Kramer pulls a Mel Gibson

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Didn't help that he kept saying "Afro-Americans". Is that even politically correct from African American? I kept on thinking of big Afros.

I've always thought this was the dumbest of all things. Coloured, black, African Americans. Duh if you don't want to be recognized as equal why the stupid labels? How about I'm an American(nothing else added).

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

This is a very common sentiment...and one that bugs me. It's a sloppy assumption. Just because two people say different things (which I'm not convinced has happened in this case) doesn't mean they're both lying and the truth is somewhere in between. Honesty does exist. One might be telling the straight truth, while the other just lied.


As for the thread, my view (like many others here) is Richards was wrong. The hecklers may also have been wrong, but that doesn't excuse what Richards was saying. His apology seemed very sincere. And I won't be boycotting him because of it.


JohnnyFlame is bang on, but that extends to everyone, IMO. As soon as you identify someone as being black/African-American/coloured or any other label you choose to identify, you are being racist by putting them into a group based on race. Naturally, there are widely disparate levels of racism...doing what Richards is being completely unacceptable, and much of the attempted political-correctness in this thread being fine with me, personally. Anytime you use one of those terms, though, it is racist. It is when racism takes on negative connotations or malicious form that it becomes a bigger problem.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I've always thought this was the dumbest of all things. Coloured, black, African Americans. Duh if you don't want to be recognized as equal why the stupid labels? How about I'm an American(nothing else added).

You're right, but there is always people who associate being American/Canadian with being a certain colour and not being where your're born/a citizen. Usually these labels aren't applied by the minorities themselves.
I get asked all the time, "where are you from" even though I am born and raised in Canada. Sadly, to alot of people citizenship and imigration are colour coded.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

This is a very common sentiment...and one that bugs me. It's a sloppy assumption. Just because two people say different things (which I'm not convinced has happened in this case) doesn't mean they're both lying and the truth is somewhere in between. Honesty does exist. One might be telling the straight truth, while the other just lied.


As for the thread, my view (like many others here) is Richards was wrong. The hecklers may also have been wrong, but that doesn't excuse what Richards was saying. His apology seemed very sincere. And I won't be boycotting him because of it.


JohnnyFlame is bang on, but that extends to everyone, IMO. As soon as you identify someone as being black/African-American/coloured or any other label you choose to identify, you are being racist by putting them into a group based on race. Naturally, there are widely disparate levels of racism...doing what Richards is being completely unacceptable, and much of the attempted political-correctness in this thread being fine with me, personally. Anytime you use one of those terms, though, it is racist. It is when racism takes on negative connotations or malicious form that it becomes a bigger problem.

It is not a sloppy assumption. It is reality. The truth may lean more toward one other party than another but very rarely does it fall on one parties shoulders. It doesn't necessarily mean someone is lieing. People can look at a situation, especialy if there is some stress involved, and come up with somthing that they thought was said or done when infact it wasn't. This is reality, and if you have ever worked in a high stress sometimes violent work place you would know this.

Adrenaline does several things to the body, slows down your time perception and things seem to move in slow motion, loss of fine motor skills, cognative abilities such as reason and logic are not available, short term memory is effected, tunnel vision forms and the person is not aware of what is going on around them, nor can they hear what is going on,

Stress effects everyone differently. The less stressful situations you have been in the more suseptable one is in controling the side effects and also recognizing it is happening. I am sure both Richards and the two other people involved were under a lot of stress when this situation occured. I can say that even people watching the video would have experienced a small amount of stress and shot of adrenaline. So, I am not calling these people liars, I am simply saying that the truth lies in the middle as both had to deal with the stressful situation and probably missed a few actual facts and percieved something different.


http://www.prepareinc.com/index.html

http://www.masscops.com/forums/histo...hp/7149-1.html

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

This is a very common sentiment...and one that bugs me. It's a sloppy assumption. Just because two people say different things (which I'm not convinced has happened in this case) doesn't mean they're both lying and the truth is somewhere in between. Honesty does exist. One might be telling the straight truth, while the other just lied.

I hate that assumption too. There's nothing in between when it comes to the truth and lies. We know what said between the hecklers and Richards and for anyone to say other wise is pure BS.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Dion

I hate that assumption too. There's nothing in between when it comes to the truth and lies. We know what said between the hecklers and Richards and for anyone to say other wise is pure BS.

Dion....We know what was said during the recorded part. WE DON'T know what was said before that. It is as simple as that.

Unless you were there....oh ya you weren't.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Dion....We know what was said during the recorded part. WE DON'T know what was said before that. It is as simple as that.

Unless you were there....oh ya you weren't.

Even if he was there you wouldnt believe him though would you?

You would say he might not have heard it but maybe something was still said...right? Thats what you said about the statments from the patrons and the club manager who were there so why would Dion's presence be any different.?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Dion....We know what was said during the recorded part. WE DON'T know what was said before that. It is as simple as that.

Unless you were there....oh ya you weren't.

We do know what was said. It's out there in the countless news articles posted on the net. The quotes from people who were there at the comedy club including the owner of the place. The interviews with the hecklers on TV. Those are the facts.

