His flame out won’t ruin his career. Why? Basically because he doesn’t currently have one. Most don’t know his name, can’t say anything he’s done since Seinfeld. He will be OK financially.
I can’t think of a group that is exempt from the receiving end of -isms.
On Letterman last night…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I never did like Seinfeld. The humor was always lame and based on some ordinary act in life that they would then blow up into a full hour show. My guess is, there will be many more who drop it from their list of “greatest shows” after this one.[/quote]
A full-hour, huh? Doesn’t sound like you really watched any Seinfelds at all, if you remember them being an hour long.
Sounds more like you just didn’t get it. No judgement there — everyone’s taste is different.
Waitaminute — “drop it from their list of greatest shows”?! Just because one of the actors is an ass?! C’mon, that’s just silly.
Kramer was already low on my list of characters anyway, but Seinfeld’s still near the top.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
Dude tried to start a fight with Andy Kaufman on live TV once back in the 80’s, so the whole rage thing is at least decades old. [/quote]
If you’re talking about the show Fridays, that’s a bad example. Kaufman was a total fuckface in that case. I would have kicked his ass too.
I loved when the Pretenders danced across the stage during that stupid evangelist schtick he was doing.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I meant censorship more in it’s “voluntary” form; where the public in general will shun a racist performer.[/quote]
Thats part of the problem. A universal outcry to ANY issue even mildly taboo is not the ideal situation. At the moment we have issues over which people will lose jobs and social connections. If we are only talking about words, not actions or even intentions, then is that called for? And even voluntary censorship can have sinister implications. For example here in Finland, there was never an official ban on criticizing the USSR, but between 1944 to 1991 you were very unlikely to find an ill word about the USSR in any media in Finland. So I would see any controversial issue where the media behaves as one mass to be an indication of a problem.
[quote]Hate crimes are often particularly vicious. Not content with killing someone, you’ll also drag his corpse behind your car for good effect, or do other similar sick things to further degrade the victim.
I think most “hate laws” seek to punish the added viciousness of the crime.[/quote]
I have not heard of serial killer laws where the added viciousness of the serial tortures and killings are punished. As I understand it, the cases are judged by the courts on case to case basis. You can’t make a universal claim that a murder over race is automatically more vicious than a ‘normal’ murder. I don’t care what your motives are, torture is torture and murder is murder. Hate laws are just a clusterfuck brought about by politicians hungry for free points.
Of course there is a solution that protects all parties. You can say what you want and do to yourself what you want. Everyone gets those same rights and if someone infringes on the rights of someone else, they get punished. I don’t see why we need extra protection.
Thoughts and words will NEVER infringe on those rights. Only actions can. So if you say in general ‘kill all white people’, you have not infringed on anyones rights. But if you conspire or specifically encourage someone to kill white people or do it yourself, then you are infringing on those rights. Things like ‘incite violence’ just muddle the laws and can be applied to almost anything.
Serfdom and slavery were ‘easier’ to relegate to history, since they were physical issues. They were simply banned by law. With racism and similar issues its a different story. You can’t ban thoughts, atleast not until someone comes up with the technology. This is where open discussion comes in. Racism doesn’t stand to up to day light. Cultures, languages and races are in constant change. Nothing is pure and never was.
Yes. But we can only change if spoken to, not confronted with. If you wish to reason or influence someone, if has to be done with rational discussion. Simply saying ‘You are wrong. End of discussion’ will not work unless you press a gun to their temple at the same time.
[quote]PredatorOC wrote:
Thats part of the problem. A universal outcry to ANY issue even mildly taboo is not the ideal situation.[/quote]
Realistically, you never have universal outcry over anything. At best, you have an overwhelming majority.
But still, assuming that you have a universal outcry, if it is entirely voluntary on the part of the participants, the whether it is “ideal” or not is of no importance.
Isn’t it a bit naive to separate words from actions as if speech had no incidence on any actions?
We tend to denounce media bias and government propaganda and yet it is only words. Should we simply allow it? Of course not. We denounce it because we understand the power to convince that words have.
I doubt that was really entirely voluntary. If well deserved criticism was withheld, there was probably some reason behind it. In other words, the Finns got something back from keeping their mouth shut.
Like I said, the chances of that happening are rather slim; but the fact that he might find himself without gigs or audiences might be enough of an indicator that his views are not welcomed in our society.
And even if he doesn’t feel compelled to change his mind, the attention brought to the issue might help others think about the issue and, hopefully, reach the conclusion that racism is unfounded.
I didn’t say I supported hate laws, I’m simply aware of the arguments given to justify them. Personally, I think the government should refrain from intervening when there’s no necessity to do so.
Banning hate speech makes it harder for the “hater” to disseminate his hateful words.
