Richards has angry outburst at club (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061121/ap_en_ce/people_michael_richards)

By LYNN ELBER, AP Television Writer

LOS ANGELES - Michael Richards said Monday he spewed racial epithets during a stand-up comedy routine because he lost his cool while being heckled and not because he's a bigot.

"For me to be at a comedy club and flip out and say this crap, I'm deeply, deeply sorry," the former "Seinfeld" co-star said during a satellite appearance for David Letterman's "Late Show" in New York.

"I'm not a racist. That's what's so insane about this," Richards said, his tone becoming angry and frustrated as he defended himself. A clip from the show played on CBS before the "Late Show" aired Monday night.

Richards described himself as going into "a rage" over the two audience members who interrupted his act Friday at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood. Richards responded to the black hecklers with repeated use of the "n word" and profanities.

[More... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061121/ap_en_ce/people_michael_richards)]

"Once the word comes out of your mouth and you don't happen to be African-American, then you have a whole lot of explaining," Rodriguez told CNN. "Freedom of speech has its limitations and I think Michael Richards found those limitations."So if he were black, he wouldn't have any explaining to do. But because he's white, he doesn't even have the freedom to say it, even to people who were (as he claims) being asses at his performance and interrupting it.

Interesting.

So if he were black, he wouldn't have any explaining to do. But because he's white, he doesn't even have the freedom to say it, even to people who were (as he claims) being asses at his performance and interrupting it.
If you can't deal with hecklers creatively you should probably avoid doing stand-up. Chris Rock or Jamie Foxx would have made the hecklers look like complete retards without alienating half the crowd.

That said, Richard's should be free to say whatever he likes -- he just shouldn't be surprised about the fallout from it.

So if he were black, he wouldn't have any explaining to do. But because he's white, he doesn't even have the freedom to say it, even to people who were (as he claims) being asses at his performance and interrupting it.

Interesting.

Even when they called him a cracker. We need to add cracker to the list of words. Heck, we might just as well make these words illegal and get it over with.


If you can't deal with hecklers creatively you should probably avoid doing stand-up. Chris Rock or Jamie Foxx would have made the hecklers look like complete retards without alienating half the crowd.

That said, Richard's should be free to say whatever he likes -- he just shouldn't be surprised about the fallout from it.

While this is probably true it doesn't excuse the hecklers actions either. And of course Rock and Foxx can also get away with using the 'N' word.

I'd say Kramer's career is going to tank at this point. Man, with that newly shaved head too... what a huge mistake.

Yeah, I'll never be able to watch him in another Seinfeld without thinking about it every time I see him. It certainly detracts from his benign hipster dufus persona.

Something that I found interesting yesterday. Before I even heard about this rampage Richards went on, I was driving to work listening to ESPN radio. Michael Irvin said, "Tony Romo is such a good athlete that he must have some black in his blood. I think his grandma must have found a young black stud back in the day". I was like WTF, he is going to lose his job over that. Then, I get to work and I hear about Richards and I was laughing because I thought, "Wow, there are going to be two of these in the same day, this should make great tv". The funny thing is, I never heard anything about Irving all day long. The only place I saw it being discussed was over on the ESPN boards and then the post was promptly deleted. It's funny how that works out.

If it isn't on YouTube, it didn't happen. :p

After seeing a better version of this (still cant catch half of what he said) it looks to me as if he was TRYING to heckle the heckler. But it just went from bad to worse.

Can we say he Gibsoned himself?

... I don't have anything else to add. :P

I heard some talking-heads speculating whether he'd confess to being on drugs or alcohol and check himself into rehab. :p

The guy looks really high strung. Like his guitar strings are wound an octave too high and you pounce on the string a little too hard, it's gonna snap. I always thought it was just a persona... but maybe it is his personality?

If it isn't on YouTube, it didn't happen. :p

Well, it's not as good as YouTube but at least it got some attention. I didn't see him on Letterman apoligizing though lol.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/columns/story/9822797

Kramer's outburst is all over the place - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8044789871599060390&hl=en

Irvin - well I think the worst part is the article you linked, Dedra. The only person who's really upset - not only that, he's telling other people to be upset - is a sportscaster from a rival network. Surprise, surprise. Not saying that no one should be upset, just saying it's pretty cheap that the only way that this guy on CBS Sportsline can get coverage is to call for a hanging.

Kramer's outburst is all over the place - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8044789871599060390&hl=en

Irvin - well I think the worst part is the article you linked, Dedra. The only person who's really upset - not only that, he's telling other people to be upset - is a sportscaster from a rival network. Surprise, surprise. Not saying that no one should be upset, just saying it's pretty cheap that the only way that this guy on CBS Sportsline can get coverage is to call for a hanging.

I never even thought about it like that. That's kind of the point I am trying to make though. How can one be such a big deal and the other one go unnoticed?

I think it also has to do with who it's coming from. Irvin, even when he was a big shot on the Dallas Cowboys, was a very "foot in mouth" player. He was extremely cocky and was obviously missing that internal filter in your brain that should double-check any statement before it comes out of your mouth. So in other words, Irvin's got a good list of "you really should have been fired by now" quips under his belt. Plus, he's also very entrenched into the sports/Southwest genre, which is much smaller than the audience that used to watch Seinfeld.

Kramer's outburst is all over the place - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8044789871599060390&hl=enI just watched that. He sure handled that situation horribly, though my original point stands. If he were black, no one would have cared if he had used racist terms against black people, which makes little sense. Why should a black man be allowed to put down another black man with a racial epithet?

The whole thing is silly really. The best way to rob a derogatory term of its power is simply to adopt it. The gays have figured this out, why haven't the blacks?

Here's the apology he gave on David Letterman...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awEWSFn1QP87

Your link didn't work for me for some reason, Klath. I found it on Google though - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5727601579800432446

As for the "n-word" and the race factor double-standard, I think it also has a lot to do with the intention behind the usage of the word. For instance, I know that if a black man uses the "n-word" in a derogatory fashion against another black man, it's a really big insult. If a popular/famous black man used the slur in public in hate or anger, I'm sure the backlash from the black community would be equally as bad - or maybe even worse. For the most part, I think that the backlash isn't always bad when a black person uses the word mostly because the word is generally used as a generic slang term rather than a direct slur - and if the situation isn't clear, you usually assume that the term was used as slang. On the other hand, if a Caucasian person used the word, you couldn't be sure it was slang because you're unsure of that person's background, so you assume it was meant as a slur.

Using a real life example, my dad's worked in kitchens almost all his life, and since he works in Texas, needless to say, the majority of his staff is generally Hispanic. I always joked with him that Japanese was his primary language and Spanish his second, English was a distant third place. My dad, a person of an obvious Asian background, can get away with joking around with the entire Mexican kitchen staff and call them (insert really bad word you learned in Spanish class here) all day long without anyone getting upset. However, if the Arabic manager tried to do the same thing, even though he works at the same place with the same crew for the same amount of hours, he would probably get smacked really hard. Outside. In the dark.

You obviously have not listened to Chris Rock.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/22/entertainment/e184632S58.DTLAs for reports that Richards shouted out anti-Semitic remarks during another standup comedy routine in April, Rubenstein confirmed his client did, but that he was only role-playing.

"He's Jewish. He's not anti-Semitic at all. He was role-playing, he was playing a part. He did use inappropriate language, but he doesn't have any anti-Semitic feelings whatsoever," Rubenstein said.More hypocrisy. If anti-Semitic language is degrading, then it's degrading no matter who uses it. He shouldn't get a free pass just because of his bloodlines, any more than the black comedians should have free use of derogatory black terms.As for the "n-word" and the race factor double-standard, I think it also has a lot to do with the intention behind the usage of the word.You have to decide what's bad here: the derogatory term, or the fact that he's being derogatory. If it's the term, it doesn't matter who says it. If it's the act of a white man being derogatory towards a black man, it doesn't matter what the words are.

The really scary thing about that article I quoted is that, of all people, Jesse Jackson is the only one who understood this: "We have to evaluate the use of the n-word and categorize it as hate speech, no matter who uses it."

A word is simply a grouping of letters until you give it meaning.

