truth is, he just said what he was thinking and it's obvious he has had those exact thoughts on many an occasion. His kind of hatred does not just bubble up overnight. He showed his real face on stage that night and no amount of spin will prove otherwise.
        join to post

        • Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

          Sat, November 25, 2006 - 4:22 PM
          I have no doubt that he said what he was thinking. There isn't an excuse for that kind of behavior but it's still the kind of thing folks latch onto as a big "racial thing" while ignoring the day to day crap that bugs me and effects a lot of our lives a lot more (I can't even begin to describe the treatment I get from some shop ladies when I walk into certain types of boutiques). I just think it is way too easy for people to point fingers at his coked out brain fart whent he truth is lots of them have thought shit like that and just weren't fucked up enough to yell it out.
          join to post
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

    Wed, November 29, 2006 - 10:29 PM
    Humor that touchs on racial themes can make you laugh so hard your face hurts. Chris Rock, for example. Richard Pryor pioneered it. It's good. It gives people a way to deal with racial issues and tensions. People are afraid to even talk about race now. But people need to be able to laugh about the things they can't talk about.

    Unfortunately, though, when a white dude ventures into this territory, it's often just not funny. Michael Richards just wasn't funny. The material wasn't funny, nor was the delivery. If it had been funny, would it be racist?

    I'm hesitant to call anyone a racist based upon his words alone, especially when the person is trying to be funny, thought provoking, etc. And the PC movement has become a parade of retards. They want to ban books by Mark Twain because they use the N word. Fucking morons. It's part of our history.

    I've heard some people who sounded racist in their words, but in their deeds and actions, were pure in their heart, you know? I've seen these good ol boys who still haven't learned to stop calling black people Negros and probably still use the N word when college boys like me are not around, but they will hire black people without any prejudice, without even a second thought as to race.

    And then I have heard people who have mastered speaking in politically correct terms and will not even dare discuss race for offending someone but are racist as hell in their judgments and deeds, and discriminate in their employment practices. All white law firms, but they practice good PC. Things like that. Uh huh, whatever.
    join to post

    • Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

      Wed, November 29, 2006 - 10:54 PM
      There is a big difference between what Michaels Richards did and what Chris Rock and Richard Pryor or Dave Chapelle do. Yes they are all black and he is not but actually the main difference is they were trying to be funny. When he was shouting Nigger he wasn't trying to be funny he was just trying to be mean. Plus usually it really just isn't that funny if a white person tried to do it (there could be exceptions). Mel Brookes made practically a whole career out of Jewish Jokes but it really wouldn't be that funny if Richard Pryor or Chris Rock did them. Chirs Rock also has a funny stand up routine about when white people (especially comedians) complain that they don't get to use the N word just like black people do. Funny enough he used Seinfeld as an example in it. It was something like, "Why do you need to use it? Are ya really feeling that deprived without it? Can you picture Jerry Seinfeld saying to himself, I've got a mansion a yacht and an incredible career now I'd just be happy if I too could just use the N word!"
      join to post
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

        Wed, November 29, 2006 - 11:49 PM
        I think the whole "the-n word-is-funny-only-if-a-black-comic-says-it theory" is too simplistic.

        Of course, a member of any group has license to make fun of his own group, and if you are not a member of that group, you don't have the license and run the risk of offending people if you make fun of them.

        But that is not what determines if something is funny or not. I have heard plenty of black comics blurt out the n-word without being the least bit funny.

        Maybe I haven't seen enough of the tape, but from what I saw, I can't really say what was gonig on inside his head.

        He's a professional comic on a stage and gets paid to be funny. If he is not funny, he doesn't get invited back. Why wouldn't his intention be to be funny?

        I don't know what he was thinking and I am not defending him. I don't even like the guy and I don't think Kramer was all that funny. I'm just not prepared to judge him as a racist based upon a heckling incident. I would need more information. And for that matter, the hecklers sounded like assholes, too. I pretty much think anyone who heckles and then gets offended at the response is a goddamned weenie.