If you simply punish him once eventual consequences have taken places, you are still left with his words being published and accessible. You can imprison him to punish (and silence) him; but his words will live on.
By banning the hate speech outright, you make it harder for someone to reach a wide audience. It can still be done, but it will be harder and costlier.
But you seem to argue that they are entirely separate; as if words had to power to influence actions.
If you constantly repeat “kill white people” and offer seemingly good reasons to do, you’re bound to eventually convince a couple of people that you’re right. Or your could convince a few hundreds or a few thousands.
Would you rather deal with the punishment of a large group; or try to make the creation of the group harder to begin with?
Things like “incite violence” is exactly what words can do and that’s why we have laws regarding words.
It’s called education.
Exactly. That’s what need to be taught at a young age.
It basically boils down to the same thing. Confrontation simply puts people in a defensive stance where they’ll tend to reject outright anything presented. They might accept it later on, when they can think about it calmly.
Even then it won’t work. They’ll simply lie to stay alive, but deep down, they won’t believe it.
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I never did like Seinfeld. The humor was always lame and based on some ordinary act in life that they would then blow up into a full hour show. My guess is, there will be many more who drop it from their list of “greatest shows” after this one.
A full-hour, huh? Doesn’t sound like you really watched any Seinfelds at all, if you remember them being an hour long.
Sounds more like you just didn’t get it. No judgement there — everyone’s taste is different.
Waitaminute — “drop it from their list of greatest shows”?! Just because one of the actors is an ass?! C’mon, that’s just silly.
Kramer was already low on my list of characters anyway, but Seinfeld’s still near the top.[/quote]
Just didn’t get it? Because their humor was so advanced? Because they were discussing things well above my education and intellect? Please, fool. I never watched an entire episode all of the way through because I found it BORING and SIMPLE.
They weren’t hitting us with amazing originality here. I remember seeing most of that “muffin top” episode and deciding right then and there that the show was not worth my time. I could care less if they were only 30min. How much of an issue is it that I thought they were on for an hour?
It makes no difference either way because they still sucked. If you fell in love with the show, it only makes me wonder what else you find funny that I wouldn’t even giggle at.
[quote]GERRY.P.SHARMAN wrote:
Ok if we were sitting in the early 1900’s you would have a point …But it’s 2006 ,and the black community is not subject to anymore opression or racism than any other race including white …Infact I see the younger black generation to be the one to most profusely use the word nigger in daily conversation…And it’s these young blacks that have never seen real racism or opression using the word nigger to greet each other in friendly social greetings . Being that it’s the generation of blacks that really have no clue what real racism ,and opression is they do not really associate the word nigger with anything negative they ever experienced in life themselves …Unlike past generations of blacks that did …think about it do you think blacks fifty-seventy years ago were running around going what up nigga …I think not ,and it’s because the word meant something deeply negative to them .
So I don’t think calling a young black male a nigger is any worse than a young white male being called a cracker . As young black males have not experienced the hardships that would make the word nigger a source of deep rooted pain from personal experience …
[/quote]
Good job. Too many people like you hide it. I honestly think that’s worse. At least now you will know exactly why you get little respect from some of the people here.
I wonder how many people sincerely give a shit about this. I’m willing to bet very few. Of course everyone will act shocked and utter something about it being reprehensible. Something for the talk shows to discuss until the next celebrity divorce.
Some truly gentle souls may go so far as boycotting UHF and (gasp) Seinfeld. But, as a whole, people are too indifferent towards anything that doesn’t directly affect their lives, to do anything. People want to go home, watch their latest NetFlix video, eat some food. What’s important enough to distract us from these things?
Look how many people bitch about Bush and the Iraq war. And what do they do? Make a comment on an internet message board? Vote? Mostly comment that ‘Bush is an idiot’. What a fucking effort. Surely our forefathers would be proud.
Most people just don’t care enough about anything besides their own existence to do anything for anyone. Especially if it means sacrificing time, money or the slightest bit of effort.
We’ve become a country of lemmings–dull, easily distracted and profoundly indifferent towards anything until it is too late. I could go on but I really don’t give a shit. I got my own stuff to do.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I never did like Seinfeld. The humor was always lame and based on some ordinary act in life that they would then blow up into a full hour show. My guess is, there will be many more who drop it from their list of “greatest shows” after this one.
A full-hour, huh? Doesn’t sound like you really watched any Seinfelds at all, if you remember them being an hour long.
Sounds more like you just didn’t get it. No judgement there — everyone’s taste is different.
Waitaminute — “drop it from their list of greatest shows”?! Just because one of the actors is an ass?! C’mon, that’s just silly.
Kramer was already low on my list of characters anyway, but Seinfeld’s still near the top.