[Dion]

http://us.video.aol.com/video.index....pmmsid=1775780#

[jolinar of malkshor]

Around and around we go.

I am done with this thread.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Around and around we go.

I am done with this thread.

I would be done if I were you as well. What your saying is akin to me saying "man didnt land on the moon" and my reasoning for the claim being that I wasnt on the shuttle with Neil and Buzz so I cant say for sure.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

I would be done if I were you as well. What your saying is akin to me saying "man didnt land on the moon" and my reasoning for the claim being that I wasnt on the shuttle with Neil and Buzz so I cant say for sure.

You tried that one before....it didn't work then and it won't work now....but nice try.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It is not a sloppy assumption. It is reality. The truth may lean more toward one other party than another but very rarely does it fall on one parties shoulders. It doesn't necessarily mean someone is lieing. People can look at a situation, especialy if there is some stress involved, and come up with somthing that they thought was said or done when infact it wasn't. This is reality, and if you have ever worked in a high stress sometimes violent work place you would know this.

It is a sloppy assumption, regardless of whether or not it is sometimes right. If someone is truly a victim...gets attacked for no reason and, even so, does nothing wrong, their assailant is naturally likely to lie about it to make themselves seem less horrible. Along comes someone with your viewpoint, and all of a sudden, the innocent must not actually be innocent. If they claim to be innocent and the man who attacked them claims outrageous provocation, the truth must be in the middle, right? The assailant was naturally not so horribly wronged first as they are saying, but the person they attacked must have brought it on somehow (despite actually not having done so and being innocent).

[Superfraggle]

Kramer apologized on Rev. Jesse Jackson's show, apparently. Not too much new was said there...apparently it stemmed from feeling humiliated.

http://news.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Ent...howbyline=True

One interesting point, though, is two people have come forward with a lawyer and want Richards to apologize in person in front of a judge, who will choose some sort of monetary reparations for them.

edit: just to note that it is a retired judge they are asking for, which implies that they have chosen the judge, which doesn't seem too fair to me. Can you expect a fair verdict from a judge chosen by one of the parties? Maybe...but I wouldn't be too sure.

edit edit: oh, and for those of you who don't bother reading it, he's also starting psychiatric counselling

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

It is a sloppy assumption, regardless of whether or not it is sometimes right. If someone is truly a victim...gets attacked for no reason and, even so, does nothing wrong, their assailant is naturally likely to lie about it to make themselves seem less horrible. Along comes someone with your viewpoint, and all of a sudden, the innocent must not actually be innocent. If they claim to be innocent and the man who attacked them claims outrageous provocation, the truth must be in the middle, right? The assailant was naturally not so horribly wronged first as they are saying, but the person they attacked must have brought it on somehow (despite actually not having done so and being innocent).

Right....what I said is even close to this arguement. Because I said the victim is not really the victim. Ok. All I said is the truth is somewhere in the middle of two peoples statements. Like I said, it can lean one way more than another. Why do you think eye witnesses are very unreliable? Because everyone perceives things differently. Why can 10 eye witnesses to a robbery say the robber was wearing 10 different colours of shirt or he said 10 different things to the cashier? Because that is how stess works.

Never did I say Richards was the victim or that the two people that bore the brunt of his outburst where to blame. I simply said that we do not know all the facts...and that is the truth. But if some people on this website want say if I believe that....then I must believe the Apollo moon landings must be fictitious because I wasn't there, then let them sound stupid. What a load of horse ****. I am not debating the fact the incident took place....it happened and no one has said it didn't. I am debating the particulars of the incident.

[Superfraggle]

You don't have to like my example, jolinar, but my point stands. If you always assume the grey, you are doing a disservice to anyone who might be telling the truth

[Flames_Gimp]

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

You don't have to like my example, jolinar, but my point stands. If you always assume the grey, you are doing a disservice to anyone who might be telling the truth

Fair enough...but a good investigator must always approach a situation as if there is more to the situation than one might claim. Not approaching it like this also does someone who is telling the truth a disservice as they are biased to the situation. They may not be aware of other aspects of what actually happened...even tho they were there and saw it. If you believed everything that a victim told you....you would not make a very good investigator....and it has nothing to do with them being dishonest.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Fair enough...but a good investigator must always approach a situation as if there is more to the situation than one might claim. Not approaching it like this also does someone who is telling the truth a disservice as they are biased to the situation. They may not be aware of other aspects of what actually happened...even tho they were there and saw it. If you believed everything that a victim told you....you would not make a very good investigator....and it has nothing to do with them being dishonest.

absolutely you should take everything said with a grain of salt. That doesn't mean you should ASSUME they're lying, though. You're absolutely right in this post, but that's not what I'm talking about. Don't assume it's black or white. Just don't automatically assume that things have to be grey.

[Cowperson]

Interesting press conference in LA today . . . . black leaders urging entertainment industry to stop using the "n" word in wake of Michael Richards comments:

At the press conference, comedian Paul Mooney (a black man) said he has used the "n-word" numerous times during stand-up performances but will no longer do so after watching Richards' rant.

"He's my Dr. Phil," the black comedian said. "He's cured me."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...home-headlines

Cowperson