# Kramer, what happened to you?



## mannypwife (Feb 15, 2005)

(Hijacked the wife's account.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgjVt41o1AY


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I was really amazed at how out of control he was as a result of their heckling.


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

terrible quality... but boy am i surprised he wasn't trying to be funny or give a mssg. he just started off racists...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It's on CNN. Very Gibsonesque, but with live video. Is Gibsonesque now a term?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Never did like the man. He's a waste of skin, talking like that.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Wow, that's worse than when Mel snapped.  

Here's another link...
http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1772645

View attachment 2330


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Never did like the man. He's a waste of skin, talking like that.


2 bit actor that made a bunch of money with a highly specialized part now thinks himself an "artist"

the one audience was correct in stating that "kramer's" career ended with "seinfeld" show

learning that you're a one trick pony, albeit a rich one, appears to be a hard lesson for wanna be thespian, Michael Richards

boo on him
boo, boo

I hope Hollywood is outraged at "kramer"
Racism, masquerading as "art" is a terrible thing.

I will now think of the racist Michael Richards whenever I see another Seinfeld re-run.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

That was a spectacularly awful outburst. I don't feel sorry for him at all, and don't want to hear any whining apologies he'll no doubt utter. 

Arsepick.

It'll be a while before I'll be able to watch another Seinfeld re-run.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

gwillikers said:


> Wow, that's worse than when Mel snapped.
> 
> Here's another link...
> http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1772645
> ...



How is this worse?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I always really liked his quirky Seinfeld character, and had this impression of him being a likable nutty guy in real life. 

I was just completely shocked and horrified by the video tape.     

No amount of apology can redeem himself to me. That kind of burst out comes from a deep, dark place of hate.


----------



## hungryhouse (Feb 2, 2005)

Wow wee, from hero to zero. What a freak. Wish the first part building up to the outburst had been on there.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Hope he saved some of the millions he made on Seinfeld. I would think his career just ended. I never cared for the Seinfeld show to begin with and hardly watched it, so seeing this idiot wreck his career is not a big concern. Actor/comedians come and go...plenty more waiting in the wings, and probably more talented too.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

HowEver said:


> How is this worse?


I think it is worse because he was completely sober.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> How is this worse?


"Kramer" was sober while uttering his obscenities.
unless he'll come out with a lawyer written apology about being off his meds or some other such nonsense

like mentioned elsewhere, i hope "kramer" saved his millions from seinfeld


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I think it is worse because he was completely sober.


How many minutes until he announces he was NOT sober, and is now in rehab?

Counting down: 5, 4, 3...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

HowEver said:


> How many minutes until he announces he was NOT sober, and is now in rehab?
> 
> Counting down: 5, 4, 3...


:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> How many minutes until he announces he was NOT sober, and is now in rehab?
> 
> Counting down: 5, 4, 3...


mark foley's lawyer is gonna be so busy.....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

from CNN;

michael "kramer" richards apologizes on CBS "the late show" via satellite - gotta see that

jerry seinfeld issues statement stating he's sick over the statements by richards
good for seinfeld, he's always been a smart cookie


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Life is about choices. 

Complete ar$ewhole or complete meltdown.

When we speak of sober are we taking into account the prime question of recent history? "Are you on crack?"

Remember are old pal Ashley? And his "outbursts?" 

Remember folks that's why they came up with the old saying "$hit Happens."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

richards' apology was half hearted and he was caught red handed being a blatant racist
richards; "i'm not a racist"
oh yeah? using the n word over and over again tells me you are
i actually lost some respect seeing seinfeld "help" out richards on the letterman show
what's next? seinfeld helps out gibson?
let richards go into hollywood oblivion

apparently richards was back at the comedy club

i won't be able to watch seinfeld every again without looking at kramer as a racist
amazing what evil lurks in the hearts of men


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

*Kramer apologizes*

I feel sorry for the guy. Life as he knows it will never be the same--apology or not. Me, personally, I loved the guy and the character. I thought he was one of the better physical comedians that just could never find his place outside of Seinfeld.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2006/11/20/kramer-racial-slurs.html?ref=rss

_"I took it badly and I went into a rage and said some pretty nasty things to some Afro-Americans," said Richards.

Richards made the remarks while performing at the Los Angeles comedy club The Laugh Factory on Friday night.

...

Richards admitted to Letterman he was trying to defuse the hecklers by being more outrageous, but that it backfired.

The video from the comedy club shows some audience members chuckling while others gasped and one person could be heard saying "Oh my God."

Some people in the club begin walking out, as someone says: "It's not funny. That's why you're a reject, never had no shows, never had no movies. Seinfeld, that's it."

Richards said he later went back and talked to some audience members still in attendance to apologize and try and explain what had occurred._​


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

The video of the apology:

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


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

At least it was a real apology. I hate it when they say "I regret if anyone was offended" and not "I screwed up." Richards screwed up and said so.

It hardly mitigates the stupidity, and hatefulness, of what he said. He claims to have gone back on stage that night to apologize, and to have apologized to people who were still in the club, off-stage. If that's true it means he understood immediately what a bone-head thing he had done.

The difference between that and Mel Gibson is that Gibson waited a very long time to apologize, did not go back to do it personally, right away or later. Richards did not wait until the media ate him alive.

Gibson will survive though, and keep on making selectively crappy religious movies. Richards had no more career to destroy.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

sorry guys, *I don't buy any of it*.