        A plague on all of their houses, I say.
        join to post

        • Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

          Thu, November 30, 2006 - 7:10 AM
          I never said only blacks could use the N word and be funny. I said there could be exceptions but like I said making fun of ones own group is usually funnier than when anyone else does it. And I have seen plenty of the tape. He isn't being funny at all, anyone can see that. He was clearly dying on stage and just looses it. When he's shouting "Throw this guy's ass out, he is a Nigger" there was no joke or humor there. He was just rambling and coked out of his head and didn't know how to handle himself. I've also heard what the hecklers said and saw their later interviews. I work about a block from the building where it took place and can see it from my office window and Hollywood is a 2 degrees of seperation town so I know a bit more about this than I actually care to. The hecklers were not that bad as far as hecklers go - yes heckling is rude but a REAL comic does't explode and lose his cool on hecklers, a real comic figures out how to make the audience laugh at the hecklers. The problem is he was already stinking it up on stage and the hecklers were bored and so was everyone else and he knew it and lost it. They didn't even say much besides "you're not funny" or some version of that and even when he started really insulting them their response was rather tame compared to what some would have done. They've even admited on camera that they probably should have talked less and unlike him they didn't have to do that to save their asses.

          What is more I have not at all called him a racist. I have said he was probably coked out of his head he meant to be nasty NOT funny by saying what he said and I don't doubt that. He wasn't trying to be funny he was just being a jerk. Is he a racist? Could be, depends on whether or not you think shouting out Nigger in anger makes one a racist. I will say I doubt it is the first time he has used that word.

          And so what if you have seen black comics use it without being funny. I'd bet they were at least trying to be funny not just insulting.
          join to post
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

    Tue, December 5, 2006 - 10:18 AM
    So now I read the hecklers have retained a lawyer, who is threatening Mr. Richards with some kind of action under California's hate speech law.

    The founding fathers believed, philosophically, in freedom of speech. Why? Because they believed in a "free market of ideas." If people are free to discuss and debate, the truth eventually emerges. While it may be painful for us to have to listen to the most repugant expressions, like the racism spewing from a racist, you have to let them talk if you want their ideas to be defeated in the market place of ideas. Freedom of speech means good and bad speech alike. Censoring ideas only makes them more alluring, and keeps the ideas from being debated in the light of truth.

    Political correctness is, inescapably, an unofficial form of censorship, and I don't care how well-intentioned it is, it stiffles free expression.

    The only limits on speech should be as to time and place. No one should be able to barge into a black church and call the congregation the "n" word, for example. Why? Because to do so would be repugnant? No. It would be repugant, but that is not the reason. The reason is simply a legal one. The church is private property (place) and the time (church services) is inappropriate. Time and place restrictions are necessary.

    Now, taking the absurdity of political correctness even further, is this threat to bring a "hate speech" action against Mr. Richards.

    It was a comedy club. Both the time and place were acceptable for any kind of speech, other than "FIRE!" or the like. If you are thin skinned, vulnerable, and subject to deep emotional impact from words, stay the fuck out of a comedy club.

    What are they suing for? Hurt feelings? Hurt feelings were never enough to bring a legal action in the entire tradition of our law. The legal system expects people to be able to deal with hurt feelings without resort to legal action.

    Again, I am not defending Mr. Richards. I don't think he was funny. If he wasn't funny, then his use of the N word certainly appears to be racist.

    But you know, a lawsuit over it is just bullshit. And it's totally counterproductive.

    Are we now a society where people are punished for the mere expression of their thoughts?

    He may be a racist. So don't buy his DVD, don't see his shows, and condemn him. But sue him? That is so wrong.




    join to post
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

      Tue, December 5, 2006 - 1:17 PM
      I do think, however, that "hate crimes" should receive additional, extra punishment. Committing a crime is entirely a different matter than merely expressing a repugnant thought or insult.

      A crime that is motivated by hatred for race is more henious than the same crime without the racial motivition. It deserves an enhanced punishment.

