Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Kramer" from Seinfeld racist remarks

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jbondoIf it was a stunt or some kind of experiment on society then it got me. Kaufman-like? Not even close.


this wasn't a stunt of any kind. these kinds of things will stick with the person. a client of mine made the wall street journal a while back. seems he was under investigation by the SEC. he is a rather well known fund manager. anyway, the accusations are apparently wrong (so he says) but he said that this is the equivalent to being publicly accused of being a pedophile. no matter that the outcome is, he will always be branded. the same goes for Richards, Gibson etc. will I actively go and watch Gibson's movies? nope. I don't want my evil jewish money finding its way into his innocent, pristine hands. Will african americans embrace Richards and become fans? nope. rather, richards will always be known as that racist guy in their eyes.




posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
If it was a stunt or some kind of experiment on society then it got me. Kaufman-like? Not even close.


It makes me wonder though

From Wiki-ped on Andy Kaufman


In 1981, Kaufman made a couple of memorable appearances on Fridays, a variety show on ABC that was similar to SNL. Kaufman's first appearance on the show proved to be the most memorable one. During a sketch about four people out on a dinner date who excuse themselves to the restroom to smoke marijuana, Kaufman broke character and refused to say his lines.

The other comedians were embarrassed by the position that Kaufman had put them in on a live television show. In response, Michael Richards walked off camera and returned with a set of cue cards and dumped them on the table in front of Kaufman. Andy responded by splashing Michael Richards with water. Show emcee, comedian Jack Burns stormed onto the stage, leading to a brawl on camera before the show finally cut away to commercial. The entire incident was a gag conceived by Andy Kaufman, but how many people were in on the joke has never been clear.

Regardless, Kaufman appeared the following week in a videotaped apology to the home viewers. Later that year, Kaufman returned to host Fridays. At one point in the show, he invited a Lawrence Welk Show gospel and standards singer Kathie Sullivan on stage to sing a few gospel songs with him and announced that the two were engaged to be married and talked to the audience about his newfound faith in Jesus. It was also a hoax.


I'm not convinced this wasn't staged. The more I look into it, the more I see Richards just messing with people. I wouldn't be surprised if this came out as a hoax.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Kaufman felt that pushing people's buttons was brilliant comedy. He did it to Jerry Lawler and wound up in a neck brace. He would go onstage and read books. He so immersed himself in messing with people's minds that, even to this day, some of his fans and friends claim that his death might have been one of his gags. Bob Zamuda (his writing partner) even busted out Tony Clifton (one of Kaufman's characters) after Kaufman died and denied that he was the man in character.

It's one thing to taunt women as a means of mocking the stereotype that men are stronger (he wrestled women). It is another to call a black man n.... and make a reference to hanging him upside down with a fork in his arse (that comment couldn't have come from thin air so perhaps it was thought out at some point).



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Just the fact that Michael Richards played a part in one of Kaufman's shock comedy acts makes me think that he was trying to do something similar. Sure it's different from what Kaufman did, but if it was the same thing, or lass shocking, it wouldn't stand out.

BTW, the whole thing between Kaufman and Jerry Lawler was staged as well.


sbj

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Ok, while I understand that he probably shouldn't have said those things let's examine WHY.

What exactly do these words do? Do they physically hurt a person? Are the words an indication that Richards going to actually lynch this person? Are the words going to be the only thing this poor black fellow thinks about for the rest of his life?

The answer to all of these is a resounding NO. Words have power because we give them that power. The idea that a series of SOUNDS can illicit this kind of reaction is ludicrous. The thing that I find most funny about situations like these is that people come out and shout from the rooftops, "RACISM BAD!" yet the only way we keep this outdated ideology alive is by giving things like this such power. The power of the press, the power of the media, and the power of the interweb.

Racism and racists behave alot like over-privileged 6-year-olds (in more ways than one), if you ignore them they go away. If you pay attention to it, and constantly shake your finger at it then it will stay.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Here is the apology in case anyone missed it.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
BTW, the whole thing between Kaufman and Jerry Lawler was staged as well.


from what I recall, and I could be wrong (my wife tells me I am all the time so it is highly possible) but I thought that he originally was in on the joke and kaufman took it too far and wound up getting hurt, or Lawler wound up playing along after he hurt kaufman and learned it was all a joke.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Jerry was in on it the whole time and even admitted to it quite matter of factly.

I do not recall that Kaufman/Richards thing on Fridays. However it was usually the case for those close to a Kaufman performace to be involved with the shtick.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I stand corrected.

don't tell the wife. she's never wrong. not always right but never, ever, wrong.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Just the fact that Michael Richards played a part in one of Kaufman's shock comedy acts makes me think that he was trying to do something similar. Sure it's different from what Kaufman did, but if it was the same thing, or lass shocking, it wouldn't stand out.

BTW, the whole thing between Kaufman and Jerry Lawler was staged as well.


Do you know the difference between right and wrong? Richards went way over the top and most people that are not masons or of his background are not impressed.

If Richards is innocent then so is Gibson and Cruise. I'm waiting for the 'system' to stop its witch hunt on those two then.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
Huge double standard.


I fully agree. There absolutely is a huge double standard.

However, the guy HAS to be racist to be able to push those things out of his mouth. I saw a clip of him on TV today apologizing and saying that he wasn't racist. But he must be to have that crap come out of him.

Same with Mel Gibson. He blames it on alcohol but the fact is that alcohol only make a person bolder to say what he/she is really thinking.

Kramer is racist. It just finally came out.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
He is worse than a racist because he would advocate people being killed if they offended him based on their race. It is clear that he is not only a racist but also a KKK member in spirit if not on paper.

Also remember the high place that masons hold Albert Pike (founder of KKK), as their supreme intellectual and highly revered among the 33 degree crowd.

Gibson did not suggest such a thing but complained about the purported activities of a certain powerful group of people (of which Kramer is one of them??).

Well we will see the rooster come to nest now. All the tribe will come to protect their own and become hypocrites for doing it.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Do you know the difference between right and wrong? Richards went way over the top and most people that are not masons or of his background are not impressed.


Of course I know the difference between right and wrong (howecer subjective that difference may be). If he did it with true maclicious intent, and really meant to hurt the guy, then yes, it's wrong. If he did it as a Kaufman-esque gag, then I think it's pretty funny, and I am impressed.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Do you know the difference between right and wrong? Richards went way over the top and most people that are not masons or of his background are not impressed.


Of course I know the difference between right and wrong (howecer subjective that difference may be). If he did it with true maclicious intent, and really meant to hurt the guy, then yes, it's wrong. If he did it as a Kaufman-esque gag, then I think it's pretty funny, and I am impressed.


I'm sorry but you can't really think this is funny even if it is a gag. If you remember Kaufman did many things for pue shock value. Allot of what Andy did was not in the least bit funny. I have an extremely dry sense of humor but many of Andy's stunts were not humorous and Andy knew it IMO. He fed of reaction and the more horrified the reaction, the better he liked it.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Gibson did not suggest such a thing but complained about the purported activities of a certain powerful group of people (of which Kramer is one of them??).

Well we will see the rooster come to nest now. All the tribe will come to protect their own and become hypocrites for doing it.


gibson blamed jews for all the wars, among other things. that is anti-semitism.
kramer called a group of black men ni**ers and made references to lynching. that is racism.

I highly doubt any members of my tribe will line up to defend Michael Richards, whether he is jewish or not.

for the record, Gibson wasn't complaining about the purported activities of a certain powerful group of people. he was ranting and raving about a religous group. all of them (us). that is ignorance at its most basic level.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Do you know the difference between right and wrong?


Of course I know the difference between right and wrong (howecer subjective that difference may be). If he did it with true maclicious intent, and really meant to hurt the guy, then yes, it's wrong. If he did it as a Kaufman-esque gag, then I think it's pretty funny, and I am impressed.


First of all Kaufman is and was not funny. He like many of his kind are really what I'd call under the radar bigots.

Annother example is Borat that comes to mind.

They are designed to influence the minds of teens with a chosen political agenda which is carefully hatched if not presented to them to deliver to the masses by the real control meisters. Look at how the big media slobbered all over that buffoon Borat as example.

Richards went overboard and he needs to be punished for the world to see and I'm shocked that the black community is not going all out on this one.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I wish everyone would get as mad about people dying and starving and killing each other as they do about some stupid words. Have we all lost our view of reality? What he said was bad and he should have controlled himself, but he is human just like the rest of us. Did he kill anyone? Is everyone who feels insulted gonna survive? I am so sick of people feeling so insulted by every little thing, that they feel like they are owed something because of it. Poor little minds. People need to get over it and get a life. Worry about important stuff perhaps? Oh I'm sorry, the whole of civilization is going to fall over this kind of stuff, isn't it? I forgot, my bad.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
the real issue should be whether he meant those words or not...

if he meant it (and no apology was used), what would you ATSers think about him???

why shouldn't he be able to voice his views, even if it was in los angeles





posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
They are designed to influence the minds of teens with a chosen political agenda which is carefully hatched if not presented to them to deliver to the masses by the real control meisters. Look at how the big media slobbered all over that buffoon Borat as example.


Dude, what are you talking about?

First it's the masons are responsible, now it's Borat and the political agenda.

I think you are on another wavelength here.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by savagecupid
I wish everyone would get as mad about people dying and starving and killing each other as they do about some stupid words. Have we all lost our view of reality? What he said was bad and he should have controlled himself, but he is human just like the rest of us. Did he kill anyone? Is everyone who feels insulted gonna survive? I am so sick of people feeling so insulted by every little thing, that they feel like they are owed something because of it. Poor little minds. People need to get over it and get a life. Worry about important stuff perhaps? Oh I'm sorry, the whole of civilization is going to fall over this kind of stuff, isn't it? I forgot, my bad.


Well Said!!!






top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join