I think we all know that sometimes words used feel like racial slurs, other times they're just joking around between people that know each other well. I have a friend that calls me names when I'm beating her in cards and I know her and realize it is affectionate teasing. But if a stranger called me those names, I'd be highly offended.

Context is everything and I don't think there's a person here that doesn't understand that (when it suits them).

Context is everything and I don't think there's a person here that doesn't understand that (when it suits them).
Yeah, I agree. Richard's didn't just use the term 'nigger', he used it as an angry white man while invoking images of lynching ("Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a f***ing fork up your ass.") and segregation ("Throw his ass out. He's a nigger!").

I found the clip rather enjoyable.

Nothing really offends me anymore, save maybe N jokes and use of the N word.

And I love to be offended. It was rather soothing actually to see him go off like that. One day I will be completely desensitized to that word, then I will be complete.

I wish more comedians, of any color, would go off like that. I have seen 2. Tree, and this other guy(can't remember his name, and his career tanked), at the Sac Punchline years ago.

If you ever need to be offended, to have your sensibilities totally picked clean, I recommend Tree.

Matt Lauer interviewed the guys who Richard's went off on:
http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/3641

Gloria Allred is in prime form.

As a white man who grew up in Detroit, born over 30 years ago, the "n word" has a complex past. We don't say "c word" for cracker, or "w word" for wop, or "s word" for slanteye or whatever people call Asians when they want to insult them. I grew out of using racially-based insults a long time ago, when I learned about genetics and how we all have 99.xx% of the same genes, and we're all descended from common ancestors. So, like, the first time I learned about Evolution.

Americans are more sensitive towards blacks (I won't use the term African Americans because I don't hear anyone insisting they be called Italian Americans or Polish Americans or Irish Americans) (who aren't really black, they're a wide variety of shades of brown, and the term negro means black, so it's a misnomer to use it really) because there's this big cloud of guild hanging over the white man's head because of slavery that happened hundreds of years ago, and the segregation and poor treatment blacks received even after slavery was abolished.

I personally wasn't involved in slavery; I'm not even sure my family was in the US during slave times. I don't feel guilty. I feel empathy for those that lived during slavery. I have empathy for those minorities (blacks among them) that experience racism or sexism or any other ism. I have as much empathy as I can feel for people I don't know who are only distantly related to me through thousands of generations of separation (I'm Irish).

But you know what? I feel more empathy toward Native Americans because Americans almost completely destroyed their whole race and culture. Blacks claiming African descent can still point to villages and cities back in Africa where they came from. Native Americans (the few remaining) could point to the local mall and say, "That's where our village used to be. This polluted river here was where we would catch trout. There used to be woods here where we would hunt deer and rabbit for food and hides, but now the woods are gone and the animals are dead."

Yes, Africans were stolen from their homes (often by other rival Africans) and endured tortuous slavery, killings, rapings, and subjugation. Blacks are becoming strong, though, through legislation and the passage of time. There aren't enough Native Americans to really make a comeback, and that's a bigger shame to us. African cultures still exist; there are enough blacks to carry on their culture here in the US, even apart from the native Africans.

It probably won't be too many generations before the Red Man disappears but for a few pockets on backward reservations, and running casinos. They'll slowly die off without offspring, or they'll intermarry.

Pain and suffering can be tolerated and overcome, and the blacks are doing it.
Genocide can't be overcome. Imagine that Americans had invaded Africa, leaving a very small percentage of Africans alive, in small reservations set aside by our government. The sheer size and wildness of Africa prevents that, but the analogy holds true. It would be intolerable, yet, it was done to the Native Americans. Diseased blankets and inferior technology have brought them to near extinction as a race.

Yes, there are still racists out there. Younger people don't really have it, that I've seen. It's mostly older people. Some people say that the younger generation is lacking faith, lacking responsibility, lacking loyalty, lacking respect. Every generation says that about the next. Another thing they're lacking is an old boy's network. They lack the bigotry and assumptions that previous generations have had. They lack the inhibitions that turn frustrated people into psychopaths and killers. They have the internet. They have cell phones. They have hundreds of channels of cable and satellite TV, bombarding them with so many conflicting messages that they have to make their own moral decisions, or they are too confused to make them.

