Mel Gibson 's racist rant

[cwalner]

And it's not a sexist "joke" to threaten to burn down someone's house when you are furious with them, "but they will blow you first?" I mean come on.

Will that be enough to put out the fire?

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Will that be enough to put out the fire?

Only if it's made of straw or sticks.

 

[quarky]

We've elected presidents that are more racist and sexist than Mel.
They just have better spin control.

 

[plumjam]

We've elected presidents that are more racist and sexist than Mel.
They just have better spin control.

Slightly disappointing, then, that the candidate with the best ever spin control - Gyro Agnew - only made it to vice president.

 

[quarky]

Slightly disappointing, then, that the candidate with the best ever spin control - Gyro Agnew - only made it to vice president.

He could have been a contender. (Spiro)
If Dick hadn't been caught on tape.

The recently dead senator Byrd was a member of the KKK.

And Obama is doing heartfelt eulogies.

(Go figure.)

 

[plumjam]

He could have been a contender. (Spiro)
If Dick hadn't been caught on tape.

Yeah, Gyro should have been given more scope.

 

[SezMe]

The recently dead senator Byrd was a member of the KKK.

And Obama is doing heartfelt eulogies.

(Go figure.)

Byrd made a mistake as a kid. He reevaluated his position and adjusted accordingly. Like a thinking person should. What's your problem?

BTW, OT. As is this post. Take it to another thread.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

We really need Tangency.

 

[Morrigan]

Plumjam, are you hinting that if we push the right buttons, you'd end up saying something like this? Nevermind the racism, but threatening to burn down someone's house after you raped them?

Sorry, that all says more about you than it does about this so-called gold digger.

 

[quadraginta]

Slightly disappointing, then, that the candidate with the best ever spin control - Gyro Agnew - only made it to vice president.

Even he didn't have enough spin control to stay there.

 

[quadraginta]

He could have been a contender. (Spiro)
If Dick hadn't been caught on tape.

<snip>

Nope. Agnew shot off his own feet. He didn't need any help. Most of the bullets had already left the gun before he even got close to the White house. He'd been on the take all the way back to when he was running Baltimore County. Tricky Dick was still busy tossing scapegoats under the bus and trying to suborn the DoJ when Spiro waved bye bye.

 

[Fiona]

They weren't married. The devout Catholic was living in sin.

Steve S

Well be fair: how else would he know she is a whore?

 

[Fiona]

I earlier reproduced a sentence from one of the news reports saying so (from the Daily Mail).

Here is more:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law




So, it appears that Gibson's lawyers would have every right to file a lawsuit against her.

And I can't see how such illegal recordings could have been done to gather evidence for a court case.

Are you not assuming it was to gather evidence for a court case about custody? For me it is at least as likely it was for a court case about threats and intimidation. Threatening to burn my house down is surely an offence and I would certainly wish to place charges against someone who did that. I cannot see how recording such threats as evidence should be illegal in that context: if it is there does not seem to be many ways to get evidence so you can protect yourself

 

[catsmate]

Well, really, where else would they have gotten it from? She made the tape. She possessed the tape. It contained things that would help her immensely in the custody fight. The tape was leaked. The most likely conclusion by far here is that the ex-girlfriend, who had control of it and whose interests it served, leaked it.

Court staff perhaps? It certainly wouldn't be the first time. A few years ago when I was in the US a minor legal functionary was caught doing this; he'd basically been kept on retainer by a newspaper looking for juicy material.
Or someone at her law firm, either for money or in an attempt (sanctioned or not) to influence the case.

You know who else possessed the tape? THE COURTS. You don't think someone at the courthouse could have leaked it for a buck?

Exactly.

 

[Jono]

And how has that affected your relationship. To me it would be a clear sign that you can't be trusted. You are obviously thinking something entirely different about your cousin than you express to them regularly. I mean, that isn't something someone thinks up on the spur of the moment about a family member. That's been thought about beforehand.

No I think you have an unrealistic view of flamed commentary and the psychology thereof. Perhaps it's different in the US? I don't know. But if we know what will hurt the given person more, and/or is considered moreso hurtful to say in general, there are times when or if we lose temper that we might use such comments.

I think that to read freudian aspects into this in every possible way gets a bit silly. As a general rule, in view of your comments above, some mistakes that we make are not made because we inherently really wanted them to happen or that, in this case, we secretly hate.

 

[Jono]

Again, you called her that, not some random, other people.

Right, and that's actually worse imo.

Still, why would you say that? To hurt - but why should it hurt? It ios not a random thing to call her, after all.

Why should it hurt? You're jesting? We exchanged very, very harsh words during a heated fight (verbal one). And said things we did not mean, i.e things that were said to hurt and not to reflect our actual values of each other. People do that sometimes. Or do you believe that everything when we lose control reflects our innermost values? I hear that belief quite often, especially on english speaking forums. Is it commonly accepted that 'it is so'? If that's the case, a woman or man could never continue being with someone if they ever shouted "I hate you, go to hell" to them.
The same principle applies, words said in a boiling state of mind with an in-the-moment intent to hurt the other person.

