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)
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)

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.

If he was a beloved member of the community, you can bet that people would have petitioned the moderators a long time ago. But no, he was always kind of annoying.

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

Yeah he emailed me again and was like LOL THANKS 4 POSTING THAT I AM BANNED and i was like ":'(" guess I fell asleep in trolling 101!

SCOTTIE PIPPEN'S WEDDING (Adrian Langston), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:31 (nineteen years ago)

what a coincidence

xpost

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:33 (nineteen years ago)

to ask "is Richards racist?" after viewing the clip is just stupid - obviously he is, I mean...fuckin', how can one say "oh, maybe we didn't really fully grok [sorry] where he was comin' from?" his racism is right there for all to see. I wonder if the trouble is that people mean "yes, but does that mean he's a total asshole" - which is a fair question, I think: I mean, there's an argument, which I find somewhat compelling, that any white person in the u.s. harbors some degree of racism, that it's inherent in the social structure/weight of history/ideological-state-apparatus [double sorry]. So, white people don't want to say "I'm irredeemable," right; and want to excuse this sort of thing on some grounds in order to avoid the ick that they may themselves host.

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:35 (nineteen years ago)

I like the way you wrapped that up, "Tommy"

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:36 (nineteen years ago)

I think being a racist isn't very easily comparable to being a mechanic, Nabisco, and I think jaymc's point is one about subtlety. The fact, after over 500 years of sytematic degradation, injustice, including lynching, and police collusion against African-Americans, that some people are un-interested in subtleties doesn't mean that they're not there.

M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:37 (nineteen years ago)

Nabisco: no, but this --

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"

-- makes it sound like you're conflating "let's think about this and figure out what's going on here" with "let's find a way to excuse Richards' behavior". Like you're pissed off that people aren't just posting "OMG what an asshole I hope he never works again".

And I hope that's not the case, because what you brought up about white resentment and fantasies of black privilege was probably useful to more than one person here.

xpost the problem with this perspective --

white people don't want to say "I'm irredeemable," right

-- is that it guarantees that racial harmony and peace and blahblahblah will never, ever, ever happen. Generally speaking if you accuse someone of an indelible original sin, a guilt they can never extirpate except through self-negation, they have nothing to gain from playing along...so they tend to respond with hatred, violence, and rage.

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:38 (nineteen years ago)

Thomas -- it's odd to me that you think that "asshole" is a more damning charge than "racist."

jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:40 (nineteen years ago)

If he was a beloved member of the community, you can bet that people would have petitioned the moderators a long time ago. But no, he was always kind of annoying.

SO WAS KRAMER.

Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

thank you, "euai"


is that it guarantees that racial harmony and peace and blahblahblah will never, ever, ever happen.

no, in fact the opposite is true: you can't make any progress until you own up to the problem and tell the truth about it

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

in summary:

Who's worse?
Michael Richards 68%
Mel Gibson 32%
Total Votes: 145,939

Good-Time Slim, Uncle Doobie, and the Great 'Frisco Freak-Out (sixteen sergeants, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

Racism is learned, assholism is performed.

Eppy (Eppy), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:42 (nineteen years ago)

no, in fact the opposite is true: you can't make any progress until you own up to the problem and tell the truth about it

Perhaps then you didn't mean to use the word "irredeemable".

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:42 (nineteen years ago)

oh no, that's what I meant all right

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:44 (nineteen years ago)

I'll give you $20 if you call your next album "White People are Irredeemable".

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

I mean it's an agency thing, right? Some people are being like "look how Richards is an example of the inexorable forces of history and society" and other are like, "Buh? You want to use Michael Richards to talk about this? OK." The question isn't whether what he said was racist, cause duh, or what broad social trends he represents, because who cares, but the degree to which he lost control. Was it a deliberate strategy badly applied, or a loss of control? The assumption was the latter, Richards seemed to sorta be arguing the former. And so is that accurate/valid, is the ensuing question. Could be racism or sexism or atheism, don't matter all that much.

Eppy (Eppy), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

So, white people don't want to say "I'm irredeemable," right; and want to excuse this sort of thing on some grounds in order to avoid the ick that they may themselves host.

I do think there's something to this. For me, it's not about excusing what Richards did -- it's obv. inexcusable -- but my whole goal on this thread to downplay the usage of the term "racist" as a noun is probably partly due to the way that that term implies irredeemability, esp. since I don't want to think that whatever hurtful things I'm capable of make me irredeemable.

jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

(I mean, Thomas, I like your motets and all, but you do realize that you're basically owning up to the fantasy of every rabid right-wing commentator and militia member -- that the Left's agenda is to see white males subjugated, writhing in the dirt, as punishment for their sins?)

