Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Kramer" from Seinfeld racist remarks

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
is it borat's anti-semitism that is the agenda? He's so jewish he made Isla Fisher convert before he'd marry her.

Is Borat's agenda one of exposing americans for what they are? a bunch of bigoted, small minded buffoons (I'm american and horrified by the people he found in the film).?




posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Listen, in this day ad age, people tend to be luke warm on everything. There are very few true emotional responses. Even when outraged, it's not a true outrage. I find it funny when an emotional response is forced from an audience the way that Kaufman did.

There is a technique in Horror movies that can bring the truest emotion from the viewer. the tactic is to bring the viewer into one safe emotional state with laughter, love, or something else comforting to the viewer, then to hit them with the fear, the "big BOO". It makes te fear that much more powerful because it wasn't expected.

Some may not enjoy being blindsided by the unexpected, but I for one, love it. And I love seeing the reaction of others to the "BOO". If this is what Richards was going for then I say Bravo, if not, then I give him a bigger BOOO.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

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??).


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.



I think the tribe is out in force by the looks of it, a lot of people are defending this guy right now and they all cannot be freemasons can they?

A religious group is a CHOSEN basis of existance but RACE is NOT!

Do you understand what I am saying here?

If you are anti-Catholic then where is the crime that the ACLU can hound you into jail for it??

Sorry but in practice anti-semitism seems more and more about any criticism of a certain group and NOT about threats or desire to commit harm to such group.

In regards Gibson's comment nobody has taken the time to ask the obvious:

IS IT TRUE? fair question.

I do know one thing though... every black person that says something I don't like does not deserve to be lynched as Richards suggests.

For the record that is how I see it.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Being Jewish means you are a part of a religious movement. However, the majority of Jews become a part of the religious movement through birth and not due to their beliefs.

A Jewish identity is automatically bestowed on the babies of Jewish mothers.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
In regards Gibson's comment nobody has taken the time to ask the obvious:

IS IT TRUE? fair question.


is it true that jews are the cause of all wars? no, not a fair question. a moronic, ignorant, uneducated question that came from the mouth of a man who clearly hates a whole group of people for no reason other than their religion. Even odder since he has managed to amass fortunes of money thanks, in part, to these people. The lethal weapon movies were produced by (gasp) evil, horned, penny pinching, war starting jew jew jew jew jews.

anyone that thinks there is one iota of truth that question need look no further than the history books to see that jews are not the cause of all wars.


Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I do know one thing though... every black person that says something I don't like does not deserve to be lynched as Richards suggests.


Of course not. Calling someone any racially charged name is wrong. Making references to lynching is just as wrong, if not worse. I don't think anyone is saying Richard's words were ok. I certainly am not defending him.


Originally posted by denythestatusquo
For the record that is how I see it.

I think it is becoming rather clear how you see it.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
is it borat's anti-semitism that is the agenda? He's so jewish he made Isla Fisher convert before he'd marry her.
I really don't think some people don't know Borat is a character and that hes actually a Jew.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
I really don't think some people don't know Borat is a character and that hes actually a Jew.


are you suggesting people actually think he's real? your comment is somewhat unclear.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
Being Jewish means you are a part of a religious movement. However, the majority of Jews become a part of the religious movement through birth and not due to their beliefs.

A Jewish identity is automatically bestowed on the babies of Jewish mothers.


So you suggest then that they are a race of some sort?

I don't know but I was taught that there is really only 4 races on the earth and that is how I see it.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
IF Richards knew the guy, and the guy was in on it, then it's an interesting thing. It's gotten people riled up and out for blood. We know for a fact Gibson wasn't doing it for shock and awe. We don't know that with Richards intent was yet.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
IF Richards knew the guy, and the guy was in on it, then it's an interesting thing. It's gotten people riled up and out for blood. We know for a fact Gibson wasn't doing it for shock and awe. We don't know that with Richards intent was yet.


if it was a gag it is failing. I admit that I was starting to laugh last night during the apology but after a few seconds of what appeared to be incredible acting and impeccable comedic timing, I started to sense a real serious case of shame and humiliation in Richard's tone and words although he kept referring to african americans as afro-americans and I kinda felt like he was intentionally using a term that is relatively outdated and no longer pc.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
IF Richards knew the guy, and the guy was in on it, then it's an interesting thing. It's gotten people riled up and out for blood. We know for a fact Gibson wasn't doing it for shock and awe. We don't know that with Richards intent was yet.


Oh I get it... if they can buy off these two guys then no crime was committed.

Is that what you were suggesting?

Shades of O.J. and what went down.

Cool.. real cool.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I don't get what you guys are saying. Are you saying that he shouldn't be allowed to make shock comedy? Are you saying that you don't find it funny if he did? Again, I'm just playing devils advocate. But earlier in the set he was talking about shock and awe.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I have to say that after viewing the skit and the letterman interview, that Richards is truely apologetic.

His reaction strikes me as an individual who (as many comedians who appear on stage) may himself have a certain level of personal instability... something that all comedians probably have.

He stated a racial slur not as a personal opinion but as (what I personally believe) was a rebuttle for how he felt regarding being heckled whilst trying to entertain.

His actions are not excusable but understandable only in the fact that what he stated was not right (I personally do not condone the dropping of the "N" bomb) but he felt so personally distraught with the heckle that the level of his disgust was pushed to a level that he felt in a defensive position to offend at the same level as the offender by way of using racial slur.

He should be sorry for attacking the individual in the audience in this manner.

However, he may not himself be rascist but seeked only to offend the individual at the same level he himself felt offended in the position of trying to provide entertainment to other whilst having to deal with rebuttle in an environment where he himself felt insecure

I do not believe that he is rascist, only that he knew he could offend the individual who offended him by heckling to the the same extent he felt offendied by the heckling at the level he personally felt the heckiling offeneed him.

If he was not apologetic then why bother making an apology in the first place.

He is sorry and if what he states is fact then any individuals offended should certainly understand that the statements made where by an individual who was not in his right mind.

I doubt that any individual has ever stated a commend that they later regret (no matter what level of the slur) however his statements should not be taken as a direct opinion of his personal beliefs but only as a level that he knew that he could offend the heckler at the same level that he felt he was personally offended by statements made in his direction.

If he meant what he said, then why would he apologise?

Accepting an apology his more gracious that recieving it in the first place.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gear
This is blown out way of proportion.


I'll assume you have actually watch the video and have witnessed the rage, hatred, and racial slurs that Richards has actually directed at another human. To hell with color of skin or political correctness, what he did was completely wrong and he is getting exactly what he deserves.


Originally posted by Gear
He could have insulted his race and punched the guy. If he did this, he would have been prosecuted with a hate crime. But he did none of the above.


Did none of the above? Well I am aware he did not physically harm the men, but the insults? Are you sure? I'm not saying Richards should be charged with a hate crime, but how can you say he did none of the above?


Originally posted by Gear
He expressed his emotions which he felt at that particular time. Since when are we to condemn someone who expresses themselves?


Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, I mean who are we to condemn anyone who expresses themselves? Seems like we permit people to express themselves, until they begin to do harm onto others. You can say whatever you damn please, but when that message is beginning to hurt other people, their rights can not be ignored. You defend him under freedom of speech?



Originally posted by Gear
For those of you who believe that it is his own fault, you need to look at yourselves. It is not his fault; It is yours. Why is it wrong for him to say what he said? Because he offended people? Well that's just too bad. That's life.


Its my fault that he spewed hatred towards black during one of his routines? No it is his fault. Why is it wrong you ask? Since when do we permit others to harm other people? Since when is any of this ok? The fact these hecklers were black means what? Remember, they were hecklers who happened to be black and not black hecklers. I am beginning to wonder if people are defending Richards because these hecklers were black.


Originally posted by Gear
For those of you who believe that he should not have had these feelings, you are a joke. Plain and simple. People have bias toward certain things, sometimes irrationally. It is human nature to do so. You cannot silence, change or condem his feelings toward what he feels. Just as another cannot silence, change or condem your feelings that others may feel as inappropriate.


Well if I am a joke, I better be a funny one. But your argument is empty. Yes people have irrational thoughts, but it is not a defense for his actions. Hitler had a problem with Jewish people, was it wrong of us to silence, change, or condemn himon his beliefs?

Exactly where do you stand on the history of silencing, changing or condemning the beliefs of people who wish to inflict harm onto others?


Originally posted by Gear
Those of you who believe he should not have expressed his feelings have no right to be posting in this thread. You are expressing your feelings against a man who expressed his.


Are my opinions or feelings causing harm? No. You are entitled to whatever opinion you wish, but you are restricted in the expression of these opinions. It is wrong to express harmful wishes onto other people. It doesn't matter if they are white, black, Mexican, Asian, Muslim, etc., wishing to do harm onto another human is wrong.

Why do you condone a man who has spewed pure hatred towards another human being?


Originally posted by Gear
Every single one of you is a dirty hypocrite.


Was the dirty really necessary? I am all for freedom of speech, until that speech begins to inflict harm onto others.

I look forward to your reply.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
chissler, I don't disagree with your post one bit however I did get a chuckle upon finishing your post and reading the first line of your signature. kinda funny.

and you are dirty. admit it. you give off a funky odor.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   


Hypocrite?

Damn you C!




posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
just expressing my right to free speech. if this were 50 years ago, you'd be tied to a bench with a spork in your ear.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Well I count my blessings for not being around fifty years ago.

To get back on topic though, I am amazed at some members who are coming to the defense of Richards here. I'm not saying he should be hung out to dry or the rest of eternity, but surely he should face some level of scrutiny.

I'm honestly left to wonder that maybe the only reason some people are defending Richards is because the hecklers were black.

Someone please tell me otherwise.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I'm only defending what could be a misunderstood publicity stunt. If all occured as it seems to have occured, then there is no defense.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
are you suggesting people actually think he's real? your comment is somewhat unclear.
Yes.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join