Jump to content

Exclusive CW Stars Defend Isaiah Washington


Ryan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

How different is this from when Jerry Seinfeld defended Michael Richards on Letterman? All IW said was faggot. I have seen some gays who refer to themselves as fags as do black people who call eachother nigga. Myself, as a black man doesn't see why people want IW to be hung(non-literally). So what, he used the word. Now some would say the same about MR, but with him, it was different, he was obviously spewing hatred when he made the pitchfork up the ass comment. Being a homophobe isn't even on the same level as being a racist. Let it go. Michael Richards is a racist, IW is a homophobe, so what? What can we do execpt hope these men get help. Dont come off on Terry and Tischina because they are defending their friend. Seinfeld did it and no one was [!@#$%^&*]ing at him like this, or not that I know of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hate is hate, so bigotry IS racism. Neither one is better than the other. Its the thought of one being inferior to another, equivalent to someone calling one an animal. Michael Richards shouldn't have been defended, and now, neither should IW. They should pay for their actions at the hands of the public that they so stupidly showed off their hatred to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

An honest question? Does saying faggot really show hate? Some dont get it. With Michael Richards, the thing that showed his hate was him making the reference to slavery, not the use of the word, Anyone can say the word and they dont have to be racist, black people do it all the time. Hell, I know it is wrong, but I said it in college. Calling someone a faggot doesnt mean that they hate a group, It is just using the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Okay, now you have gone too far. I am gay, and when I am walking down the street minding my own business, and some homophobic BIGOT calls me a dirty faggot and yells that I "should burn in hell with all the other pillow biters", IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, to me, THAT is hatred.

What u are saying is ludicrous. It doesn't matter WHERE or HOW you use the word, whether it be f****t or n****r. Saying it at all says you have no respect for your fellow man and that, to me, in BRIGHT SHINY COLORS, is hatred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Im sorry that people have said that to you but like I said before, There are gays who use the word amongst themselves. Just like black people, when you use the word to yourselves, others are going to use it too. Like I said, Im sorry bigots have said things like that to you, but these people just didn't pull it out of their asses, they heard it from other gays who use it amongst themselves. The same can be said about African Americans who say nigga, in any context. You cannot get mad when people use it, when you use it yourselves. Now Shawn, I am not saying you, personally use it, but other gays have, so the circumstances should be re-evaluated before you go taking it personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

LoL!

Most generally, when you call someone a degoratory name, such as "chink," "nigger," "faggot," "gook," it's a way of showing distaste for someone who is different... be it a different race or sexual orientation. You're saying that the only thing that 'showed Michael Richards hate' was his reference to slavery. So, if he had only said, "I'm gonna come down there and kick your ass you nigger," that would've been fine? No reference to slavery there! I don't think so.

I used to hate it when someone would say "that's so gay," but I've come around to it. Using the word 'gay' to describe something negatively can be taken as associating 'gay' with 'bad.' Over time, though, I think people have just started saying it because they're used to saying it, and so it doesn't bother me much anymore. Even I say it now. I even call people flamers... not because I dislike gay people, but because some people simply ARE flamers. There's nothing wrong with being a flamer. You simply are what you are. Of course, it also depends on how it's said. There's a difference between "that dude's a flamer" and "yuck, look at that nasty [!@#$%^&*] flamer!" In the case of Michael Richards and Isaiah Washington, it appears to have been the latter in regards to nigger/faggot... and that's not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just because a group within a group may say the words amongst themselves, does NOT make it any less derogatory! It does NOT take away from the hurtful, hateful, mean spirited intentions behind them. I'm not going to sit by and forget that I've ever seen/experienced bigotry simply because another homosexual said those same words in jest. Do NOT tell me not to be angry when I have every justification in feeling just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Shawn. Okay, you got it. I wont tell you how angry to be. When people use hateful words in jest, they are not using hateful intentions. The words very well may be bad such as fag and nigga, but people of these origins, are not making it any better by using them amongst themselves. As Much as I hate to say it, IW and MR cannot be fully blamed. Of course, they can be blamed because they said the stuff, but that kind of behavior is encouraged, by gays and in this case blacks themselves. Just tell me you understand that and we can end this. I totally understand your point and I am in no way excusing the dumbass antics of these 2 men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, friends often make fun of one another in that good natured ribbing sort of way... but it doesn't appear as if Isaiah and T.R. were close friends, LoL.

Plus, I find that often times when me and my gay friends jokingly call one another a fag, we're not really making fun of one another. We're just making fun of those who are homophobic by imitating their dialogue. It's like a brotherhood of some sort. Just like with family... we can lightheartedly make fun of our own, but if anyone else does, there will be hell to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy