Michael Richards speaks the truth
Created on: November 23rd, 2006
It's the truth. Words are what we make of them.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.86) | 310 | 7 | 72 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17,544 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 86 | https://www.bing.com |
| 24 | http://hesnotanigga.ytmnsfw.com/ |
| 14 | http://yandex.ru/clck/jsredir?from=yandex.ru%3Bsearch%3Bweb%3B%3 |
| 6 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 3 | https://www.google.com/ |
I remember the waterfront one, and this is where I would concede if I was not playing the role of you, but I am, so I am just going to say this: those aren't funny, interesting or truly creative so they don't count blah blah. Yes everyone knows good sites can be killed but you have to differentiate between bad sites, good with a small niche, and good killed by vengeful votes. You just lump everything into one pile. You got a simple site in UC without aid but you still think I had to trade for high ratings?
Of course I changed my voting habits over the years. Ytmnd has changed a lot. Aside from gr33nscr33n asking me to prove that I could vote 1 without fear of the reprisal, I have only changed my voting habits based on the worsening of content, and the lessening of other users. I changed my habits because ytmnd got worse, not because you convinced me that I was an offensive upvoter.
What I was alluding to earlier is that you shouldn't be proud of high ratings on this site, you shouldn't be concerned with them at all. You also shouldn't assume that your sites are always good. Your attitude is ridiculous: when you get good ratings, its deserved, when you get bad ratings, its a corruption of the system. Yes, I was just trolling you, I was giving you a taste of what you dish out. I was being intentionally dishonest. There are a lot of users who make worse sites, but my target was you.
if i wasn't such a cracka *ss cracka maybe i'd side with black people.
but seriously all he said was n*gg*r, chris rock said it himself "n*gg*rs f*ck everything up". Clearly the chocolate face in the audience was a n*gg*r, and rightfully deserved the title. Now if kramer would have said n*gg*, things might have been allright. He needs to get those ebonics down.
hahahahahaha awesome. Its just a bunch of typical postmodern politically correct liberal bullsh*t as usual, kramer was right, he should have tried that during the 50s, and seen what happened. At least back then, blacks, who are equal to whites, ACTED equal. Way to disgrace the civil rights movement by acting like a f*ckin primate, you dumb n*gg*r! But of course now I'm a racist too, oops.
There are two words called "celebrity" and "media," I suggest you look them up. Bascially, when anyone remotely well-known says anything controversial, they are the most hated and despised person in America until they apologize... and then everyone talks about insincere the apology was and I'm like wtf do I care about him, there are KKK members still out there that are 10 times worse than this every day.
dude it would be funny if michael richards did it in a funny way. but HE FREAKED OUT. there is a difference between racy comedy and RACISM you idiots. if you can't tell why Michael Richards actions were wrong then you need to put a shotgun up to your face and pull the trigger so that you aren't wasting the resources of Earth for the rest of logical humanity.
d1ggitydan: The blacks in the crowd were heckling Richards for quite some time, calling HIM racial slurs. When he finally fired back, I think it was in part to make a social statement; it was intended to shock people. If you cant comprehend why Richards was justified in his retaliatory insults, then you are just another sheep.
Ummm... I think you all missed the point of why he got into such hot water. The lynching comment at the beginning is far worse then any of the "n*gg*r" comments. He was verbally assaulting him, the n*gg*r bits only added to it. And yes, cracker is a lot less offensive than n*gg*r. If you don't believe that, you are a moron. I don't recall Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock, or Eddie Murphy ever singling a white person out of an audience (heckler or not) and act like a Black Panther towards them.
Hey onlyrealnumber, and faxter:
Good job, you completely missed the point of this site. I am merely making a statement about how double standards still permeat society especially in a situation like this. It not right under any circumstance. Yes, Michael Richards was inappropriate, but so were the hecklers. They both deserve equal responsibility for what happened there, but the only person that took the blame was Michael Richards. Also Michael Richards was the only one that bothered to apologize. It's sad
Why is bitch on lots of censors for websites but bastard isn't? Michael
Richards wasn't just racist for calling someone a n*gg*r, he was racist for
saying how they would be killed 50 years ago for talking like that to a
white man.
it's true though. I am for equallity, either block all racist words, or block none. Not that the word offends, but racism like that offends me. As in cracker only offends me if n*gg*r offends you.
On the one hand, there should have been security to warn the two guys to stop yelling out things during Richards' act. (and yes, it's blatantly obvious they're just trying to get attention and money by suing him.. typical) However, for Richards to say it's not racism "only anger" is laughable. He saw the guys, noted that they were black, and used that against them. That's racism, lol. If they had been fat white guys, he would've called them fat asses and none of this would've happened.
^ Orly? The hecklers were not just "talking" to him. They were insulting him with racial slurs. They were just as bad as Michael, but strangely enough the only person who gets blamed for the whole incident is him. Just because those hecklers were black doesn't mean they should be able to get away with that. He handled the situation poorly and blew up in their faces but that doesn't change the facts.
"Were the hecklers caught on tape like Rchards? Were they famous like
Richards? There is more at work here than just race." As I understand it, yes, the entire set was taped, so they were also recorded as well. Interestingly enough, they dont release the entire video, just the parts with Micheal Richards' "tirade". His celebrity is the only other thing at work here besides his race. If this were a well-known black comedian who handled a heckler poorly, the brunt of the blame would be placed on the..
white hecklers for "spewing hate" at the black performer, and the story would die down soon after the media consensus is that the black man was justified in his retalition. Maybe even with a few touching newscasts about the sad fact that racism still resides within some (white) people, and those white hecklers brought out the worst in society. You know damn well that if these situations were reversed and the white dudes tried to sue him, it would go nowhere; pundits and newscasters would say its absurd.
it's not the fact that he said n*gg*r really that got in him sh*t.. it's how he used it.. he treated them like dirt and so on and they only did what was right which was to take it and send it right back to him (insults). Now waht the hecklers did wrong was they are now taking this to court FOR MONEY!! not for the fact that he should be arrested for his stupity but FOR MONEY! why MONEY!? does money bring back the dead? can money stop a meteor from smashing the earth? NO! so MONEY cannot justify that sh*t.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link