He's got inadequate and pathetic counsel, @ best. He picked the wrong forum to issue his _pretend heart felt apology_. How is anyone going to take you seriously when you issue this apology on a comedy show?? This is the only place that he knew that he would be likely surrounded by his peers - fellow comedians who somehow will be more tolerant of this tirade. 

Sorry Kramer, I hope that you and your career gets flushed down the toilet with the rest of the detritus. He knows that his carrer hangs in the balance as a few before him have been banished into absolute retreat and obscurity [read: Jimmy The Greek, John Vanbiesbrouck, Fuzzy Zoeller. Oh yea, We didn't forget you Fuzzy: http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/21/fuzzy/fuzzy.18sec.mov ]

If he really wanted to make ammends (which I feel is virtually unachievable @ this point, he would have hit Larry King or Oprah to take the fire full on: from disgusted fans, to the community (and yes mine) that he's insulted immeasurably. But he decided to come out with Letterman, Seinfeld as sheilds. Even the crowd i attendance was looking for him to somehow explode in his signature burst again, waiting for an opportunity to laugh... 

He knew that he needed to get out and act quickly in this YouTube era. Too late Kramer. The jig is up.

Did anyone really hear was he said??



> "50 yrs ago they would have had you hangin upside down with a pitchfork in your a**"


Wonder if he'll get a book deal/his own Fox special.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hiding behind Seinfeld and Letterman had no crecibility whatsoever. The only reason the idot did well was because of Jerry. If I was Jerry, I'd have left him hung out to dry because that is where he belongs. There was NO excuse for that outburst and I think it was 10, nay 100 times worse than Gibson. At least Mel was drunk when he did his bit.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Driving drunk and being a racist is more forgiveable than being a bad standup comic and having people constantly interrupt you?

What Richards did was unforgiveable. He thought he was being funny and defusing an awful situation.

He apologized on the Letterman show clearly because Letterman wanted the ratings, and because otherwise the scheduled guest (Seinfeld) would have had to answer questions about it.

Gibson is an extremely powerful person in the place where he threatened to destroy the life of the officer who arrested him and those who detained him at the station. When someone worth billions of dollars says you are going to lose your job, it is very, very different than a failed comedian on a nowhere stage yelling racist comments.

I'm sure there are reasons why Gibson will be forgiven, including his star power, his money and fame, and who his invective was directed at.

Whether or not Richards will be forgiven depends on whether those first apologies in the club, shortly after his outburst, turn out to be true.

And by the way, it would be nice to read comments about the apology that make it look like one actually viewed it.





SINC said:


> Hiding behind Seinfeld and Letterman had no crecibility whatsoever. The only reason the idot did well was because of Jerry. If I was Jerry, I'd have left him hung out to dry because that is where he belongs. There was NO excuse for that outburst and I think it was 10, nay 100 times worse than Gibson. At least Mel was drunk when he did his bit.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

HowEver said:


> At least it was a real apology.


not really. Not an once of it. Not sure how you can convey sincerity in a Letterman show type forum. This is far from the Phil Donahue show.



> The difference between that and Mel Gibson is that Gibson waited a very long time to apologize, did not go back to do it personally, right away or later. Richards did not wait until the media ate him alive.


HE HAD NO CHOICE.

The video was making it's rounds over the net and he HAD to act quickly. In the Mel Gibson case, these was no video (that I can recall), or @ least none so clear exposing all of the comments and actions. 

Look for ppl who were in the audience to get on talk shows - very soon, which will make matters worse (can it get worse though?) Kramer says that he's looking for the audience members who walked out. Heckling?? Come on. Surviving a heckler is what makes you a really good stand up comic... You can't handle that, get out the frying pan dude. 

There's losing it, and there's what Kramer did.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> And by the way, it would be nice to read comments about the apology that make it look like one actually viewed it.


For your information, I did watch it. It stands as the most insincere I have witnessed and he used Seinfeld and Letterman to try and change the atmosphere in his favour.

Sorry, but I can't come up with a rude comeback for your remark.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

HowEver said:


> He apologized on the Letterman show clearly because Letterman wanted the ratings, and because otherwise the scheduled guest (Seinfeld) would have had to answer questions about it.


Nope. If Seinfeld wanted no part of it, he could have simply said so before the show. Seinfeld had nothing to lose by not speaking about it, if anything, all to gain. It would have put him in an immediate conflict with Kramer's views and that is all thumbs up. He walked the line with his comments. Look @ it as Gretzky defending McSorly. 



> Gibson is an extremely powerful person in the place where he threatened to destroy the life of the officer who arrested him and those who detained him at the station. When someone worth billions of dollars says you are going to lose your job, it is very, very different than a failed comedian on a nowhere stage yelling racist comments.


Precisely - misguided comments from a drunk person. Have you ever watched COPS? Ever hear what comes out of their mouthes? Almost funny. This however, was not one bit.



> I'm sure there are reasons why Gibson will be forgiven, including his star power, his money and fame, and who his invective was directed at.


Indeed. But @ the end of the day, _he was drunk_ - which is why he was stopped in the 1st place.



> And by the way, it would be nice to read comments about the apology that make it look like one actually viewed it.


??


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

SINC said:


> ...he used Seinfeld and Letterman to try and change the atmosphere in his favour.


Totally agreed here. As such, I will never consider this appearance a true apology.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> For your information, I did watch it. It stands as the most insincere I have witnessed and he used Seinfeld and Letterman to try and change the atmosphere in his favour.
> 
> Sorry, but I can't come up with a rude comeback for your remark.


(They used Richards; that was my point above.)

What I meant was that all too often these comments are made but they don't specifically refer to anything within the video, book, movie, even in this case, outburst.

You may see that as rude but I see your comments as vague and unspecific. What are we objecting to? Tone? Direction? Location? While your points about the apology being misplaced because it appeared on Letterman are reasonable, in fact this is likely to be a widely voiced concern, there are also reasons why the apology happened there.

And it's true: there was nothing in your comments that showed that you had seen the show. You don't have to prove it to me, and there is no forum rule that says you have to be specific. But don't assume something is rude because it's accurate and aimed at you. Posts are more effective when they make reference to the subject at hand. There's nothing wrong with being vague and off the wall. It just holds different value to different readers.



HowEver said:


> And by the way, it would be nice to read comments about the apology that make it look like one actually viewed it.


It may not be a tenet of good journalism that you have to quote your sources, format an argument, make a proof, but it does happen a lot in some of the press. In the writing with which I'm the most familiar, it's a requirement.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

Audience member speaks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEcz9T3MuL4


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

one thing is to behave like an arshole,
another is to do it in public,
another is to be in the spotlight with a mic.

i don't "buy" Michael richards being an actual hateful racist, even though he tried and succeded coming off as one, i just don't think the guy is evil. Then again, i don't know the guy, but i choose to forgive this totally unproffessional faux pas and just take it as it is, a royal screu up. 

i would apologize personally to each patron and try to explain myself if i were him. of course he doesn't seem cut out to do stand up comedy, specially if he can't TAKE IT. But i'm not ready to crucify him, not for that. I won't defend him blindly either, as he just might be evil........

But i choose not to hate 

Anyways, I'm amazed how easy you all have crucified the guy!!!! context everybody!!!, he was in a comedy club, in an improvised stand up act, I would save the rage for child molestors!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> It may not be a tenet of good journalism that you have to quote your sources, format an argument, make a proof, but it does happen a lot in some of the press. In the writing with which I'm the most familiar, it's a requirement.


Their is a huge difference between writing a report on a certain subject for publication based on who, what, where, when and how and expressing a personal opinion of a watched event on a board.

Perhaps you can't tell that difference?


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

gastonbuffet said:


> Anyways, I'm amazed how easy you all have crucified the guy!!!! context everybody!!!, he was in a comedy club, in an improvised stand up act, I would save the rage for child molestors!


Gaston.... for you I offer this clear and sober quote:



> "50 yrs ago they would have had you hangin upside down with a pitchfork in your a**"


Need I say more?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Ohenri said:


> HE HAD NO CHOICE.


Wrong. Dead wrong--everyone has a choice. Question it all you want, he could have kept quiet about it... he could have issued a statement, but he went public (live television) and apologized on national TV where the most people would see it.

But I guess it's easier to judge when you're free of guilt.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

> Wrong. Dead wrong--everyone has a choice


so you would let this video go on and on and on, as people simply take the silence as straight guilt? I personally don't think so. As negligent as his PR ppl were, an apology was in order. People will look for an explanation, former fans as well as the ppl you offended. He made remarks that were well and past racist, they were malicious and vengeful. Period. I personally think that his career hangs in the balance. 

But hey, _there was a choice_ -* a choice to plead no contest* to the accusations put forth out there. I guess that was the other one. 

I just hope that the ppl can get organized and hand him what he's due.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Ohenri said:


> so you would let this video go on and on and on, as people simply take the silence as straight guilt?


What silence? He admitted his wrong-doing without excuse! He faced his friends and peers on national TV and took complete responsibility for it.



> I personally don't think so. As negligent as his PR ppl were, an apology was in order. People will look for an explanation, former fans as well as the ppl you offended. He made remarks that were well and past racist, they were malicious and vengeful. Period. I personally think that his career hangs in the balance.


Past racist? You mean there's a degree above racist? What is it? Über-racist?  

His career isn't hanging in the balance--it's toast. End of story.

You have absolute no clue what he and his "PR ppl" had discussed let alone make judgement about how it was "handled".

Of course an apology was in order! That doesn't mean a person *will* make the apology, let alone in a pre-determined fashion (by way of letter, personal appearance, through a spokesperson, etc.).

The way a person apologizes and what they say can greatly affect the ability for others to forgive. I don't see what else he could have said. He made no excuse, used no scapegoat and certainly didn't have someone coach him with a script. 



> But hey, _there was a choice_ -* a choice to plead no contest* to the accusations put forth out there. I guess that was the other one.


Again--he DID apologize (and it was a heartfelt one) and took full responsability for his actions. People make mistakes all the time, even against best judgement.



> I just hope that the ppl can get organized and hand him what he's due.


What? Lynch him? Hang him? Shoot him? 

The man made a mistake. He owned up to it. He's taking responsibility for it and is dealing with it the best way he can and doing it without using the typical Hollywood formula for dealing with career f*ckups.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

> You have absolute no clue what he and his "PR ppl" had discussed let alone make judgement about how it was "handled".


You are certainly correct I have no idea what was discussed, but most are agreeing that he picked the wrong forum to come out, as _he himself _did @ some point as well. 



> Past racist? You mean there's a degree above racist? What is it? Über-racist?


Sure. There are racist comments, then you make mention of lynching?? You tell an audience member that as a white man, you can have him arrested on the spot for no real reason??? Sure, that's certainly more than racist. 