This I don't understand.

Suppose she had been wearing the most slutty outfit ever, or at least something he genuinely thought of as a standard-issue hooker uniform: Saying those clothes would likely get her raped would have been a somewhat honest comment. It describes her choice of clothes as dangerous. Beyond that, it only comments about society in general.

Well, I think it's worse to hurt your spouse's feelings in private than a insulting a random group of people in private that were never intended to hear it.

 

[Fiona]

No I think you have an unrealistic view of flamed commentary and the psychology thereof. Perhaps it's different in the US? I don't know. But if we know what will hurt the given person more, and/or is considered moreso hurtful to say in general, there are times when or if we lose temper that we might use such comments.

I think that to read freudian aspects into this in every possible way gets a bit silly. As a general rule, in view of your comments above, some mistakes that we make are not made because we inherently really wanted them to happen or that, in this case, we secretly hate.

I cannot accept that. I do accept that if you are very angry you may well say things precisely because you know they will hurt. In relation to people we are close to we are all armed and dangerous in that way. But I do not accept that the weapon we choose bears no relation to our own mental landscape. There is nothing freudian about it. We have a culture and it has its stereotypes and we imbibe them. It does not mean that we subcribe to them willingly: or that we accept those characterisations as true. But it does say something about our inner world. For example, you chose the words you did: had you been brought up in the west of scotland in some families you might have called her a feenian or a hun. Did you consider those options at any level whatsoever? I realise you may also swim in sectarian water and might well have done that: but you see the point, I hope?

 

[Jono]

I don't care what buttons you push, I can see a racial slip from a racist and not respect him but not be surprised. But threatening her life? I think she did the only thing she could to protect herself.

Yes, for me this is the really worst part of it. Continued psychological (hopefully not physical) taunts and threats might very well have brought her to prepare and record a subsequent one.

 

[Jono]

I cannot accept that. I do accept that if you are very angry you may well say things precisely because you know they will hurt. In relation to people we are close to we are all armed and dangerous in that way. But I do not accept that the weapon we choose bears no relation to our own mental landscape.

I haven't issued an absolute that what we know will hurt aren't part of what our time and place have influenced our minds with. That wasn't the point I was negating, but rather the idea that if we use a given loaded terminology it reflects values we hold to be true, that we secretly believe in. It's similar to the false idea that everything we say when intoxicated reflects how we 'really' feel, and while that might the case in sometimes, it's a deceptive, simplistic and as it is, incorrect assumption.

It does not mean that we subcribe to them willingly: or that we accept those characterisations as true. But it does say something about our inner world. For example, you chose the words you did: had you been brought up in the west of scotland in some families you might have called her a feenian or a hun. Did you consider those options at any level whatsoever? I realise you may also swim in sectarian water and might well have done that: but you see the point, I hope?

Certainly.

 

[Rasmus]

Right, and that's actually worse imo.

Yes, but my point is that it is different.

Calling a black person the n-word to their face might just mean that you know how to really be hurtful to them.

I would accept that people do that without being outright racist, simply because using the word has a very specific purpose that is bound to work as intended.

But there is no such excuse in the situation Gibson was in.

Again:

"You will be raped" vs. "You will be raped by a Frenchman".

It does nothing to further enrage the other person - but it speaks volumes about what you think of French people.

Why should it hurt? You're jesting?

A rhetorical question.

The implied answer was: Because you recognize that it builds upon the idea that non-white people are more primitive than civilised white folk.

It means you need to be aware of this idea, realize that it can be hurtful to use *and* it must be the kind of thing you think of when in an argument.

I see it's easy to come up with when you are fighting with a non-white person. in fact, it would be quite unusual if you were ignorant of the possibility.

We exchanged very, very harsh words during a heated fight (verbal one). And said things we did not mean, i.e things that were said to hurt and not to reflect our actual values of each other. People do that sometimes.

Again, explain to me why what Gibson said should be especially hurtful. Every possible answer I can come up with means he's a racist.

See, I would not like to get raped. Not at all. But the colour of the rapist really, really, really wouldn't make much of a difference. You would never hear me say the words "I just got raped - but thank god it was a white guy!"

Or do you believe that everything when we lose control reflects our innermost values?

No, not everything. but certainly a lot of things.

Isn't that what losing control means?

I hear that belief quite often, especially on english speaking forums. Is it commonly accepted that 'it is so'? If that's the case, a woman or man could never continue being with someone if they ever shouted "I hate you, go to hell" to them.

That does not follow.

People can and do change their minds, after all.

If I ask people to goto hell, I *do* *mean* that. For the moment. I'd be quite happy with their continued existence a few minutes later.

The same principle applies, words said in a boiling state of mind with an in-the-moment intent to hurt the other person.

Yes. Now you just have to finally show me why calling other people the N-word should be a consequence of the intent to hurt someone.

Well, I think it's worse to hurt your spouse's feelings in private than a insulting a random group of people in private that were never intended to hear it.

Can you rephrase that and elaborate a little? I don't think I follow you ...