Fyyr Lu'Storm was on the right track, talking about becoming desensitized. The term "nigger" only holds power because people give it that power. A word is just a word. Originally, it was just a term that meant "black," like negro. Look up the color black in a Spanish dictionary; hint, it's "negro." In French, it's "noir" (as in, film noir.) In Italian, nero. These words are all similar, and they all mean black.

It's an interesting time to be alive. I sure wish I could see how things turn out in 100 years, or 200. There will most definitely be less racism because of the inevitable global melting pot forcing peoples together. What will their biggest problems be? Hopefully we'll grow out of the need for religion soon, too.

oops this is where i meant that!

Not to pull this thread too much off Topic but I dont really think its fair to say that Blacks can restore their native cultures, not only do they usually lack any direct link to actually know where they come from. (Saying Africa is like saying European or Asian is a culture, but theres significant differences between Spanish, Polish, English Russian etc.) Native American tribes that are left probably have a better chance of knowing about their culture and practicing it.

I also think we treated Native Americans really horribly. Hard to say who got it worse, NA's or Blacks. But living on reservations is totally their choice in this day and age. In CA they're becoming very, very wealthy because of the casinos. I think the real shame is how badly suited they are to the standard American diet. They end up with diabetes and obesity at a horrible rate when they flourish on their native diets (which is quite low carb by the way).

y neice is dating a Chippiwa fellow (northern Minnesota). I grilled him about what life was like on the reservation and what their native diet was: Wild rice, game meat, fish, berries. No grains, other than the wild rice. I think the wild rice might have been their only agriculture, but I'm not sure. It may actually be just wild.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/22/entertainment/e184632S58.DTLMore hypocrisy. If anti-Semitic language is degrading, then it's degrading no matter who uses it
He shouldn't get a free pass just because of his bloodlines, any more than the black comedians should have free use of derogatory black terms. You have to decide what's bad here: the derogatory term, or the fact that he's being derogatory. If it's the term, it doesn't matter who says it. If it's the act of a white man being derogatory towards a black man, it doesn't matter what the words are.

Wrong. You see, what a people do amongst themselves is their own business. Jews, culturally, have made comedy and jokes about themselves for centuries, because if we didn't we'd go insane and if we made jokes about goyim, we got burned, literally. That being said, you don't see Jews wandering up to one another and addressing each other as "My Kike". That is, however, immaterial. Blacks can address themselves as they wish. That in no way gives you the right to call them racial epithets. Its simple. Its the same principle that just because your Mom called your Dad an asshole, doesn't mean she isn't going to whoop your ass if you call him an asshole (if he doesn't get to you first that is).

The really scary thing about that article I quoted is that, of all people, Jesse Jackson is the only one who understood this: "We have to evaluate the use of the n-word and categorize it as hate speech, no matter who uses it."

I wouldn't disagree with that, either. If I were black I most certainly would be advocating a cessation of casual usage of the word nigger or nigga or whatever variation of that word is in popular usage that decade.

I also think we treated Native Americans really horribly. Hard to say who got it worse, NA's or Blacks. But living on reservations is totally their choice in this day and age. In CA they're becoming very, very wealthy because of the casinos. I think the real shame is how badly suited they are to the standard American diet. They end up with diabetes and obesity at a horrible rate when they flourish on their native diets (which is quite low carb by the way).

y neice is dating a Chippiwa fellow (northern Minnesota). I grilled him about what life was like on the reservation and what their native diet was: Wild rice, game meat, fish, berries. No grains, other than the wild rice. I think the wild rice might have been their only agriculture, but I'm not sure. It may actually be just wild.

Native Americans have it worse, from what I've seen. Not only are they in the slow death spiral of a people, but from what I've seen when I lived out in Kansas they are basically considered "Native niggers". It is their choice to live on the reservations, yes, but that is because the reservations are the only places where they can live in any sort of semblance of their culture....but even that is dying as dwindling populations are forcing more and more of them to close their schools and send their children out to public schools where they will be assimilated.

You see, what a people do amongst themselves is their own business. Jews, culturally, have made comedy and jokes about themselves for centuriesThat's my point: there's no basis for your racist attitude that you may hurl racial epithets so long as you're a member of the race in question. (By "themselves" you suggest the entire race, not just a group of people who know one another.)