> What? Lynch him? Hang him? Shoot him?


Never even suggested anything of the sort. I'm simply implying that lesser slips have costed ppl their careers, and this is @ the very least what he is owed.

In fact, for starters he's been banned from the Laugh Factory for life if I heard correctly. Anyhow, we can agree to disagree on the apology and this case.


----------



## Ariell (Mar 28, 2005)

Wow, that was nasty!!! I can't believe he said those things.  

As a stand-up comic with however many years of experience that's the best he could come up with? Isn't it supposed to be part of your ammo to have some sort of snappy (and FUNNY) comebacks to hecklers??



ehMax said:


> No amount of apology can redeem himself to me. That kind of burst out comes from a deep, dark place of hate.


Either that, or a deep dark place of multiple drugs. He couldn't have been sober, could he?

I watched his apology and I'd have to say that it was one of the most sincere 'celebrity' agologies I've seen. I don't think you can fake the type of emotion that was in his voice. He screwed up and he screwed up badly and he knows it. Doesn't excuse what he did but he seems genuinely sorry. 

What was up with some people in Letterman's audience laughing though? 

And as for Seinfeld sticking by Richards, I say good on him. :clap: Takes a brave person to stand behind their friend when everyone else is sh*&*)ng on him.

Hopefully, as he alluded to on Letterman, Richards will start doing some 'personal work' to figure out where all that hatred came from.


----------



## iLabmAn (Jan 1, 2003)

There is absolutely NO reason whatsoever for comic or anyone for that matter to use racial slurs. There's a CNN clip where another comic said that if a white man used the "n" word you'd better be ready for the consequences. What? Sad really. I hear kids from our black community call each other "n" all the time and get called on it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Ariell said:


> And as for Seinfeld sticking by Richards, I say good on him. :clap: Takes a brave person to stand behind their friend when everyone else is sh*&*)ng on him.


I agree. If it's a real friendship and not just work acquaintances, I can understand that. You tell them what you think, but stick by them unless it's some sort of constant thing with no apparent intent to try and change.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

Seinfeld will stick by him as long as there's no effect on _his_ career and _his_ image. Just as some republicans we keeping their distance from Mark Foley when the scandal came out, this is much of the same. Seinfeld will not let this drag him under. In fact, what would he say to his best friend and best man, black comedian George Wallace??



> I hear kids from our black community call each other "n" all the time


You know what, maybe ppl from visible minorities get it quicker. The unwritten rule has always been that ppl within communities have always joked with racial slurs between themselves - Asian, Hispanics, Jews and Blacks. Crossing that line was on a "@ your own risk" basis. As such, it never really happened. Til now.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Isn't there usually a DVD release following outburts like this?

Like Seinfeld Season 7, or some such? Out soon? As in, today?

Usually I'm much more cynical, but there is no way Michael Richards would purposely serve himself up like this. With no apparent history of racism, it's still easy to believe he IS a racist, and by definition: he made clearly racist statements; and less easy to believe he made unbelievably astonishingly bad judgement errors in saying these things, that he's human, that he's out to lunch, that he's on drugs, and so on.

I imagine Season 7, being released *today*, will still sell well, even if it won't sit well at some points as you watch it.

At least with Gibson you had a body of ambivalent work and some clearly questionable movies. Who remakes a Passion Play without updating it just a tad so that its "sensibilities" aren't medieval?

Michael Richards just isn't that big a deal. I doubt he'll be on the cover of Season 8 when that comes out, though.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Wrong. Dead wrong--everyone has a choice. Question it all you want, he could have kept quiet about it... he could have issued a statement, but he went public (live television) and apologized on national TV where the most people would see it.
> 
> But I guess it's easier to judge when you're free of guilt.


actually letterman is taped in the late afternoon so it's hardly "live"
the show is edited, but we don't know to what extent

Hockey Night in Canada is "live"
The Grey Cup is "live"


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Perhaps I am being too cynical but Seinfeld "helping" Richards probably has more to do with Seinfeld royalties than anything.

The youtube link is gone but here is the full video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9107547518165183938&q=Michael+Richards+Apology

That was just plain awful.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> actually letterman is taped in the late afternoon so it's hardly "live"
> the show is edited, but we don't know to what extent
> 
> Hockey Night in Canada is "live"
> The Grey Cup is "live"


There is a live audience--hence "live".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> There is a live audience--hence "live".


most of us understand "live" to mean "un-edited"
you mean "taped in front of a live audience"


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> most of us understand "live" to mean "un-edited"
> you mean "taped in front of a live audience"


I'll concede that point. But the fact still remains, Mr. Richards did what practically no other celeb has done, and that's face the music on national television and admit his wrong-doing without resorting to a "Gibson" defence or sorts.

But it should be said that the shows like Late Night are filmed in real-time and rarely (if ever) actually edited to truncate or filter content.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

True, this appeared unedited, the director certainly didn't edit out the very odd laughter from the audience, which prompted Seinfeld to ask them to stop.

Of course, these shows, taped live, spend an hour beforehand working up the audience to the point where they would laugh at a funeral or traffic accident.

There is also an element of schadenfraude going on here.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I'll concede that point. But the fact still remains, Mr. Richards did what practically no other celeb has done, and that's face the music on national television and admit his wrong-doing without resorting to a "Gibson" defence or sorts.
> 
> But it should be said that the shows like Late Night are filmed in real-time and rarely (if ever) actually edited to truncate or filter content.


