Comment on No words
blitzen@lemmy.ca 3 days agoIs it [Seinfeld’s comments] even close to publicly supporting a genocide? Hell no.
Okay, I suppose I was too vague.
Is it [Richard’s comments] even close to [ being as bad as] publicly supporting a genocide? Hell no.
I’m saying Richards may be a better person than Seinfeld, but I wouldn’t excuse his words or actions because they’re not something a non-racist would ever even think to do or say.
Hope that is clear now.
And I’m not trying to excuse the words or his behavior on stage. Only trying to acknowledge his behavior since the day after the incident and for the last 20 years as steadfastly apologetic. His words were wrong, and importantly he thinks so too.
cyberwitch@reddthat.com 3 days ago
It looks to me like what they’re referring to is Michael Richards tirade being uncomparable to Jerry’s comments that were supporting the genocide. That’s how I read it, anyway.
But I mean he was talking about lynching the guy, so even as far as racism goes, that’s pretty fucking up there.
alekwithak@lemmy.world 3 days ago
It’s aways nice to see reading comprehension out in the wild.
blitzen@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
That’s what I’m saying too. Seinfeld’s comments were made in a more calm matter, but were way way way worse than Richards’.
I don’t recall the lynching comments, only the several utterances of the n word, but I could be wrong. In either case it was vile and cannot be excused. What’s more telling to me is his behavior since; he was immediately apologetic and he has remained so for 20 years
cyberwitch@reddthat.com 1 day ago
The clip I saw started with him saying “50 years ago you would be ‘strung up’” which yeah, 1950’s referring to a black man would be lynching.
blitzen@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Thank you for that context.
I stand by my points that his comments were vile and inexcusable, and that he’s spend the better part of twenty years also feeling that they were vile and inexcusable.