If we decide that a particular word or symbol is unacceptable in society, it should apply equally to everyone. Blacks can be racist against blacks, too, and if one black puts down another with an epithet, the harm is just as great.

Surely, if you were walking down the street with a Nazi flag shouting "death to jews," we wouldn't approve just because you happen to belong to that race.

I think the real shame is how badly suited they are to the standard American diet.All humans are badly suited to the standard American diet. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

Americans are more sensitive towards blacks because there's this big cloud of guild hanging over the white man's headAlso because there are so many of them. They make up 13% of the U.S. population, are in some positions of power, and aren't a meek minority who will quietly accept poor treatment. Native Americans are just 1% of the population and rarely do you hear about them making trouble.

All humans are badly suited to the standard American diet. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>
That is true! But they're even worse suited!

That's my point: there's no basis for your racist attitude that you may hurl racial epithets so long as you're a member of the race in question. (By "themselves" you suggest the entire race, not just a group of people who know one another.)

The attitude is only racist in your mind.

Its basically an internal issue. Its none of your damned business if you're not part of the group, and you shouldn't be calling them things which are offensive coming from anyone other than the group.

Yes, its ok for Jews to make Jewish jokes. We've earned the right to laugh at ourselves. Its not alright for non Jews to make Jewish jokes, because all to often those jokes are not meant in fun, but cruelly, and are but a precursor to violence and hate.

The same goes for any other group. If Poles want to call each other Polacks, they can go right on ahead, but that doesn't give me the right to call them Polacks without it being considered offensive.

If we decide that a particular word or symbol is unacceptable in society, it should apply equally to everyone.

No, because it engenders further bigotted action that goes beyond words, inevitably.

Blacks can be racist against blacks, too, and if one black puts down another with an epithet, the harm is just as great.

That may very well be true...but that's for the black community in America to deal with as they see fit. Not for us to tell them how we think it should be.

Surely, if you were walking down the street with a Nazi flag shouting "death to jews," we wouldn't approve just because you happen to belong to that race.

That is akin to you trying to equate a couple of young black men addressing each other as "my nigga" with some black guy dressing in a sheet and a hood and screaming "Death to blacks". Its preposterous on its face.

Anyone can use any word, in any way they like, as long as they understand how the listeners will interpret it. This comedian knew the word could cause offence to an open audience so that's why he's in trouble.

Anyone can use any word, in any way they like, as long as they understand how the listeners will interpret it. This comedian knew the word could cause offence to an open audience so that's why he's in trouble.

Fair enough.

I am offended with Black youths out in public who spew 'nigga, nigga, nigga' ****.

Does that mean that they should stop offending me?

If offence is the only thing required to censor speech, we should censor theirs.

Or should they just ignore me and the offence they caused me?(like they presently do).

I am offended with Black youths out in public who spew 'nigga, nigga, nigga' ****.

Does that mean that they should stop offending me?

....

Or should they just ignore me and the offence they caused me?(like they presently do).

They probably said it to annoy you. Seems like it worked :).

You are dodging the point.

You seem to generally support the idea that if a word offends others(Blacks) then it should be discontinued from use.

But you apparently support the use of a word if it is used by Blacks but offends others(Whites).

Whites can't say the word for fear of offending Blacks.
But Blacks may continue to use the word, in spite of the fact that it offends Whites.

The real world is a 'tuff sh!t, and die' kinda place, and I don't expect that to change. I don't expect Blacks to stop using the word, just because their use of it offends me. And I know that They expect me to stop using the word, because it offends them.

But individuals, and their opinions matter. How do you justify yours?

The hypocrisy of the issue is very racist(um, duh). And anyone who holds the notion that different rules should apply to different people based on race, is itself a very racist attitude.

And the only real justification(because this whole thing is completely irrational) is that one(supposedly a White person) does not want to appear to be a racist.

That is to say,

I may say, "I don't say the word nigga, because I am NOT a racist. And I have no problem with Blacks using the word, because if I had a problem with that, Blacks tell me that would mean that I am a racist. And I want Blacks to love me, and not think I am a racist, so I let them say whatever it is that they want to say. And more still, not trying to appear racist, I condemn Whites who do use the word, for everyone knows that the only Whites who use the word, are racists(because that is what Blacks tell me)."

