WTF?: "Seinfeld"'s Michael 'Kramer' Richards in Weird-o-Rama Onstage Meltdown

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1647 of them)
(of why he went there, I mean -- why he specifically attacked the guys' blackness)

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:50 (nineteen years ago)

i think the audience was laughing at least in part because some of them thought it was funny that a celebrity was revealed to be a fuckup and was prostrating himself and trying to be sincere. they were more interested in that than racism.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:51 (nineteen years ago)

(the letterman audience, that is)

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:51 (nineteen years ago)

Nabisco is the wind beneath my wings.

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:52 (nineteen years ago)

but to merely leave it at that fails to examine whether they aren't motivated by different impulses

i think the suspicion is that they're not motivated by different impulses. that the impulse is maybe the same. the action is different, of course, and michael richards is a long way from being guilty of lynching. but it is exactly the recognition of the impulse that makes this an issue.

I'm still inclined to think that "murderer" and "racist" occupy different categories, that the first is an unavoidable label that one assumes after one has committed a cut-and-dry crime

ever talk to a convicted murderer? they always have excuses and reasons and context too. they don't want to be judged and labeled on their one mistake either. i mean, not there isn't a categorical difference between killing someone and acting like a bigot. of course there is. i just think the obsession with whether someone is "really" a racist puts the emphasis in the wrong place. for the purposes of this analogy, michael richards is basically a charged and convicted racist. he can do his time, do some penance, maybe somehow discharge a debt to society. but, you know, this goes on his permanent record and there's no way around it.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:52 (nineteen years ago)

jaymc if nothing else murder is a specific physical act whereas racism manifests in several ways so i separate them categorically on that basis alone.

2 american 4 u (blueski), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:53 (nineteen years ago)

Has no one quoted Avenue Q yet? Crazy.

Eppy (Eppy), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:53 (nineteen years ago)

altho you could argue that 'attempted murder' still proves that someone is a murderer (i'm not going to, certainly not here).

altho it could be a good excuse to post pics of samantha morton

2 american 4 u (blueski), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

"You think I won't call you on this because you're black."

Like, general info for white people: NO BLACK PEOPLE EVER THINK THIS. AT ALL. Given the whole history of this country, I'd say black people are by and large going to tend to think the opposite -- that people will single them out for criticism and mistreatment because they're black. Imagining that black people are operating from a position of smug privilege on this point is -- honestly, seriously, for reals -- absolute paranoia on the part of white people. Like completely insane schizophrenia-level radios-in-my-teeth paranoia.

Lurker it's not what he's "tapping into," it's what he'd appear to be fucking experiencing, flat-out. And like I said above, I don't even want to dignify this with any kind of "oh was it actually bad what he said" wrangling: dude gets annoyed with some black people and his best shot back is "lynch the niggers?" He's looking at black people, searching for an attack, and that's the image that flashes into his head? Honestly: anyone on this board who doesn't get why that's just flat-out indefensibly disgustingly wrong is someone I don't want to talk to ever again.

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, I agree -- that assumption is huge among white folks. Lots and lots of the suburban white people I've known from places like the Main Line and the DC area's tony suburbs -- the kind of people who vote Republican and drive SUVs, to indulge in a massive stereotype -- basically work under this assumption. They don't really buy the "OMG lucky black people living it up with hos in hot tubs and are cooler than white people and better at sex and can beat you up" part, but they certainly do buy the "black people get away with everything and can't be criticized" part, and they resent it deeply. It's like the touchstone of their antipathy towards blacks, frankly.

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

anyone on this board who doesn't get why that's just flat-out indefensibly disgustingly wrong is someone I don't want to talk to ever again

I think you're arguing with phantoms, no one (least of all me) is saying that it's anything but flat-out indefensibly disgustingly wrong.

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:55 (nineteen years ago)

Elvis Costello should do a benefit concert for Richards. "Misunderstood Gawky White Guy Aid 2006."

Eppy (Eppy), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:56 (nineteen years ago)

And "tapping into" meant "in himself", in his psyche -- I agree that "experiencing" is a less ambiguous way of putting that.

