Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Entertainment & MusicPolls & Surveys · 1 decade ago

Whose racial slur was worse: Mel Gibson or Michael Richards?

Personally, I think Michael Richards was worse just because he was sober, Mel was drunk and probably wouldn't have said that otherwise. What do you think and why?

Update:

Another point: I can understand where he is coming from though. He has not had a real successful life after Seinfeld and was probably feeling a lot of pressure to make it happen and for people to like him. If I had all of that rage built up and someone is going to tell me my act sucks I would have probably lost it to and said some crazy **** whether the person who said it is white, black, indian, jewish, or whatever.

14 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    What this situation is REALLY about most people are missing. It is not about Michael Richard's racism -- is about the double standard that blacks expect in America. If a black comedian uses the word "honky" or "cracker" nobody bats an eye because whites choose to not be offended by those terms. I could not care less if some black comic calls a white person a cracker or a honky. But blacks have chosen to create this taboo aura around the use of the word n i gg e r so that no one EXCEPT BLACKS CAN USE IT. Blacks call one another n i gg e r all day every day and no one is supposed to bat an eye. It is all right if blacks use it. But whites can't. Mexicans can't. Asians can't. Only blacks get to use that word. What if we as whites suddenly said that only WE can use words like, "graduate", "not guilty", "educated" and we said that blacks cannot use those words--only WE can. Blacks would be screaming within five minutes that we were racist. Yet when blacks choose to only get to use the word n i gg e r it is the EXACT same thing. That proves that blacks don't really mean it when they claim they want to be treated equally--they don't. They want SPECIAL treatment. In effect, they are saying, "WE can use this term but no one else can." Translated that means, "We want to have special privileges that others don't enjoy." Therefore in an ironic twist that only O.Henry would truly appreciate, it is the BLACK community that really demonstrates the most racism over this whole Michael Richards episode much more than Michael Richards does. Ironic huh?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    I believe mike richard's racist slur was worse than Mel Gibson's. Even though I was never a fan of michael richards or the seinfield show, but I think what he did was way out of line. If he was racist when he said what he said 8 years ago he was a racist from the beginning. He should never be seen on tv again after what he done!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Bigotry is bigotry, there is no worse.I think Mel's situation was worse. Not so much by what was said at the time but the apology afterwards. Michael takes personnel responsibility for his actions, whereas Mel takes no real responsiility but blames the alcohol. Public speaking is one of the most stressful things there is. We don't know what other stressful situation in his life may be going on that contributed to it.Stress is a drug in itself, but he does not use this as an excuse for what he said. He takes no prisoners but himself.

    Again, no excuse, but as Miss magz alot said, it appears that Michael felt threatened at the time and felt he was defending himself whereas it seems Mel was just ranting.

    George Lopez once went on a tirade during his stand-up act, nastily ripped the audience to pieces. A few weeks later he went in for a transplant. I'd like to believe that the stress in his life, that we were unaware of at the time, had something to do with his behavior that night. Mel's probably got some stress we don't know about too. Still though, I wouldn't want to be on the other side of their words.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I completely agree with you. Mel was drunk. Michael Richards was totally sober. At least Mel can blame the alcohol.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think that Mel Gibson's was worse only due to the fact that HE WAS DRUNK. Of course Micheal Richards knew what he was doing, he was defending himself. Mel Gibson did it out of true hatred of the Jews. Hes the A s s.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I think it's a toss up. One made comments while under the influence and the other while in a rage, but both were equally ugly incidents.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Both are just as bad as each other....people said that Mel Gibson couldn't a Scot in 'Braveheart' but look at him now ...an Alcoholic and a racists(I'm Scottish so i am not offending any1 apart from myself)

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The truth always hurts, the two guys heckling Richards were n*****s (and by the way they called him a "craker a'ss" so I guess they were racists too and their true nature also came out!) in their behavior and Gibson said something that has been true for centuries, just in an indelicate way.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I agree with you, I think Michael Richards remarks were worse, just because he knew what was going on, and he said it anyways. He didn't need to get that carried away!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Michael Richards!!! He should have totally stayed cool, not shame himself! Of course, everyone should have respect for equality and etc., but what he did was still wrong.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.