Seems to me the "Gibson defence" seems much more heartfelt and he now "faces the music."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-08-01-gibson-main_x.htm


> As the actor reached out to the Jewish community by making a public apology for anti-Semitic remarks he made during a traffic stop on suspicion of drunken driving, photos surfaced of him partying at a bar hours before his arrest Friday.
> 
> Early Tuesday, Gibson issued a statement seeking forgiveness and asking Jewish leaders for help in finding "the appropriate path for healing" after the slurs became public when a report detailing the arrest was posted Friday by the online celebrity news site TMZ.com.
> 
> ...



http://brentroos.com/2006/08/01/mel-gibson-apologizes/


> I’m not just asking for forgiveness. I would like to take it one step further, and meet with leaders in the Jewish community, with whom I can have a one on one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing.
> 
> I have begun an ongoing program of recovery and what I am now realizing is that I cannot do it alone. I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display, and I am asking the Jewish community, whom I have personally offended, to help me on my journey through recovery. Again, I am reaching out to the Jewish community for its help. I know there will be many in that community who will want nothing to do with me, and that would be understandable. But I pray that that door is not forever closed.


http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/AFP/2006/08/03/1732647?ba=a&bi=0&bp=25


> LOS ANGELES (AFP) — Hollywood star Mel Gibson received a third Jewish group's invitation to meet with them following his apology for making anti-Semitic remarks during his suspected drunken driving arrest last week. The 1939 Club, one of world's largest Holocaust survivors' groups, became the latest Jewish group to reach out to the actor-director, following New York's Museum of Jewish Heritage and a prominent Beverly Hills rabbi. Noting that Gibson had asked the Jewish community to assist him on his "journey through recovery," 1939 Club president William Elperin said: "Our members are offering that help, by assisting Mr. Gibson in understanding the extremes of anti-Semitism and what they and their families -- many of whom were slaughtered by the Nazis -- endured." David Marwell, the director of the Museum of Jewish Heritage, said in a letter to Gibson that he took his public apology "very seriously."


I wonder if Seinfeld would have been so quick to help out his friend, had Richards spewed anti-Semitic remarks, instead of anti-African American.

I have yet to hear Richards admit his racism nor reach out to African American groups for help in addressing his obvious racism.

You can't help someone until they admit they have a problem.
Richards has yet to admit his racism.
He's indicated things would be a lot different 50 years ago when he could have had the audience member "strung up in a tree."

Richards might as well have worn a Klu Klux Klan outfit. He used the "n" word so many times and so freely it makes him an honourary "Grand Wizard."

Richards needs to admit his racism and reach out the African-American community for help and guidance and to apologize to them directly.


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

> The unwritten rule has always been that ppl within communities have always joked with racial slurs between themselves - Asian, Hispanics, Jews and Blacks.


I've never really understood this. I don't find it anything that should be joked about. If it is unacceptable for 1 person to say, it should be unacceptable for anyone to say. Until people adopt this way of thinking, these slurs will continue to be used because the general public are being sent mixed messages from these "jokes".

EDIT: Just thought of something else. What if, in a few years, my daughter comes home from school and I hear her say something terrible like this? When I question her she says that she heard 2 boys call each other that so she thought it was okay. Am I supposed to tell her it's only a bad word depending on the colour of her skin?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> You can't help someone until they admit they have a problem.


I agree. That is an important step.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I've never really understood this. I don't find it anything that should be joked about. If it is unacceptable for 1 person to say, it should be unacceptable for anyone to say. Until people adopt this way of thinking, these slurs will continue to be used becuase the general public are being sent mixed messages from these "jokes".



I agree. It's wrong for anyone to use words that denigrate a group of people based on their race.

The "n" word has a special place in history. Repeating it only serves to dishonour the memory of those that suffered and are still suffering the perils of racism.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Richards needs to admit his racism and reach out the African-American community for help and guidance and to apologize to them directly.



have you consider the possibility of him NOT being a racist?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

gastonbuffet said:


> have you consider the possibility of him NOT being a racist?


did you watch and listen to the video?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I have yet to hear Richards admit his racism nor reach out to African American groups for help in addressing his obvious racism.


Man, that's self-righteous. Richards performed an ill-considered chunk of very bad experimental comedy. The very nature of comedy is to sometimes be offensive--and that can backfire on you as well.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> did you watch and listen to the video?


yes.

the question is: did he meant/believes what he said?
you think he does, i don't think so. i believe he did a HUGE stupid thing, and he is paying for it. As he should.

should he be given the benefit of the doubt to what his actual beliefs are? well, if you think not, let's just put a black hood on and kill him.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

who torch your place anyway?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I wonder if Seinfeld would have been so quick to help out his friend, had Richards spewed anti-Semitic remarks, instead of anti-African American.
> 
> I have yet to hear Richards admit his racism nor reach out to African American groups for help in addressing his obvious racism.
> 
> ...


First and foremost--Sienfeld didn't leap at the opportunity. He was booked weeks in advance.

Secondly, Richards returned the stage the same night of his 'vent' to apologize to the crowd and also approached those who were still around and apologize personally. He also talked of wanting to offer those who left an apology as well, but had no immediate way of contacting them. I would consider that reaching out.

It's irrelevant to whether or not YOU believe he is racist--he believes he is not, but recognized that he failed miserably at shock comedy and didn't handle the reaction to it well. He admitted that he had issues that he needed to take care of.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Richards was attempting a comedy bit that was bad taste and reacted even worse to the heckling. What I would like to see is a video of the entire bit he was doing rather than just a fragment of when things got ugly and at least try to get some context to it.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

There is a list of things experienced stand-up comics are supposed to say when they are heckled. Richards obviously did not draw from the list (at least at this point, he may have spent half an hour drawing from it before the taped parts we are seeing) and tried his shock-response instead.

(I tried to google "things comedians are supposed to say to hecklers" and google asked if I meant "things Canadians are supposed to say to hecklers" ! )


http://www.humormall.com/diary/bin/2000-1115.shtml


> I hate hecklers. Hecklers are people who can't plan, write or do anything except respond to the most basic stimulus. (At the Holy City Zoo one night, Barry Sobel was on stage, and a heckler-by-choice strode into the club and listened for about a nanosecond to hear Sobel say, "I was riding MUNI" and the heckler screamed, "MUNI! Yeah! Well I have a Fast Pass!" It's pitiful to think that his synapses were all a-firing and that's the best he could come up with. I threw him out of the club.)


http://www.performers.net/library/bw-heckle.html


> Pro-heckler:
> For a drunk, lines like "Dad, can you come back after the show?" work well. Of course if the drunk starts yelling obscenities then you have a carte blanche to take the return heckle as far as you'd like. It is always best to work out your favorite heckler lines that suit your personality. If you're playing a vulnerable character then being harsh and offensive with a heckler probably will not work to your advantage, in fact it will probably alienate some of your crowd. Although sometimes a momentary break of character gets laughs.
> 
> The Butterfly Man is probably the king of hecklers. The thrust of his act is the heckling interaction that he creates between himself and the members in his audience. He has some cutting, sarcastic, and very funny lines. Robert makes hecklers and heckling work for him. Personally, I'd love to have him heckle my show and see where it goes... probably write some new material.
> ...


An entire "How to deal with hecklers" article:
http://www.juggling.org/~conway/juggler/MAL.TXT
"YOU'RE UGLY, YOUR D|CK IS SMALL AND EVERYBODY ....S YOUR MOTHER[:] THE STAND UP COMEDIAN'S RESPONSE TO THE HECKLER"


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

Digital_Gary said:


> I've never really understood this. I don't find it anything that should be joked about. If it is unacceptable for 1 person to say, it should be unacceptable for anyone to say. Until people adopt this way of thinking, these slurs will continue to be used because the general public are being sent mixed messages from these "jokes".



Hey... DG, I totally feel you dude. But this is something that is kinda known in vis min communities. Not something that I would expect someone from the outside to really get, unless they were right there. Just like growing up, my parents always taught me that as a vis minority, I was gowing to experience things diff than my non vis minority friend. Sux, but that's how it's been. Oh well...


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

I hear you too. I know it's been accepted in the past but thats the problem. I'm not one to get offended too easily so whatever as far as I'm concerned. If one person wants to call another a name and it doesn't offend them, I'm not going to raise any flags. 

Problem is, like I mentioned already, I'm now responsible for teaching a young one what is right and what is wrong. I like to think my wife and I are pretty open minded and feel teaching equality is very important. If someone else in her class says something, how can I tell her that they are allowed because of the colour of their skin? 

Sorry, this is getting off topic sort of and almost worthy of it's own thread. I still think until minorities stop using these terms themselves, society is not going to be able to stop these sorts of outbursts. Of course, I hope no ones thinks I am in anyway defending the outburst in question by any means


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

looks like Michael Richards has spewed anti-Semitic crap before too

http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/22/richards-rant-not-the-first-time

witnesses to Richards's anti-Semitic tirade speak on camera

he has some serious problems and needs to fade away


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

This has been mentioned before but it isn't dwelled on much for reasons above: he's Jewish and generally nobody believes he is anti-Semitic either. Then again, that could explain why this story will have legs: anyone who hated Seinfeld for reasons other than comedy could glom onto this story and keep pushing it.

tmz.com is basically a gossip website. Not where I'd picture most people spending their time.

Strange how the site compares him to Lenny Bruce without the remotest understanding of Lenny Bruce. I guess you had to be there. Michael Richards is certainly not in the league of Lenny Bruce, he isn't even a poor man's Don Rickles, but he does not appear to be racist. And if you think he is anti-Semitic, you are in a very small group of people, gathered in a corner somewhere, trying to keep warm. Or you know how to post on the internet and draw unique views. As does tmz.

I guess he's no Borat, either.




MACSPECTRUM said:


> looks like Michael Richards has spewed anti-Semitic crap before too
> 
> http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/22/richards-rant-not-the-first-time
> 
> he has some serious problems and needs to fade away


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> This has been mentioned before but it isn't dwelled on much for reasons above: he's Jewish and generally nobody believes he is anti-Semitic either. Then again, that could explain why this story will have legs: anyone who hated Seinfeld for reasons other than comedy could glom onto this story and keep pushing it.
> 
> tmz.com is basically a gossip website. Not where I'd picture most people spending their time.
> 
> ...


Michael Richards not Jewish

or do you think the jewish journal is a "gossip site?"

Michael Richards has been shown to be a racist. Caught red handed more than once.

as for Sasha "Borat" Cohen; his anti-Semitic commentary in his movie serves no useful purpose

please let me and those keeping warm when it is ok to use racial/ethnic slurs

i say never again


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Michael Richards not Jewish
> 
> or do you think the jewish journal is a "gossip site?"
> 
> Michael Richards has been shown to be a racist. Caught red handed more than once.


