Thread discusses perceived disparity in media coverage and public reaction to Michael Richards' racist tirade versus Tim Hardaway's homophobic comments.
How come people want to keep climbing all over Michael Richards but after about one day of minor coverageTim Hardaway essentially gets a free pass.
Could someone explain to me how Hardaway's bigoted, hate-filled, narrow-minded outburst was an act any different than the very racism that blacks are constantly accusing people of.
if you need someone to point that out, you should stop posting anywhere.
I didn't hear all of Hardaway's remarks, basically I heard him say he hates gay people. He doesn't like it, blah, blah, blah.
I don't know... did he call someone the "f" word?
dammit we need a new alphabet.
mk
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:58:23 GMT, mikel wrote:
Really? You're either black or too ignorant to even be giving that advice as opposed to taking it. They are precisely the same thing. Remove "black" insert "gay." Hate is hate. Bigotry is bigotry. (this one's for you) Ignorance is ignorance.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:23:16 +0000, LRod wrote:
Michael Richards "outburst" was staged to coincide with anti-hate laws.
Just a coincidence, nothing to worry about.
I will wager you see some imbalance of "coverage" because your caucasion, male, oh-so-angry-at-the-world right-wing radio talk show/ news show host said there was.
On 23 Feb 2007 19:35:58 -0800, [email] wrote:
Really? Given that I've yet to even listen to one of those idiots, your wager just took a gigantic tumble.