It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Kramer" from Seinfeld racist remarks

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by thehumbleone
I saw this on the drudge report,
I used to think his character was funny on seinfeld, but after seeing this i don't want to see that guy anymore.

[edit on 20-11-2006 by thehumbleone]

He said in his apology that what's weird is he's not a racist. Obviously deep down in his heart there is a problem. Hopefully he will recognize that he does have a problem and deal with it.

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 06:48 PM
So what the guy blew a fuse. To be honest how many people in here have NEVER made or thought something racist. We are mostly a savage people anything different from what we consider the norm is to be exploited and made a mockery of. Not to mention conquered and humiliated. It is what it is guys and gals. He just showed his true colors...get over it *igga!

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
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.

Are you a lawyer? If so you should give him a call (Richards) as he probably needs a good lawyer right now. Sure you were not on O.J.'s defence team at one time?

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by GiantPanda1979
So what the guy blew a fuse.

A bit of an understatement.

I openly admit I can forgive him for his actions. I do not defend him, I openly point the finger and cast blame upon him. But he deserves a second chance, just as anyone else does.

But what he has done should not be taken lightly. Stars who chastise others on the color of their skin, culture, nationality, etc., should be ridiculed. They should be smarter than that because they are role models to others, whether they like it or not.

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 08:17 PM
People are people, they make mistakes if you will. BTW was he drunk or on anything? :w: I mean he really blew a fuse haha

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 08:21 PM
I feel that what he did was wrong and the only reason he apologized, was to help sell the new season 7 dvds.

As lysergic said, "hes a human turd".

Just my $0.02

(edit to add something...I cant even watch sienfield anymore. I used to love Kramer, now all I think when I see him is this incident. His career is over now, though, he didn't have much of one anyway.)

[edit on 21-11-2006 by TheDesigner]

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 09:02 PM
You know, we could hash this over forever. Yea, Richards did something appalling, yea, we all agree in principle that it was wrong. He made an apology that many are happy with and many are not. I'm sure his career (what little he had) is pretty much done. This incident should be over, done, finished.

What gets me is the people that just keep pounding on him as if they are all Saints. If you can tell me you never did anything that was wrong in life I say move over Jesus.

Not only is he going to pay the price but so will the others from Seinfeld that were not even involved. They may as well throw that season 7 DVD in the trash. So, career destroyed, humiliation, lost income and losing income for his former coworkers.

IMO, Enough!

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 11:25 PM

Originally posted by chissler
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.

It happens every single day. Is anyone ever forced to apologise? If race put aside, can you honestly say that you would feel the same way? If the guys all had big ears, and he ranted on about their ears, would you feel the same way?

Originally posted by chissler
To hell with color of skin or political correctness, what he did was completely wrong and he is getting exactly what he deserves.

Sure it's wrong. But why? If this had happened twenty years ago, it would not have even made the headlines. It would not have been considered politically incorrect.

Originally posted by chissler
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?

You seem to have misinterpreted me. He could have attacked them physically. He could have insulted them and attacked them physically. But he insulted them without attacking them physically.
He was pretty furious. Yet he managed to keep within the law, and held onto at least some of his dignity.

Say you are at a gas station, where someone keeps badgering you. Pissed off, you get in your car and drive off. You reach the end of the road when the same person slams into the back of your car. You climb out to confront him. Can you honestly say you would worry about offending him? Or would you just say the first things that come into mind?
He was being badgered and was furious. Unfortuneatly it seems that he lacks tact. As he is in the public eye, the hecklers knew about him. But he knew absolutely nothing about them. Say that was you on stage. What would have been the correct thing to do? He used the only thing against them that he could see. Their race.

Originally posted by Chissler
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?

That was a point I had made in my previous post. He did not harm them. He did the right thing. If you want to tell me that he did harm them on an 'emotional' level, then I wouldn't bother. If that's the case, the hecklers harmed him first, or he would not have gone and said what he did. Besides, how exactly were their rights ignored? They had the option to retaliate with racial slurs against him, and they did. Not only that, but they threatend violence against him. And guess what? It is not being discussed. It is not considered such a big deal. Why? Because he is white? Because he started it? Right and wrong is either right or wrong. Yet as a society we omit this and say its wrong if...

Originally posted by Chissler
Its my fault that he spewed hatred towards black during one of his routines? No it is his fault.

No, once again, you have misinterpreted me. But on retrospect, I see that I have worded that badly, and apologise. I agree that it is his fault for doing what he did. But it's 'our' fault that what he did is considered wrong. Again, it boils down to political correctness. We as a mass have made race a taboo subject out of worry that we may offend those of a particular race. When someone does talk about it, we scrutinize over it and blow it out of proportion. That is what is happening here. That is why it is our fault.

Originally posted by Chissler
Since when do we permit others to harm other people? Since when is any of this ok?

It's not okay. But as I said before; we need to keep in mind that he was harmed first, or he would not have reacted the way he did.

Originally posted by Chissler
The fact these hecklers were black means what? Remember, they were hecklers who happened to be black and not black hecklers.

Yes, I agree. I am tired of people putting a label on race. It was not okay for him to say what he did. Nor is it okay for us to condem him because of it either. What he said was wrong, how he expressed it was not.

Originally posted by Chissler
I am beginning to wonder if people are defending Richards because these hecklers were black.

I am sure that other people may be, but I am defending him because of my belief that political correctness is going too far. Not just with race either.
You also have to keep this in mind:
People are defending Richards because these hecklers were black.
People are targetting Richards because these hecklers were black.
In other words, If he 'attacked' women and generalised them, sure he would be in hot water, but a different group of people would be defending him. A different group would be targeting him. The seriousness of the matter would also be different.
I hope that came out the way I ment it to.

Originally posted by Chissler
Your argument is empty. Yes people have irrational thoughts, but it is not a defense for his actions.

When I posted that, I was defending him by targeting you. (not you specifically, Chissler) See Below.

Originally posted by Chissler
Hitler had a problem with Jewish people, was it wrong of us to silence, change, or condemn himon his beliefs?

That was entirely my point. Jews were targeted by Hitler because of his beliefs. Hitler was targeted by us because of this. In other words, Hitler was targeted by us because of our beliefs. It's a catch 22.

I missed Hitler, but I'm sure if I was around, I would think "What a dickhead!" for what he had to say. Although I would still defend him, up until he actually committed actions against Jews. I will defend Richards up until he acts on his beliefs. Whether or not what he said actually were his beliefs is regardless.

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

Again, Richards did not inflict any harm on them. Even if it were, it was provoked. Did the Jews provoke Hitler?

Originally posted by Chissler
Are my opinions or feelings causing harm?

Actually they are. Every voice in public opinion has a leaning. By expressing your opinions, your leaning to say that he was wrong. Because of this you are harming his reputation and career. I could lie and say that you have offended me on a personal level, but I am not going to. Your opinions are valid. They cause harm. His opinions are valid. They caused harm. My opinions are valid. Ultimately, they someway or another cause harm.

Originally posted by Chissler
You are entitled to whatever opinion you wish, but you are restricted in the expression of these opinions.

I am well aware that I am taking your words out of context here, but this is the very point of my original post. At what point is it what you say concidered as politically incorrect? Obviously It is when the majority of the masses agree that it is offencive. Unfortuneatly, as I'm sure as I have said earlier, It is blown out of proportion.

Originally posted by Chissler
It is wrong to express harmful wishes onto other people. Wishing to do harm onto another human is wrong.

You are absolutely right, Richards did not express harmful wishes against them. They threatned physical violence on him, so unless you are talking about them, I don't see where you are ...

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 11:26 PM
...going with this.

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

As I said before. It happens every single day. People are killed every single day because of this sort of thing. It's common, but never heard about. People should understand that this event is nothing special, and he alone should not be persecuted because of it.

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

Yes. The word 'Dirty' was nessecary, and i put it there consciously. It was supposed to have a purpose.
It expressed my digust that people are so quick to judge without looking at themselves first. Irony.

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 11:50 PM
Look, guy did something you think is horrible right? He is entitled to his own opinion and I don't fully disagree with him, here is why. I'm living in middle class America. In a mostly Black community and where I have no problem with Africanized Americans, I do have problems with *iggers (ie Ignorant people) I"M NOT RACIST. I just don't like the fact my taxes are paying for lazy people to breed and rape the Goverment for money.
Why is it that you can drive by the foodstamp office and see people coming out of there (people that are getting food stamps) Driving a 50 thousand dollar hummer or Benz. I can understand why some people get fed up and some people talk crap. What about The African Americans that blame "whitey" for all there problems? We don't get mad at them for it.What about the united negro college fund? where is the united caucasian college fund? I'd like Goverment assistance in time of need but I'm white and responsible...I'm screwed eh.
Ok well my point is this, Kramer said what ALOT of people are thinking. I don't think he should have done it the way he did, but I'm not going to fault the guy. I've thought thatkind of stuff , you have thought that and will think it again...GET oVa IT...

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Revelmonk
I guess comments like this can be made people who were not offended by the comments...because it sure does smell alot like bs to me. I am glad that I can see who the people are innanly defending the racist comments he made with lines of oh everybody gets angry..he didnt mean it... you know there is a double standard. The apology seemed insincere to me, he is an actor and it showed as how he tried to act through the apology.

I'll be real the apology was made because seinfeld is still a cash cow for the former cast of the show, and he did just to put up a fog and appease so many people who had been a fan of him throughout the decades and deeply enraged and saddend by his comments. He did not go to racial sensitivity treatment or anything such as that and your suppose to make me believe that the apology was sincere...

I did not defend what he said once. And I was offended by his comments. Please reread what I said.