Just didn’t get it? Because their humor was so advanced? Because they were discussing things well above my education and intellect? Please, fool. I never watched an entire episode all of the way through because I found it BORING and SIMPLE.
They weren’t hitting us with amazing originality here. I remember seeing most of that “muffin top” episode and deciding right then and there that the show was not worth my time. I could care less if they were only 30min. How much of an issue is it that I thought they were on for an hour?
It makes no difference either way because they still sucked. If you fell in love with the show, it only makes me wonder what else you find funny that I wouldn’t even giggle at.[/quote]
Way over the top.
[quote]emdawgz1 wrote:
Having seen the Richards incident, i dont think he meant to be racist. He was doing stand up , he was kinda bombing, and i think he made a wrong turn and didnt know how to get out of it.
But thats just me.[/quote]
Oh he meant so say racist things alright: he wanted to insult the hecklers as much as he could.
Calling someone a the n word in anger, doesn’t necessarily make him a racist though (in a global, all-encompassing sense of the word anyhow). It wouldn’t be any different than someone being pissed at, for example, someone from Kentucky a making nasty statements about people from Kentucky. Doesn’t necessarily mean that you hate everyone from Kentucky… but at least that you wanted to say something nasty (and saying some nasty things will get you into much more trouble than others).
On the other hand, personally, I think that suggesting that the two would have been lynched 50 years ago (thus implying that he’d have done it then and there if he could) was way, way, way worse than calling them the n word.
I wasn’t shocked by what Richards, said (nothing shocks me anymore), I was just really surprised that he’d be dumb enough to say it.
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I never did like Seinfeld. The humor was always lame and based on some ordinary act in life that they would then blow up into a full hour show. My guess is, there will be many more who drop it from their list of “greatest shows” after this one.
A full-hour, huh? Doesn’t sound like you really watched any Seinfelds at all, if you remember them being an hour long.
Sounds more like you just didn’t get it. No judgement there — everyone’s taste is different.
Waitaminute — “drop it from their list of greatest shows”?! Just because one of the actors is an ass?! C’mon, that’s just silly.
Kramer was already low on my list of characters anyway, but Seinfeld’s still near the top.[/quote]
I don’t think its about getting it. I personally just dont really think its all that funny and honestly Seinfeld’s whiny voice annoys the hell out of me and the rest of the characters annoy me too. But to say that someone doesnt get it just because they don’t like it is just stupid.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Roy wrote:
Seinfeld was only a half-hour. Nice try, though.
But it was so bad that sometimes it felt like an hour.[/quote]
WTF? Only half an hour? Then why are the episodes so long?
[quote]lovehunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I never did like Seinfeld. The humor was always lame and based on some ordinary act in life that they would then blow up into a full hour show. My guess is, there will be many more who drop it from their list of “greatest shows” after this one.
A full-hour, huh? Doesn’t sound like you really watched any Seinfelds at all, if you remember them being an hour long.
Sounds more like you just didn’t get it. No judgement there — everyone’s taste is different.
Waitaminute — “drop it from their list of greatest shows”?! Just because one of the actors is an ass?! C’mon, that’s just silly.
Kramer was already low on my list of characters anyway, but Seinfeld’s still near the top.
Just didn’t get it? Because their humor was so advanced? Because they were discussing things well above my education and intellect? Please, fool. I never watched an entire episode all of the way through because I found it BORING and SIMPLE.
They weren’t hitting us with amazing originality here. I remember seeing most of that “muffin top” episode and deciding right then and there that the show was not worth my time. I could care less if they were only 30min. How much of an issue is it that I thought they were on for an hour?
It makes no difference either way because they still sucked. If you fell in love with the show, it only makes me wonder what else you find funny that I wouldn’t even giggle at.
Way over the top.
[/quote]
No. Its a good review of the show.
Every single scene that has Jerry in it seems awkward and forced. He’s a pretty good stand up comedian… but the scenes he played in sucked ass. He’s just BORING.
Kramer, George and a handful of other characters almost made up for it. The funniest episodes have very little of Jerry in them.
That and his annoying high pitched voice. GAAAH!!
[quote]jjoseph_x wrote:
On the other hand, personally, I think that suggesting that the two would have been lynched 50 years ago (thus implying that he’d have done it then and there if he could) was way, way, way worse than calling them the n word.[/quote]
I wouldn’t have been able to put together what that meant until he started calling them the n word.
Didn’t even know they were black until he said that. He should have just stopped at the first slip up. WTF was he on? He just kept going on and on…
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Thank you for writing this.
We now know that you may be ignored wholesale as your pustulent prattling has made all of our lives a bit worse and sadder.
We all now need showers, you disgusting maggot.[/quote]
Hate breeds more hate. Since he doesn’t know what he’s talking about since he is ignorant… why not explain it?