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:57 (nineteen years ago)

They don't really buy the "OMG lucky black people living it up with hos in hot tubs and are cooler than white people and better at sex and can beat you up" part, but they certainly do buy the "black people get away with everything and can't be criticized" part, and they resent it deeply.

Huh?

VALLEY OF BLIZZARDZ (Mr.Que), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:57 (nineteen years ago)

ever talk to a convicted murderer? they always have excuses and reasons and context too. they don't want to be judged and labeled on their one mistake either.

Yeah, that's why I cried during that This American Life episode where the prisoners put on Hamlet.

jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:58 (nineteen years ago)

Right, this is exactly what I'm talking about -- the idea that we accept that you can't hit back in the same way. Because I think (and I may be totally wrong here) that's actually central to Richards's meltdown! He basically is saying "You think I won't call you on this because you're black", I think that's the thing he's tapping into.

If that's the case, then Richards was executing a preemptive attack, because he wasn't responding to racist comments--kind of the Bush Doctrine of racial pejoratives.

And who the fuck are all these people just itching to get back by "responding in kind". I mean, WTF?!?!

And how about, when this actually does happen, saying something like, "That's uncalled for."

I mean, seriously, I'm not crying for myself because I don't "get" to say the shit Richards said.

Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:58 (nineteen years ago)

i think the suspicion is that they're not motivated by different impulses. that the impulse is maybe the same.

i think it's an assumption not a suspicion. and maybe it's right. but it seems unexamined to me.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:58 (nineteen years ago)

"He was just tapping into the common male urge to choke a bitch."

Eppy (Eppy), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:58 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, seriously, I'm not crying for myself because I don't "get" to say the shit Richards said.

Well, nor am I. I don't think that anyone's arguing that Richards speaks for white people at large. But I think that his meltdown comes from a very specific cultural complex, one that he shares with a lot of white people, and one that Nabisco pretty much nails right on the head.

xpost "tapping into", poor choice of words, fine OK great

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:00 (nineteen years ago)

ever talk to a convicted murderer? they always have excuses and reasons and context too. they don't want to be judged and labeled on their one mistake either.

the law takes 'passion' into account in dealing with murder, and there is often also such a thing as an insanity defense. i think it's appropriate to judge and label people, but i don't think that should be done without care. and i admit to not having a particularly retributive conception of justice.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:01 (nineteen years ago)

nabisco mentions paranoia but the paranoia runs both ways (NOT to equal amounts) with the whole 'race card playing' (a few people on ILE mentioned the other week occasions on public transport where they are angrily told 'you wouldn't say that if i wasn't black' just because they'd criticised that person for not enabling someone to sit next to them on the bus or turn their mobile phone music down. that sort of thing happens every day and only worsens things).

2 american 4 u (blueski), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:03 (nineteen years ago)

I like how people are talking like we collectively on ILX will decide whether or not Kramer will be sent to Sanctuary. Even if he has trouble getting nightclub bookings for the next few years I'm sure he will be comforted by his giant piles of money. There's no legal proceedings involved here, folks.

Eppy (Eppy), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:04 (nineteen years ago)

I mean worst come to worst I'm sure he can get on Blue Collar Comedy now.

Eppy (Eppy), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

hahahahahahaha

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

i just think the obsession with whether someone is "really" a racist puts the emphasis in the wrong place.

Okay -- but so if we downplay whether someone is "really" a racist, that means there's a fuckload of racists out there, including everyone who harbors subconscious prejudices, which is probably most people on this board. At what point does his racism transcend everyday racism far enough for him to acquire the label "racist"? The point has to exist, otherwise the term is largely meaningless.

jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

i won't stand for larry the cable guy to be spoken about in the same sentence with an avowed racist like michael richards

my teeth are horrible, I'm gaining weight, I don't understand twelve-tone (dubpl, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

"Like, general info for white people: NO BLACK PEOPLE EVER THINK THIS. AT ALL. Given the whole history of this country, I'd say black people are by and large going to tend to think the opposite -- that people will single them out for criticism and mistreatment because they're black. Imagining that black people are operating from a position of smug privilege on this point is -- honestly, seriously, for reals -- absolute paranoia on the part of white people. Like completely insane schizophrenia-level radios-in-my-teeth paranoia."

god this is so otm, tho unlike lurker I wouldn't characterize this is as an SUV-drivin' republican thing. it's a CRAZY WHITE PEOPLE thing. i am a really apathetic and jaded guy who normally cannot get worked up abt any kind of injustice or inequality (esp. when they don't really effect me personally lmao :() yet it drives me nuts when I hear this psycho shit from white people. there's a huuuuge spectrum of white folks who are just ACHING for a chance to show how marginalized they are by the blax and it drives me NUTS, maybe just from an excuse me wtf r u doing/crazy pills angle.