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:51 (nineteen years ago)

aaaand scene.

too late, lurker

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:52 (nineteen years ago)

lol ade did i ever tell you that story about that graffiti in alabama?

j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:53 (nineteen years ago)

Dammit, I'm always too late

Eppy and Jaymc OTM, though

lurker #2421, inc. (lurker-2421), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

Oh noes, what have I done

Eppy (Eppy), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:55 (nineteen years ago)

People in the Letterman laughed because Richards used the word "Afro Americans" in the first line of his apology. His racial anachronism made him seem deadpan and therefore "funny." In his involvement with the Freemasons, I'm sure he's been continuously up to neck in weird, mystical shit from hundreds of years ago and surrounded by a sorts of alienated and powerful old-guy creeps to disassociate himself from contemporary reality. He probably believes in his conscious mind that he's doing cosmic "good works" and maybe there is some Masonic "conspiracy" to "help the Katrina victims" and counter racism, but the history of Freemasonry and slavery is too intertwined for him ignore. On some level, in his delusion, he's probably thinking, "Hey, we freed you fuckers, so us some respect." It's some paternalistic bullshit at best and illustrates the decadent shambles of his organization. He's bought a line his soul can't pay for.

Dr. Alicia D. Titsovich (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:58 (nineteen years ago)

I was thinking about this thread a lot last night, and I realized that what it came down to was that my definition of racist (noun) was narrower than other people's, that I was didn't think that behavior alone was sufficient to slap a label on someone.

First of all, behavior is all we can go by. Second, the goal in identifying racism isn't to slap a label on somebody -- as in the witch hunts. The goal IS to curtail certain types of behavior, and to hopefully reflect on ourselves as well. The obsession of some people to affirm that someone IS a racist or ISN'T misses the point. The point being that many of us have a shitload of racist material floating around at various levels, more or less conscious, of our psyches. And that episodes such as the Richards one show, if anything, how that material will spew up to wound others when the surface cracks.

Collardio Gelatinous (collardio), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 17:59 (nineteen years ago)

No, my point re: mechanics is that in every other circumstance in the universe, we understand that there are small complicated differences between Doing Something and Being Something, but we don't spend an eternity stressing out over them. If I say something horrible, and Jaymc says "you're an asshole," we don't sit around worrying over whether I'm an actual asshole or whether I was just acting like an asshole. If a dude fixes my car, I say "he's a mechanic," and we don't feel a need to point out that he could quit and get a job at the phone company, and then he'd be a customer service agent, not a mechanic. That would be pointless obfuscation that only served to distract from the plain original fact that the dude fixed my car.

So I dunno, when someone gets pissed off in public and starts yelling about lynching the niggers and it appears that he both (a) kind of dug that one up earnestly and (b) thinks there's anything funny or interesting about it and (c) intends it to hurt and show power over people -- the guy was trying to put down and shut up people by using racial slurs and reminders of racial oppression! -- I think it's probably fair to just go "hey, look at the racist," and not get our panties in a knot like we're on some sort of racial linguistics panel.

Sorry, xpost

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 18:00 (nineteen years ago)

Let's say somebody on this board, who I know to be black, criticized me thusly:

Dude, my roommate says you're not funny.

And I responded with:

50 years ago, you'd be hanging upside down with a fork in your ass! He's a n***er! He's a n***er! He's a n***er!

To which he responded:

That was uncalled for. Seriously, STFU, white boy.

And then a third poster wrote:

Hey what's the big deal? Why are you rushing to judge him? I bet nobody's going to criticize the black man for his racism. The white guy was just giving vent to a common frustration that white people feel about black privilege.

I mean, seriously, you'd think that last response was pretty fucked up, wouldn't you? Maybe Let's say somebody on this board, who I know to be black, criticized me thusly:

Dude, my roommate says you're not funny.

And I responded with:

50 years ago, you'd be hanging upside down with a fork in your ass! He's a n***er! He's a n***er! He's a n***er!

To which he responded:

That was uncalled for. Seriously, STFU, white boy.

And then a third poster wrote:

Hey what's the big deal? Why are you rushing to judge him? I bet nobody's going to criticize the black man for his racism. The white guy was just giving vent to a common frustration that white people feel about black privilege.

I mean, seriously, you'd think that last response was pretty fucked up, wouldn't you?Let's say somebody on this board, who I know to be black, criticized me thusly:

Dude, my roommate says you're not funny.

And I responded with:

50 years ago, you'd be hanging upside down with a fork in your ass! He's a n***er! He's a n***er! He's a n***er!

To which he responded:

That was uncalled for. Seriously, STFU, white boy.

And then a third poster wrote:

Hey what's the big deal? Why are you rushing to judge him? Is he really a racist? I bet nobody's going to criticise the black guy for his racist comment. Why can blacks get away with it and not whites? The white guy was just giving vent to common frustration that white people feel about black privilege.

I mean, seriously, you'd think that last response was pretty fucked up, wouldn't you?

Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 18:03 (nineteen years ago)

P.S. also the term "racist" only implies being irredeemable if you happen to believe that, well, racists are irredeemable, or that people can't change -- but of course there are even neo-Nazis who change their minds and try to atone for things, and neo-Nazis seem to be the only people in America some people on this board are comfortable labeling "racist."

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 18:04 (nineteen years ago)


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