I don’t think it was meant as an insult. But he’s off base. Does that justify?
To give my two cents on the original topic, I think it was totally uncalled for to use racist comments. He should have found other insults that were not racially motivated. That is also one of the bad things about being a celebrity or other public figure, you screw up and the whole world knows about it. I do not agree with his actions, but just making a point. I am disappointed in him since I was a Seinfeld fan for years.
Racism sucks and so does any form of prejudice. I am a white male and I have had people be racist towards me. Part of it I know is due to the fact of how other white people have treated them and they stereotype us. It is really sad for women to deal with sexual discrimination and anyone else for that matter that has suffered prejudice. It is nothing new and it is not only here in the USA. It is not just the average person, it is government officials, police, religious figures, and even members of your own race.
I had a recent encounter with prejudice. My 14 year old daughter is into wearing clothes from Hot Topic. She likes concert T-shirts, Converse Chuck Taylors, etc. She gets looks from other kids and sometimes it pisses me off. We were in a local fast food restaurant and this soccer mom and dad along with there two daughters that were my daughters age or younger were giving my daughter dirty looks. Actually they were giving me dirty looks too. I am a competitive powerlifter and have a shaved head and goatee. I was wearing a sleeveless T-shirt, shorts and Chucks. It pissed me off and most of all the fact they were judging my daughter and it was a white family.
Prejudice knows no boundaries. Some people would rather ridicule people they do not understand, or worse instead of being friendly. We should all be on our best behaviors and not judge others. Your actions could affect how people treat others. You should treat others the way you want to be treated. It is amazing what a smile and a friendly comment can do.
I have no problem with this. He got frustrated and mad. I hear worse from Chris Rock, and I do not believe in double standards.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I never did like Seinfeld. The humor was always lame and based on some ordinary act in life that they would then blow up into a full hour show. My guess is, there will be many more who drop it from their list of “greatest shows” after this one.
A full-hour, huh? Doesn’t sound like you really watched any Seinfelds at all, if you remember them being an hour long.
Sounds more like you just didn’t get it. No judgement there — everyone’s taste is different.
Waitaminute — “drop it from their list of greatest shows”?! Just because one of the actors is an ass?! C’mon, that’s just silly.
Kramer was already low on my list of characters anyway, but Seinfeld’s still near the top.
Just didn’t get it? Because their humor was so advanced? Because they were discussing things well above my education and intellect? Please, fool. I never watched an entire episode all of the way through because I found it BORING and SIMPLE.
They weren’t hitting us with amazing originality here. I remember seeing most of that “muffin top” episode and deciding right then and there that the show was not worth my time. I could care less if they were only 30min. How much of an issue is it that I thought they were on for an hour?
It makes no difference either way because they still sucked. If you fell in love with the show, it only makes me wonder what else you find funny that I wouldn’t even giggle at.[/quote]
Translation: Whatever Professor X says isn’t funny isn’t funny. To hell with people having their own opiniions because this is fact. If you disagree with him then you are wrong and an idiot.
[quote]JonP wrote:
Professor X wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I never did like Seinfeld. The humor was always lame and based on some ordinary act in life that they would then blow up into a full hour show. My guess is, there will be many more who drop it from their list of “greatest shows” after this one.
A full-hour, huh? Doesn’t sound like you really watched any Seinfelds at all, if you remember them being an hour long.
Sounds more like you just didn’t get it. No judgement there — everyone’s taste is different.
Waitaminute — “drop it from their list of greatest shows”?! Just because one of the actors is an ass?! C’mon, that’s just silly.
Kramer was already low on my list of characters anyway, but Seinfeld’s still near the top.
Just didn’t get it? Because their humor was so advanced? Because they were discussing things well above my education and intellect? Please, fool. I never watched an entire episode all of the way through because I found it BORING and SIMPLE.
They weren’t hitting us with amazing originality here. I remember seeing most of that “muffin top” episode and deciding right then and there that the show was not worth my time. I could care less if they were only 30min. How much of an issue is it that I thought they were on for an hour?
It makes no difference either way because they still sucked. If you fell in love with the show, it only makes me wonder what else you find funny that I wouldn’t even giggle at.
Translation: Whatever Professor X says isn’t funny isn’t funny. To hell with people having their own opiniions because this is fact. If you disagree with him then you are wrong and an idiot. [/quote]
For such a crappy show, it’s kinda odd how it was at one point ranked in TV Guide’s 50 Greatest Shows of All Time as #1…
Not to mention all those damn Emmy’s, or the fact that Jerry was offered something like $5 million an episode to keep the series going.
The show was ridiculously popular. People can say it sucked, or it was lame, but it worked.