SCOTTIE PIPPEN'S WEDDING (Adrian Langston), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

If that's the case, then Richards was executing a preemptive attack, because he wasn't responding to racist comments--kind of the Bush Doctrine of racial pejoratives.

I think you're probably OTM, actually, and this is what's really telling about Richards' outburst -- the fact that he seized on their blackness, that he located his antipathy towards them, and attack on them, in it. What I get from watching the tape isn't a sense of hatred per se, but of resentment that suddenly explodes out of nowhere -- of someone who got their buttons pushed and totally, irrationally detonates, for reasons even they don't fully understand. And who then tries to backpedal by knitting it into some sub-Kaufman thing.

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:08 (nineteen years ago)

which is probably most people on this board.

Do tell us which!

roc u like a ยง (ex machina), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:09 (nineteen years ago)

xpost Yeah the Republican position now is "I don't see color."

Eppy (Eppy), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:11 (nineteen years ago)

Okay -- but so if we downplay whether someone is "really" a racist, that means there's a fuckload of racists out there, including everyone who harbors subconscious prejudices, which is probably most people on this board.

i don't think we should reject that approach if it happens to be true (which it probably is). but i'm not sure whether publicly playing up that approach is an effective way of addressing the issue (does the self-examination sufficiently outweigh the backlash?).

there's a huuuuge spectrum of white folks who are just ACHING for a chance to show how marginalized they are by the blax

sure, but i don't think richards is one of these people or that that was what he was saying

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:11 (nineteen years ago)

At what point does his racism transcend everyday racism far enough for him to acquire the label "racist"? The point has to exist, otherwise the term is largely meaningless.

it's tempting to ponder whether this one incident makes him 'more of a racist' than someone who harboured bad thoughts about a race of people for years and years without actually speaking out about it or acting on it in any significant way...but trying to establish specific parameters and the marker points on a sliding scale can only remain in the speculative and theoretical so there seems little point in the end.

2 american 4 u (blueski), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:11 (nineteen years ago)

the "very specific cultural complex" many white people have with black people = "they certainly do buy the 'black people get away with everything and can't be criticized' part, and they resent it deeply. It's like the touchstone of their antipathy towards blacks, frankly" = "i can't believe i'm not allowed to be racist!"

ffs

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:12 (nineteen years ago)

i can't believe i'm not allowed to be racist!

spreads straight from the fridge!

2 american 4 u (blueski), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:15 (nineteen years ago)

but trying to establish specific parameters and the marker points on a sliding scale can only remain in the speculative and theoretical so there seems little point in the end.

So basically "fuck it, he's a racist"?

jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:16 (nineteen years ago)

there's a huuuuge spectrum of white folks who are just ACHING for a chance to show how marginalized they are by the blax

I don't think it's even necessarily "marginalized" (though there's LOTS of that sentiment), but just this sense that...that black people think of themselves as entitled, somehow. I remember someone telling me that "the black people at my workplace screw around and don't work as hard as the rest of us, but they get away with it because the boss is afraid that he'll be charged with racism if he fires them". Stuff like that.

xpost Yeah, but Tracer, this is something very distinct from, say, the "blacks-are-innately-inferior" type of racism, or even the "all blacks are thugs and welfare queens" style. It's a distinction worth making and naming, I think -- if only because it's a subtler, more widespread, and more socially acceptable form of racism.

xxpost LOL!

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:16 (nineteen years ago)

HAY FAGGNEB DID I MENTION MICHAEL RICHARDS NO SIR I DID NOT

SCOTTIE PIPPEN'S WEDDING (Adrian Langston), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:17 (nineteen years ago)

The difference to me, Steve, is that black American paranoia about mistreatment is based on hundreds of years of active official abuse and enslavement and murder, including things like lynching only a generation or two ago, and extending in subtler forms into the present day, and as such it's kind of less an irrational paranoia and more like a closely held narrative that's not always very helpful in explaining everyday stuff.