But again, to apply different rules to different racists is definitionally racist. Could it be that you support some kind of Good Racism, and denounce Bad Racism? Because that is the only rational thing that comes out of analysis of the issue.

That if there is Racism which is generally socially accepted, that it is good racism.

Chris Rock can say..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utnK4o-jvzk

You seem to generally support the idea that if a word offends others(Blacks) then it should be discontinued from use.

If you don't want to offend others (blacks) then don't say it to them. If you're speaking to people who you know won't take offence then you can say what you like. Good friends can throw any number of good natured insults at each other. Racial insults are only another example of that. There's no need to get worked up about race relations and language.

Remember that most insults say more about the person giving them than the person receiving them. That's why even comedians have to be careful how they use insults.

Good friends can throw any number of good natured insults at each other. Racial insults are only another example of that.All members of a given race aren't "good friends."Remember that most insults say more about the person giving them than the person receiving them.No, they're a product of both: the intent of the person saying them, and the interpretation of the person hearing them.

All members of a given race aren't "good friends."

They've enough in common that they share the joke rather than become the butt of it.

They've enough in common that they share the joke rather than become the butt of it.How racist of you. Just because people might look alike (to you) doesn't mean they have anything meaningful in common.

How racist of you. Just because people might look alike (to you) doesn't mean they have anything meaningful in common.

If they feel alike then they can make an understood comment between themselves. If they don't they can't. What's racist about that?

I know you're spoiling for some sort of argument here but there just isn't one.

If they feel alike then they can make an understood comment between themselves. If they don't they can't.The same could be said for two people of different races.What's racist about that?Stereotyping, generalizing. Nope, no racism here. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

The same could be said for two people of different races.

Yes exactly. Read what I posted above and try to to understand it instead of just stirring up trouble.

Yes exactly. Read what I posted above and try to to understand it instead of just stirring up trouble.Make up your mind. Either they have "enough in common that they share the joke rather than become the butt of it" or they don't.

First you say they do, because presumably, all members of race X must be on the same mental wavelength, and are like "good friends." Therefore, you say, it's ok for members of the same race to call one another whatever they please. That's racist.

Then you rebut the allegation of racism by saying, well, they might have a connection and they might not. But that contradicts your first point. Any two people might have a connection and might not. That's an argument for banning the epithet altogether, whether between members of the same race or not.

Which is it?

This seems topical....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/01/firefighter.hazing.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

One dollar bills smell like cinnamon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTwlzW54kzU

This seems topical....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/01/firefighter.hazing.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstoriesToo bad you can't get $2.7 million if you're a white firefighter and the victim of a prank. There was evidence that the black guy pulled pranks on others; I wonder how much they get.

rofl,

I thought you would like that.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.11.28.Wordup-X.gif

Make up your mind. Either they have "enough in common that they share the joke rather than become the butt of it" or they don't.

First you say they do, because presumably, all members of race X must be on the same mental wavelength, and are like "good friends." Therefore, you say, it's ok for members of the same race to call one another whatever they please. That's racist.

Then you rebut the allegation of racism by saying, well, they might have a connection and they might not. But that contradicts your first point. Any two people might have a connection and might not. That's an argument for banning the epithet altogether, whether between members of the same race or not.

Which is it?

Ok dumbnut. Are you being deliberately stupid? My posts do not contradict each other. I never said people must be on the same wavelength if they're from the same race. That's your misinterpretation. If people of the same race are using insulting words and not taking offense, as in Fyyr's example that I was replying to, then it is because they can be on the same wavelength. It's up for them to judge for themselves.

There is no argument to ban any epiphet, exactly the opposite in fact.

Please take any existing arguments you've heard from other people, wash them out of your head, and then look at what I've actually written in my series of posts.

Oh man, last nights Jon Stewart he had his "Senior Black Analyst" talk about it. Of course he used the N-word (Niggardly). Of course, niggardly comes from niggard which isn't the same at all. :p Fortunately the spelling isn't the same either.

Anka,

You getting all jacked and **** about Tuda's posts is noble and all, I suppose. But.

I just wanted you to answer my question.

Do you think that there is a good Racism, and bad Racism?

Do you think that there is a good Racism, and bad Racism?

What do you mean by Racism, since you're going to be pedantic about my reply?

Well some good is coming out of Michael Richard's display.

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061129/ENTERTAIN/61129019/-1/ENTERTAIN
Paul Mooney in the past has been dead set against stopping the use of the word.

If more get on the bus because of this, then the (Black)hypocrisy might be diminished.

What do you mean by Racism, since you're going to be pedantic about my reply?

If you judge people about their race, and treat them different accordingly, that is racist.

If you give a pass to Blacks to say the word, anytime they like.
But deny Whites the same privilege, or pass to use the word amongst themselves or however.

That is racist, definitionally.

y question is: Is it ok to be racist only when you don't offend Blacks(or other minorities)?
And if so, how do you rationalize that in your mind(or out loud perhaps)?

I acknowledge that I am a racist, because I see the differences between people, based on culture or whatever. But I definitely strive to NOT treat them poorly because of it. Well more poorly than I normally would anyone I happen to meet of course, I am generally an equal opportunity asshole.

Honestly, I am more critical of White people. They have fvcked me over many many more times than any other member of any other race have. It would be irrational of me to judge other races more poor than my own.

I wish that White people had a word as offensive to them, that the N word is offensive to Blacks. To which to call them. For I would then be able to use it against them.

I am absolutely and completely unoffended by any racial slurs which happen my way. They just don't stick to me. And any who have tried get a /shrug and a "who cares, it don't affect me".

The idea of an epithet sticking to me, unless I let it stick, is alien to me. So when people let stuff stick to them, when they are not that; I don't get it. I have not been given permission to get offended by this stuff for years, and have no need for that permission. And those who accept the permission, or demand the permission to be offended,,is just, outside my general world view.

aybe that is just because I am an asshole. Which I generally accept as a compliment.

If you judge people about their race, and treat them different accordingly, that is racist.
...
y question is: Is it ok to be racist only when you don't offend Blacks(or other minorities)?And if so, how do you rationalize that in your mind(or out loud perhaps)?

If you treat people as they would like to be treated, within reason, then the whole question becomes moot. When you can talk freely about someone's race without offending them there is nothing particularly to rationalize.

I would define racism as a derogatory attitude to race, just as sexism is more than just any attitude about gender. It's hard to see good racism by my definition.

Pretty much every definition of racism I just looked up has the notion that one race is superior to another. It doesn't say anything about different, that's sort of obvious, but superiority of one's race is what makes racism, racism.

Definitions of racism on the Web:

* or racialism is a form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one race is superior to another. Racism may be expressed individually and consciously, through explicit thoughts, feelings, or acts, or socially and unconsciously, through institutions that promote inequality between races.
www.kids.net.au/encyclopedia-wiki/ra/Racism

* (Audre Lorde): The inherent belief in the superiority of one race over all others and thereby the right to dominance.
www.uihome.uidaho.edu/default.aspx

* The belief that one 'racial group' is inferior to another and the practices of the dominant group to maintain the inferior position of the dominated group. Often defined as a combination of power, prejudice and discrimination.
www.bl.uk/services/learning/curriculum/voices/refglos.html

* The doctrine that race is the basic determinant of human abilities and that, therefore, the various racial groups constitute a hierarchy in which one group is properly regarded as superior to others. Racism has also been defined using the following formula: Power+Prejudice=Racism. Racism has also been defined as a "system of advantage based on race."
www.unk.edu/offices/aaeo/index.php

* defined broadly as stigmatization of those we perceive as different from us; defined specifically as the 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. There can be an ethnocentric group of people without being a racist group of people because racism seems to need to have some systematized body of scientific knowledge. ...
www.geocities.com/paris/chateau/6110/europeconceptsterms.htm

* Racism is prejudice or discrimination based on the belief that race is the primary factor determining human traits and abilities. Racism includes the belief that genetic or inherited differences produce the inherent superiority or inferiority of one race over another. In the name of protecting their race from "contamination," some racists justify the domination and destruction of races they consider to be either superior or inferior. ...
www.adl.org/children_holocaust/more_resources.asp

* An attitude, action or institutional structure, which subordinates a person or group because of their color. Racism involves having the power to carry out systematic discriminatory practices.
www.gecdf.com/diversity/glossary.html

* Judging an individual based solely on his or her racial affiliation.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072863129/student_view0/chapter14/key_terms.html

* personal (attitudes/beliefs/behaviors), institutional (policies, laws, regulations) and social/cultural (beliefs, customs) that subordinates others based on physical characteristics involves use of power plus privilege
www.accta.net/2003whitedef.html

* Usually experienced as white supremacy, oppression/discrimination, action or inaction which subordinates based on race.
www.letswrap.com/LetsWRAP/Spring97/isms.htm

* An assumption that there is an inherent purity and superiority of certain races and inferiority of others. It denotes any attitude, behavior, or institutional structure that subordinates, persons or groups because of their race or ethnic background. Such practices can be intentional or unintentional.
web.bryant.edu/~fsp/modules/2/diversitygloss.htm

* Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race. It can be expressed individually or through institutional policies or practices.
www.culturalpartnerships.org/productspubs/glossary.asp

* The stigmatising of difference along the lines of ‘racial’ characteristics in order to justify advantage or abuse of power, whether economic, political, cultural or psychological.
freespace.virgin.net/brendan.richards/glossary/glossary.htm

* is a phenomenon in which people mistreat, discriminate against, dislike or even hate, have disdain for, or regard as inferior other people based on their real or perceived race. The term is almost always used pejoratively, with accusations of racism being very common but with few describing themselves as racist. The term racialism is sometimes favored as a less negative term by those who hold certain beliefs about other races which they believe to be scientifically justified.
www.encyclopedia4u.com/r/racism.html

* is power plus racial prejudice, a system that leads to the oppression of or discrimination against, specific racial or ethnic groups.
colours.mahost.org/faq/definitions.html

* This managed to express itself in both pre- and post-Darwinian understandings. In the pre-Darwinian scheme of things, based on the idea of the Great Chain of Being the question was this: do the various races occupy different levels on the chain, some higher, some lower, or are they all basically human? ...
alpha.fdu.edu/~jbecker/nature/natureglossary.html

* practices and attitudes that display dislike or antagonism towards people seen as belonging to particular ethnic groups. Social significance is attached to culturally constructed ideas of difference.
media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666/student/0131217666_glo.html

* Racism may be viewed as any attitude, action, or institutional structure which subordinates a person or group because of his or her color. It is an ideology that considers a group’s unchangeable physical characteristics to be linked in a direct, causal way to psychological or intellectual characteristics. This distinguishes between superior and inferior racial groups.
www.roundtoplewis.com/define.html

* the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
* discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Racism has many different definitions. Historically, it has been defined as the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities, that a certain race is inherently superior or inferior to others, and/or that individuals should be treated differently according to their racial designation. Sometimes racism means beliefs, practices, and institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Too bad you can't get $2.7 million if you're a white firefighter and the victim of a prank. There was evidence that the black guy pulled pranks on others; I wonder how much they get.

Do you even read articles?

You can't get 2.7 million if your black and pull pranks on others, either. They made the offer before evidence surfaced that the he also played pranks...and as a result it was veto's and the council didn't try to override the veto.

You can't get 2.7 million if your black and pull pranks on others, either. They made the offer before evidence surfaced that the he also played pranks...and as a result it was veto's and the council didn't try to override the veto.You're missing the point. The $2.7 million should not have even been on the table. I'm sure the white victims of the black guy's pranks weren't offered $2.7 million, even if they had pulled no pranks of their own.

Now the black guy is going to trial with this crap, and if he hires an attorney that's charismatic enough, and finds a jury stupid or black enough, he could win even more, by pulling the litigation slot machine.

Pretty much every definition of racism I just looked up has the notion that one race is superior to another. It doesn't say anything about different, that's sort of obvious, but superiority of one's race is what makes racism, racism.

Well, that then can leave out the word 'nigger', don't it.

If I call someone that, and have no implication toward a particular race of people, but ONLY that individual, then by your definitions it is NOT racist.