michael irvin < or > or = michael richards

[billyjex]

lol double standards

[sightless]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
michael irvin &lt; or &gt; or = michael richards

[/ QUOTE ]

Irvin was joking, .

[/ QUOTE ]


Just because he was "joking" doesnt mean what he said was any better than what Richards said.

[/ QUOTE ]

As said in the Richards thread, what was bad about Richards was that he maliciously used racial epithets. In contrast, Irvin told a bad joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

lets not compare this to Richards... lets compare this to Rush Limbaugh.

[holyfield5]

which is worse, thinking white guys arent great football players.

OR

thinking black guys are violent, ignorant, lazy, deserve to be hanged.

no wait, dont answer that

[Bullet_Dodger]

[ QUOTE ]
lol double standards

[/ QUOTE ]

[Prodigy54321]

if it is ok to say what Irvin said, it should be ok for a white person to say..."Hey Vick is suddenly throwing well from the pocket...he must have just found out he's half white or something"

both are somewhat offensive, but they are both jokes...if both are clearly joking, and neither is meant to be mean spirited and both parties don't seriously think that there are these inherent differences just because a person has a different color skin, I'm fine with it..

EDIT: FWIW, IMO Richard's rant was mean spirited, he should be considered a jerk for it no matter what insult he used..

I don't think that Irvin's was mean spirited at all.

Why can't people react to the intent and intended definition behind words rather than just the meaningless words themselves?

[ClassicBob]

Setting has to come into play here, right? A comedian making the same Romo joke (or the contrasting "VIck must be half white" joke) would be acceptable in a comedy club, but not saying it in a national forum.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
michael irvin &lt; or &gt; or = michael richards

[/ QUOTE ]

Irvin was joking, .

[/ QUOTE ]


Just because he was "joking" doesnt mean what he said was any better than what Richards said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irvin suggested that a black person and a white person had sex and that the black gene pool contains a higher frequency of genes that are benifical to athletes. Richards suggested it would be better if his black audience members were lynched.

I'm pretty sure one of these is less "better."

[LionelHutz00]

This just in. Double standards exist.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Setting has to come into play here, right? A comedian making the same Romo joke (or the contrasting "VIck must be half white" joke) would be acceptable in a comedy club, but not saying it in a national forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't get me wrong, Irvin should have taken disgression because of the fact that it might not be blatantly obvious to all people that he was simply joking and didn't really mean that white people are inherently not that atheletic...

but as long has he WAS joking, I don't really care what he says.

if a black person wants to make a joke about me saying that, I, because I'm white, can't dance, I don't care..I'll tell them to be careful before I throw them into the deep end of the pool where they'll drown...and move on [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Prodigy54321]

FWIW, there ARE average differences between races...the average black person might be more atheletic than the average white person, I don't know of any studies of thins kind at least....but regardless of any averge differences, it is NOT a consequence of the color of a person't skin..that is an individual mutation....these other differences are just more common among peope of certain races because of the fact that similar conditions are more likley to cause both skin color, and these other mutations (actually, not cause the mutations themselves, but rather the selection of these mutations)