Whereas white American paranoia about black privilege is based on complete irrational psychosis, deliberate idiocy, convenient ignorance, self-serving lies, self-serving ahistorical thinking, stupid cultural fetishization, general ass-backward insanity, and just plain douchebaggery.

At what point does his racism transcend everyday racism far enough for him to acquire the label "racist"? The point has to exist, otherwise the term is largely meaningless.

Hey J, do you think a nice non-meaningless place to locate that point might be just this side of standing in public yelling about lynching niggers? I mean, c'mon, we don't spend this much time stressing out on every thread, being all like "well he fixes cars, but I don't know if that makes him a mechanic" -- it's pointless and distracting to respond to stuff like this by getting all metaphysical about racist actions versus racist people, and all it tends to accomplish is to act as a rhetorical smokescreen for the asshole in question to hide behind. Cf Richards' apology! "The insane thing about this is that I'm not a racist -- it just so happens that when I get annoyed with black people, the first thing I remind them of is this nation's long history of brutal disregard for their lives."

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

HAY DUDES WHO IS URI FRIEMFNFKSPLORFT AND WHY DO THEY THINK I AM NABLUBSCO

From : Uri Frendimein
Sent : Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:19 PM
To : [email protected]
Subject : BLACK PEOPLE NEVER THINK THIS. AT ALL.


Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox

Wow, guess you've never heard of macho insecurity??? Please stop with the bullshit conjecture already.

Like, general info for white people: NO BLACK PEOPLE EVER THINK THIS. AT ALL. Given the whole history of this country, I'd say black people are by and large going to tend to think the opposite -- that people will single them out for criticism and mistreatment because they're black.

SCOTTIE PIPPEN'S WEDDING (Adrian Langston), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:21 (nineteen years ago)

So basically "fuck it, he's a racist"?

no jaymc i just think it ends up in a tail-chasing merry-go-round. i'm a cynic.

2 american 4 u (blueski), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:22 (nineteen years ago)

Nabisco, I don't think it's fair to conflate the question "Is Richards a racist?" with "Where did this outburst come from, what does it reflect?"

"The insane thing about this is that I'm not a racist", yeah, that made me cringe to say the least. "And check out my website, www.blackpeopleloveus.com!"

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:22 (nineteen years ago)

I think this thread has long since served it's purpose, y'all.

VALLEY OF BLIZZARDZ (Mr.Que), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:23 (nineteen years ago)

Thanks for letting us know. We'll be in touch.

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:24 (nineteen years ago)

Fine, continue to piss all over yourselves like over hydrated senior citizens.

VALLEY OF BLIZZARDZ (Mr.Que), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:25 (nineteen years ago)

"Mechanic" does not have anywhere near the same charge as "racist" does. But fine: I'll drop it.

jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:26 (nineteen years ago)

"Mechanic" does not have anywhere near the same charge as "racist" does.

THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:27 (nineteen years ago)

When you wet the bed, first it is warm then it gets cold.

xpost

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:27 (nineteen years ago)

Richards wasn't helping his case any last night talking about how his "rage" interferes with the "Afro-Americans" and Katrina.

And for all of those saying that anyone can say a patently offensive word over and over again and NOT be a racist, then I hope you petition the moderators to unban Jay Blanchard. He only used a bad word once.

And I don't think you can be a Jewish Mason. Unless you're Jackie Mason.

Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:29 (nineteen years ago)

HAY DUDES WHO IS URI FRIEMFNFKSPLORFT AND WHY DO THEY THINK I AM NABLUBSCO

That's Nude Spock and he's emailing you because he got banned from posting. He thinks you're Nabisco because he's not very bright.

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:29 (nineteen years ago)

Nabisco, I don't think it's fair to conflate the question "Is Richards a racist?" with "Where did this outburst come from, what does it reflect?"

WTF, lurker, people's aren't just "conflating," they're offering one fairly basic answer to the question:

"where this outburst came from" = "Richards' racism"
"what it reflects" = "Richards' racism"

That's a very simplistic, straightforward answer, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:30 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.