For all I know, it is a gossip site.

Thanks for clearing that up, though. What I didn't know was that the character "Kramer" was supposed to be Jewish. I can't remember anything that would suggest that.

But there is no way I would mistake these two on-stage Michael Richards incidents for the acts of a someone who in real life is racist: they clearly fall into the pattern of a shock comic trying to get attention, but having the judgement of a demented squirrel. And they clearly don't work, for Richards or anyone else with his level of skill. Somebody above pointed out how the "n" word is used so much by comics of colour, with no repercussions. That isn't even how Richards was saying it.

There is little doubt that what Richards *said and did* was racist; but there is no reason to believe that he himself is a racist. What he did for 10 minutes on stage, either in character, or even in a blind rage, reflects immensely poorly on him, but doesn't make his whole life one of racism and intolerance.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> For all I know, it is a gossip site.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up, though. What I didn't know was that the character "Kramer" was supposed to be Jewish. I can't remember anything that would suggest that.
> 
> ...


please explain how many racist comments / incidents must be made / occur before someone is deemed a racist? 5, 10, 100, more?

what is the "tipping point?"


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

He has hired a PR specialist so I imagine he is going to start saying all of the right things to get through this.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i think it should be obvious that Richards is in fact, a racist.

i, like many other fans of his work on seinfeld (and UHF!!!), tried to brush it off after watching the video, thinking that it was still possibly a part of his act that had gone horribly wrong, but in hindsight, that was wishful thinking.

richards should/will remain a social pariah.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> please explain how many racist comments / incidents must be made / occur before someone is deemed a racist? 5, 10, 100, more?
> 
> what is the "tipping point?"


I'd say 2 isn't enough, even if they represent public diatribes while in some sort of character, on stage, and provoked. That doesn't cut it.

I'd say living in the public eye for decades and no one ever, ever bringing this up before, including the people who worked alongside you for those decades, and having those people seem genuinely surprised by this outburst, says to me that Michael Richards is not a racist. Strange also how both incidents were almost exactly the same: appear hurt by interruptions on stage, say incredibly stupid things to audience members, drop the microphone and walk off stage.

It's almost as if it was an act...

Whereas Mel Gibson has made serious mistakes in private and public circumstances, including turning a medieval play about the Christ story into a movie rather than using the biblical accounts, knowing that the medieval play is seen even by Church scholars as anti-Semitic. And then, much later, accosting a series of police officers with anti-Semitic comments.

I know people who work in the same building where Mel's offices are located who say his bodyguards are instructed to tell people riding the same elevator as him that they aren't allowed to even look at him if they are riding up or down at the same time. He is widely known as a creep in the industry.

Before last week, what did you ever hear that was negative about Michael Richards, except that he was having trouble finding work after being typecast on the Seinfeld show?

What else has surfaced to now? A couple of onstage incidents where he made racist comments possibly or possibly not trying to be a shock comic and failing miserably.

After viewing his apology, do you think he'll ever do it again? Not likely. I have no doubt Mel is still cursing people of all kinds behind closed doors. Their characters, both on stage and off, are vastly different.

There is no doubt that Richards' performance on stage was racist. Some will believe his apology was heartfelt, some will see it as a crass opportunity to hoodwink the unsuspecting public.

I see him as hugely embarassed, and penitent for inexcusable behaviour.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think there's a great degree of schandenfreude here. The internet has become a substitute for the public pillory. 

I think that anyone familiar with avant garde comedy--even poorly done--can see this is an act. Either he'll stop it or continue, probably to his own detriment. That is, unless the angriest people here want to censor Richards?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I think there's a great degree of schandenfreude here. The internet has become a substitute for the public pillory.
> 
> I think that anyone familiar with avant garde comedy--even poorly done--can see this is an act. Either he'll stop it or continue, probably to his own detriment. That is, unless the angriest people here want to censor Richards?



richards can pretty much say whatever he wants
richards is a racist as far as i am concerned
i don't think it was an act
a black cdn. comic was on CBC today and he didn't think it was an act


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Does the Canadian comic being black confer on him greater ability to judge Richards than anyone else on this board who is white?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Max said:


> Does the Canadian comic being black confer on him greater ability to judge Richards than anyone else on this board who is white?


Wouldn't suggesting that ability, or answering Max's question in the positive be, by definition, a racist statement?


----------



## MacJunky (Oct 26, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Wouldn't suggesting that ability, or answering Max's question in the positive be, by definition, a racist statement?


Yes it would.... Even though _some_ who _might_ say yes would _probably_ have a _slightly_ higher chance of getting away with it if they were popular and passed it off as a joke. (like a comedian)

Please hear me out or else I am probably going to sound like a racist asshole.

As a white skinned human I receive negative racial comments quite often from black skinned humans I have never even seen before while doing things such as walking along a sidewalk, as the following two out of many examples show.

One time I was walking to a grocery store and as I walked past a bench where a black skinned human male was laying while I was editing my list he started spewing crap about how mentally and physically inferior "whities" are. I stopped and listened then when he was done I asked him "Why do you think that?" to which he responded "Because you are white.".

I do not know what you think but I see a flaw with his reasoning. Just being a human with white skin does not make me bad and just being a human with black skin does not make anyone else bad.

Are all cats with light coloured fur better than all cats with dark coloured fur?
No, and all cats with dark coloured fur are no better than cats with light coloured fur. (Don't take this the wrong way, I really do like cats and I am not intending to seem as if I am "ragging" on them.)

Another time when I was walking to a local computer shop a large loud red truck with numerous extras drove past. As it drove past the driver (a large black skinned human male) poked himself partially out of the window and said "Burn in hell you ****ing white cracker" as he tossed a "Big Gulp" cup at me. 

I cannot help but wonder what I did to the human male in the truck and why he thinks all or at lest almost all white skinned human males are bad.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that all black skinned humans are bad in any way in fact I know some very nice ones. But my point is that they are just as bad and just as good as white skinned humans, the racism issue goes both ways even though the only significant difference is skin pigmentation.

And more on the original topic, I have seen numerous black skinned human shock comedians make numerous racist jokes about white skinned humans and actually please the mostly white skinned human audience. So, my second message is:
They are called shock comedians for a reason so quit bitching and lose the hypocrisy if you are one who is hypocritical.
There is a only thin line between doing it right and going overboard.

I think that is all I have to say for now.
/me crawls back under his rock with his computers.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

many years ago I dated a black girl and began to somewhat understand the overt racism in society against visible minorities
she told me stories and I was somewhat exposed to the racism when I went out in public with her

being white and talking about racism is quite a bit different than being non-white and seeing it for yourself


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I'm not racist....I have a colour TV.

And I'm not white...my skin is pinkish.

There's a lot of hate out there, all based on skin colour. People need to grow up a bit, get a little maturity, maybe grow a thicker skin.

Oh, speaking of thicker skin, those people who love to tan, and turn their skin into wrinkly leather make me sick. Know a girl who looks 10-years older than she really is because of her leather skin.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Considering how carefully you replied, that's somewhat of an answer. Time for a new question: does being non-white confer on one greater abilities to detect and/or speak authoritatively on racism? Skip the anecdotal evidence, please.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Max said:


> Considering how carefully you replied, that's somewhat of an answer. Time for a new question: does being non-white confer on one greater abilities to detect and/or speak authoritatively on racism?


Good question. Does it also increase the likelihood of blaming racism in a situation where none exists?

I say a black woman in a supermarket checkout line screaming at the cashier for something, claiming "You're racist! You're only doing this because I'm black!". The woman was completely in the wrong, but she used the race card anyway. Nice.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> I'd say 2 isn't enough, even if they represent public diatribes while in some sort of character, on stage, and provoked. That doesn't cut it.
> 
> I'd say living in the public eye for decades and no one ever, ever bringing this up before, including the people who worked alongside you for those decades, and having those people seem genuinely surprised by this outburst, says to me that Michael Richards is not a racist. Strange also how both incidents were almost exactly the same: appear hurt by interruptions on stage, say incredibly stupid things to audience members, drop the microphone and walk off stage.
> 
> ...


as for the underlined passages, it seems you put a lot of faith in unnamed sources
and
as for


> It's almost as if it was an act...


 - you've got to be kidding
telling the audience member that if it was 50 years ago, he'd be strung up in a tree?

imagine telling a jewish audience member that if it were 60 years ago, he'd be shipped off in a railroad box car

it stinks, no matter how you slice it

i think Richards is in the same boat as Gibson and both need to work on their problems and work with the groups they offended so they can re-educate themselves in the hope of becoming better human beings



> The actress who plays Mary in Mel Gibson's passion-stirring biblical epic "The Passion of the Christ" says her parents were Holocaust survivors but she does not consider the film anti-Semitic.


http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/04/film.passionactress.ap/

with richards, the old phrase holds true, "you can't put the tooth paste back into the tube"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ...both need to work on their problems and work with the groups they offended so they can re-educate themselves in the hope of becoming better human beings


Maybe a nice re-education camp? Seriously, even if one accepted your argument that Richards is a racist, why would he need to work "with the group he offended?"


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Did I miss where people are calling for the audience member who called Richards "cracker" on tape to be "re-educated?" He was after all only responding to Richards, who was only responding to him or another audience member, who was only interrupting Richards' act and provoking him because they were oppressed.

It remains that if Richards hasn't done anything else racist in 57 years, this racist outburst may or may not make him "a racist."

Now his own publicist claims that Michael Richards is Jewish, in error perhaps? Perhaps that was the general perception also. Certainly being associated with Seinfeld probably 'helped' as well. I'm sure that had nothing to do with any of this.

I guess apologizing to Jesse Jackson was a start. Jackson is of course an expert at apologies, the kind of preacher and public figure who cheats on his wife for decades and gets away with it, both at home and in public.

With this kind of morality setting the standard, it's no wonder people can't tell the difference between right and wrong. Even when it doesn't suit them to.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I don't see many people up in arms about Dave Chapelle's liberal use of cracker, ****** and the multitude of other slurs that is laced throughout his show.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Maybe a nice re-education camp? Seriously, even if one accepted your argument that Richards is a racist, why would he need to work "with the group he offended?"


it's Richards' right to be a racist
he can choose NOT to work with the groups that he offended, although it would give him huge insight into his, not so latent, racism


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I don't see many people up in arms about Dave Chapelle's liberal use of cracker, ****** and the multitude of other slurs that is laced throughout his show.



well, he is one of "them"!


Gastonbuffet
racist since ....just now


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i do believe the word "cracker" is racist and shouldn't be used

goose, gander and all that stuff


----------