I did say that the media is blowing it way out of proportion. It's merely our OPINIONS on whether or not he was sincere with his apology. The only one that truly knows is Richards himself. But seeing as how he's never had any incidents before with this subject, as well as not allowing race bashing of any sort into his comedy, I'm likely to give him the benefit of the doubt and think he was sincere.

Have you ever done something wrong? And apologized? Well I don't think you were sincere in your apologies.

See what I mean? He apologized, let it go ... there's much greater things in this world to be worrying about than what a washed up TV actor said to some hecklers, regardless of its nature.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:10 AM

Originally posted by GiantPanda1979
I'm living in middle class America. In a mostly Black community and where I have no problem with Africanized Americans, I do have problems with *iggers (ie Ignorant people) I"M NOT RACIST.

"Ignorant" is defined as someone who is lacking knowledge in certain subjects. The "n" word is most popularly associated with a insult towards a black person. Using the "n" word to call someone ignorant is ignorant in itself, because the purpose of using of the "n" word is used to denote an inferior black person. It is a word that has been associated with only one race (with exceptions to adding words to it, such as "sand n*****"), used against blacks. Its root word in itself means black, so saying that this word is a substitute for the word "ignorant" is incorrect.

Instead of calling an "ignorant" person the n-word, why not just say "ignorant"? If you feel the need to call someone the n-word to describe them, rather than any other non-racial words, then you put their race into play, and are adding to racism.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:34 AM
Allow me to begin by saying Well Said!. I enjoyed reading your post and if I had more time I would put more of an effort into this reply, but hopefully we can continue this later.

Originally posted by Gear
It happens every single day.

That is not a defense though. Maaaaaa... But Johnny Did it!. Did that reply ever work? Doubtful. We are accountable for our own actions, and we have all agreed what Richards has done was wrong. The fact it happens every single day is only an indication that our society is in some serious turmoil without us even realizing it.

I can honestly say, it is rare for me to hear negative words spoken of a man or woman, due to their color of skin, etc. Maybe I just lucked out on my geographical location.

Originally posted by Gear
If race put aside, can you honestly say that you would feel the same way? If the guys all had big ears, and he ranted on about their ears, would you feel the same way?

I'm glad you bring up this point. And I would hope that my previous posts make it clear, that I am defending these men as human. I'm not here defending two black men who were heckling Richards. I am defending two men who were savaged by hatred that Richards spewed at them. If they were white with big ears, I would be defending them just as much. Their color of skin is a non issue.

I wish I had more time to continue here, but I am already late.

I'll check back later today and take my opinions out on my keyboard.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:14 AM
Kramer is hilarious. He's definitely my favorite comedian. I dont know what the big uproar is about, I thought that his latest standup was classic and well timed for lots of laughs.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:18 AM
If blacks don't like the use of the "N" word they should stop using it amongst themselves. As long as the word is still in use it's fair game.

Double standards blow.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Landis
If blacks don't like the use of the "N" word they should stop using it amongst themselves. As long as the word is still in use it's fair game.

Double standards blow.

im gonna have to agree with you on that one. How come noone repremands the black man for interrupting the show or calling him a cracker? Niggah please.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Landis
If blacks don't like the use of the "N" word they should stop using it amongst themselves. As long as the word is still in use it's fair game.

Double standards blow.


Words themselves have no meaning. If I call my frinds my niggas, that's between me and my friends (white ones included)

If some white guy calls me a Nigger in an attempt to degrade me, and put me in my place (below him) it's a very different situation.

these types of comments are usually made by people who don't see anything wrong with calling a black man a 'n-word'. These types of people are below me, unfortunately there aren't any words that I can think of that can be used to signify that as well as 'n-word' does to blacks.

Honkey? Not even close
Cracker? Still means that they are in a possition of power
Ofay? Most people wouldn't even know what it means.

Nigger? there's the one that stings.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:54 AM
Cracker is Offensive to me as A White Man. Its not up to you to decide which words have more meaning than others. This is a racially taboo issue. As long as blacks use the word, whites can use it. As long as blacks call us crackers, whites will call blacks the N bomb.

Racism wont go away until everyone grows up. There is no exclusive term that carries more meaning than the other. Thats reverse racism in itself. Just because someone is black doesnt mean I should have to be more sensitive to their needs than they are to mine.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:01 AM
Then why are you so hesitent to say the word? N bomb is a cop out in this case. White's can use the word 'n-word' all they want as far as I'm concerned, but not to degrade a black person. I call my white friends nigga all the time.

And yes, I'm sure any word can be offensive to anyone. I could run into the corner crying if someone called me a Jive Turkey. But Jive Turkey doesn't represent a history of slavery, lynching, murder, rape, and countless other injustices. Nigger does.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:11 AM

Originally posted by nephyx
Cracker is Offensive to me as A White Man.

what the hell did I ever do to you? If it is simply because I am white, let me state now that while I am more translucent or opaque.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in