      You know, there are people on Tribe who will threaten you with a lawsuit if they don't like what you say. The world has gone insane!
      join to post

    • Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

      Tue, December 5, 2006 - 2:44 PM
      Are we still talking about this?
      The hecklers didn't go looking to retain a lawyer. Lawyers went looking for them. I saw those guys after the incident in their first interviews. They barely gave it much thought. Gloria Allred the infamous ambulance chasing media whore lawyer spoke out and approached them and proposed they sue based on hate speech laws. Those guys didn't have a clue about that until they were approached and encouraged. Do I think they are innocent victims? No way, but really they are just a couple of guys who were drinking and being stupid and Michael Richards acted like a dork and greedy lawyers are now seeing dollar signs and a chance to be in the media spotlight. It is bullshit, I agree but not that surprising because thoughts of money make people do all kinds of stupid things. No offense but this is a perfect example of why so many people hate and distrust lawyers. Are all lawyers this way? No but the ones that are get noticed a lot more.
      I don't mind the hate speech laws but this is total abuse of them. The California hate speech laws were originally meant for guys who incite acts of violence throught their speech - like if your pastor tells you during a sermon to go out and kill all niggers then it would be possible to convict him if you actually did it based on his speech. There is no way anyone can say Michael Richards did anything close to that and if any judge lets that case get anywhere then it is an abomination and degredation of the true spirit of the law.
      join to post
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

        Tue, December 5, 2006 - 4:04 PM
        Yes, we are still talking about this. Feel free to change the subject, delete my posts, boot me from your tribe, or even report me to TOU if it is annoying you.

        I don't think we are in disagreement, except it is irrelevant to me whether the lawyers sought out the hecklers for representation or vice versa.

        I'm not defending the guy or playing devil's advocate. I just take issue with people being quick to condemn others on the basis of one incident, even if the incident was outrageous. Does one act sum up an entire life, or an entire person? If he was wacked out on drugs, as has been suggested, who knows if his behavior on drugs shows his true beliefs? People do weird things when impaired. How do all these people who say it showed his true nature and true beliefs know that? Can they see inside his soul?

        You can judge his deeds and I don't think he is even offering a defense for his deeds. But don't claim you know what is in his heart, unless you do have some way of knowing this. If you know Mr. Richards, then I suppose you can judge him. If all you saw is a video tape, how much do you really know?

        As far as the ambulance chaser lawyer who has now entered the picture, it is unethical for a lawyer to solicit representation from an individual he does not know or have any established relationship with. This is what we mean by ambulance chasing.

        But I don't buy it that people are helpless to resist ambulance chasers. In my career, the kinds of people who are usually represented by ambulance chasers are as big a scumbag as the ambulance chasers who represent them. Like two peas in a pod.

        All they had to say to that lawyer was, "no thanks."
        join to post

        • Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

          Tue, December 5, 2006 - 4:39 PM
          "Yes, we are still talking about this. Feel free to change the subject, delete my posts, boot me from your tribe, or even report me to TOU if it is annoying you. "

          Actually you weren't annoying me up until you had to go and say something bratty like that. It's like you want to prove anyone who happens to not like anything you say is going to go call TOU or boot you from their tribe. Whatever.

          Please don't get caught up in being contrary just for the sake of being contrary.

          Did I say the guys couldn't say no to the lawyers? Nope in fact I have no admiration for their greed but no, I don't believe the clients are as much to blame as the unethical lawyers who seek them out because the lawyer has taken the courses in law and ethics and has sworn an oath and knows just what to say and do to manipulate the client into believing this is actually a good idea. The lawyer does have a bigger responsibility to uphold and respect the law because they have greater knowledge of the law.

          And I have never once said I do claim to know what is in Mr. RIchard's heart. In fact from the very start I have been chalking it up to a Cocaine rage, but like I have said I sincerely doubt that it is the first time he has used that word and if he now has troubles in his life because he can't control his drugs and his temper, well then that is just chickens coming home to roost.
          join to post
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

            Tue, December 5, 2006 - 6:29 PM
            Yuni, it was others who were claiming to know what is in Mr. Richards' heart. I did not mean to suggest you had said that.

            As for your broadside against the legal profession, how about this one:

            "Think lawyers are a joke? Then call a comedian next time you are in a jam."

            I think your broadside against the legal profession as greedy is profoundly ignorant. It is par for the course on Tribe, which but from you, it is a disappointment.

            There are a lot more greedy and dishonest people looking to hire a lawyer than there are greedy lawyers willing to take their cases. That's a fact.
            join to post

            • Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

              Tue, December 5, 2006 - 7:16 PM
              Oh geez! Talk about really looking for something to whine about! You know darn well I did not broadside the legal profession. Are you just in a crappy mood and looking to feel like someone is insulting you?

              "Are all lawyers this way? No but the ones that are get noticed a lot more. "

              Look at the above quote, does that look like I am slamming all lawyers? Nope it doesn't, quite to the contrary I was slamming unethical lawyers who taint the whole profession. If I was talking about bad doctors would you suddenly assume I have a problem with all medical professionals? Pretty silly of you to jump to such a conclusions really. Plus it is you who broadsides your own profession by caring more about having anyone in it insulted rather than acknowledging that some lawyers make really unethical choices that create a bad name that ends up being attached to you all! If by my insulting unethical lawyers you feel I have insulted all lawyers then am I to conclude you feel all lawyers are unethical by nature? I doubt it so please get your panties unbunched!

              And let's not forget we are talking about THIS case and THESE particular guys were approached by lawyers, NOT the other way around.

              join to post
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

                Tue, December 5, 2006 - 7:44 PM
                Pardon me if I take offense. Would you take offense if I said that the racist stereotypes about Blacks are not true about all Blacks, but are true about some Blacks?

                ***

                I don't know the facts of what transpired between the hecklers/victims and their lawyer. No one should, it is a confidential matter, actually.

                But I would like to dispell the myth you are spreading that lawyers talk people into filing frivolous lawsuits.

                Unles a person is feeble minded, no lawyer can talk a client into filing a lawsuit they don't care to file. If an ambulance chasing lawyer chased down some dumbshits who want their 15 minutes of fame and to play the lawsuit lottery, and they all agree to file a frivolous lawsuit, then a plague on all their houses, but don't blame it on the legal profession.

                I can't tell you how many people in my career have approached me with inane, meritless, frivlous, vindictive or just plain wrong legal claims they wanted me to pursue. It's a lot. I have to patiently listen to them all, free of charge. Often they get very hostile when I turn them down. Of course, I turn those down.

                But what am I supposed to do? Close my door to the public, so that I won't have to listen to this, and indulge in only the luxury of representing the wealthy and powerful, who are usually more sophisticated about these matters? No, I represent the people as often as not, so I have to listen. When you represent the people, you get some nut cases sometimes.

                I don't think I have ever filed a case that was frivolous or lacked merit, but the least meritorious cases I ever filed where the ones in which the clients begged me to file the case, after every other lawyer had turned them down. I had my doubts, but if I did not represent them, they would be denied access to the courts. So I have taken a few cases against my better judgment. Those cases seldom pay very well, but some people at least feel they got some justice, and now have some faith that the legal system is not just for the rich.

                There are far more lawyers like me than the greedy ones. If you are going to talk about greedy lawyers, then talk about the good ones, too?

                Don't blame the lawyer. Blame those hecklers. They are the ones who are in control. They and they alone decide whether the case will be filed or the claim will be made.
                join to post

                • Re: Michael Richards, Say it aint so!

                  Tue, December 5, 2006 - 7:49 PM
                  Comparing talking about unethical lawyers to making stereotypes about race? You are obviously in the mood to pick a fight and sorry but I just don't give a shit anymore. You insult your own intelligence with such flawed logic.


                  You don't want to talk about THIS case you just want to whine and gnash your teeth at someone....perhaps anyone. Poor dear.
                  join to post