I don't hate niggers, that's what's so insane about this!
>Said some pretty nasty things to some... some Afro-Americans...
[Afro-Americans gasping]
>>71848126
damn niggers, it's always
>muh victimhood
>muh police brutality
>muh raciss crackas
>muh raciss police
>muh racist tv and film
>muh everyone is stealing from me
>Jerry looks on nervously
YOU'RE BRAVE NOW MOTHERFUCKER
It isn't funny
>stop laughing, its not funny
literally the best part of that entire shitshow
>>71848126
To be fair those um Afro-Americans did come into his set late then began to disturb his routine and then argued with him when he began to heckle them back. What was he supposed to do? Call them fine upstanding citizens?
>>71848126
*audience laughing*
regardless of his actions, if you're a heckler than no matter what race you are, you're pretty much automatically in the wrong.
>>71848582
Don't be a little cuck. That's what it is to be a comedian. If you can't handle hecklers then you aren't fit to be a comedian.
>>71848582
No you're right screaming niggers at the top of his lungs is the only way I can think of to handle hecklers
>every time he talks the audience laughs like its some fucking Seinfeld skit
o I am kekin
>>71848126
Did his career ever recover?
>>71850108
>>71850232
it's a word you niggers quit making it an accurate label
>>71848126
You take the monkey's side!
Wat
he was a shitty standup comedian who had no business being on stage. he couldn't handle the banter, so then went to the weakest, most unimaginative attack you could possible make on a black person.
>>71848126
JUST
>if you call someone a nigger to piss them off you must be racist
what is wrong with Americans?
>HES A NIGGER! HES A NIGGER!
what did he mean by this?
>>71852895
they were niggers though, he was just being accurate.
Hecklers should be made to feel uncomfortable. If it's enough to make them leave the show, great.
If he was doing a racist bit and people started heckling him and walking out, that would be one thing. That isn't what happened.
>>71852895
>couldn't handle the banter
That's the opposite of what happened.
Yes, the best way to deal with a situation is to give the offending party the moral high ground. I know you contrarians will defend him, but he acting like a fucking baby and could have played it cool, making them seem the rude people they were. Instead he screeched nigger like a spastic and ensured he ruined what little career he had left.
>>71850500
he never really had a career post-Seinfeld, but no he hasn't done jack shit since the nigger incident
>>71853932
>he ruined what little career he had left.
he'll be a legend for eternity
>Cracka-ass
>You calling me cracka-ass, nigga
One of the best lines every. This shit was too funny senpai.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=932x9h2L4AM
>i went into.... a rage
my favourite bit
I don't get how nigger is any more offensive then cracker.
99.9% of modern White Americans aren't even the descendants of the 1% of Americans who owned slaves during slave times and 100% of modern Black Americans benefited from slavery and were of course never slaves.
its just another way of certain forces in society trying to unjustifiably enforce White guilt and keep up the minority victim complex.
Imagine a parallel Earth where this incident hadn't happened, but everything else was the same (people are overly-sensitive/offendable/etc.)
In this universe, that show simply had a sign: "No nogs."
No indication of what a "nog" is, just the wording not allowing them. Would the people who got butthurt over him have entered the establishment and raged over the sign?
>>71854706
>1% of Americans who owned slaves during slave times
lol. Where'd you get this ridiculous figure from? In South Carolina & Georgia almost 50% of families owned slaves.
>>71850232
>No you're right screaming niggers at the top of his lungs is the only way I can think of to handle hecklers
lol'ed
>>71854897
During absolute Peak slavery years between 1-1.5% of Americans actually owned slaves.
And it isn't "ridiculous" you jackass its an absolute fact.
And yes they were concentrated in the south so what?
I am talking about the overall American population not just certain areas where they were more dense and of course it would make no sense to look it that way.
The fact remains that the majority of White Americans today (well over 99%) do not have ancestors which owned slaves during the American slavery period.
>>71854706
>Getting offended when a nigger tries to call you names
You really are a dumb cracker motherfucker
>>71854897
That 50% figure is incredibly exaggerated.
Was more like 15-25% even for just certain southern areas and when you factor in the overall country it was indeed 1-1.5% as the other guy said.
>>71855076
>During absolute Peak slavery years between 1-1.5% of Americans actually owned slaves.
That is absolutely untrue. I entreat you to back up this claim with a source. Claims like this come from flawed methodology. It's common to only count only 1 owner for a slave even though slaves are typically owned by an entire family. So even though Mrs. Davis has her house cleaned and her food cooked by a slave she's not technically counted as a slave owner, neither are her children.
Almost 1/3rd of all southern families owned slaved. The claim that only 1% of Americans owned slaves is laughably wrong.
This is what happens when you let Sam Raimi write your apology.
>>71855129
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
I misspoke on Georgia. It was Mississippi & South Carolina where nearly 50% of families owned slaves.
>49% of families in Mississippi owned slaves
>46% of families in South Carolina owned slaves
Very nearly 50%.
>>71854897
You're dumb
>>71855076
What does Freud have to do with this?
>the audience laughing thinking it's a joke
sad to see people so fucking stupid. Still funny
>>71855343
I agree that certain "southern" areas had higher percentages of slave owners but it makes no sense to just cherry pick certain areas when we are talking about the entire country and its modern population/descendants.
And I have fact checked my sources.
The figure for the overall country was indeed 1-1.5%.
Believe what you'd like though.
The fact won't change that the majority of White Americans today did not have slave owning ancestors and that modern American Blacks have only benefited from the past existence of American slavery.
If not for it they would either not exist, still be slaves in Africa or simply be free people in shithole Africa.
Thanks to it they get to grow up as a privileged minority class in the greatest nation on earth.
>>71855491
Who said he did?
He just looks smart.
>>71855673
They would probably not have existed considering the arab slave trade castrated the males
http://www.amazon.com/review/R18D5E61D0YK6H
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3lhlxq/only_14_of_all_caucasian_people_in_america_owned/
Here are some random googled sources.
The fact is most modern mainstream "history" we learn is awful revisionist history that aims to push certain agendas (push blame on Whites) and other shit (not all related to White people obviously).
>>71855673
>The figure for the overall country was indeed 1-1.5%.
Factually untrue unless you use a deliberately narrow with the definition of ownership, but believe what you want.
I don't care about the rest of your argument, I only responded to you in the first place because the "ONLY 1% OF AMERICANS OWNED SLAVES!" is bogus.
>>71855673
That 1% thing is just a lie they repeat on /pol/, which you believe because you're as stupid as everyone on /pol/.
>>71855897
not even him but the majority of Americans came after 1900
And you need to resort calling daughters and shit slave owners that's pretty fucking sad
>>71855969
How many Americans owned slaves at that time?
We won't even touch that most of our population came in the 20th century
>>71848582
How about just calling them fuckers and avoiding all this controversy
>>71855897
But its not bogus.
Only 1-1.5% of Caucasians owned slaves during
>>71855969
Nah.
I got that figure from a book written by a historian and the same figures (or similar figures) are available from tons of other well respected sources.
Have fun being a brainwashed drone believing in the (((peoples))) revisionist cartoon history.
I even asked my Libtard friend what he thinks and he said 10%.
However you slice it, whatever sources you use the answer still remains that most modern White Americans did not have slave owning ancestors.
Though this whole arguments over ancestry and slavery is retarded.
Plenty of American Blacks had slave owning ancestors also if you went back far enough. Most humans did. Slavery was fairly common in Africa always and still is and simply fairly common among humans especially in the past.
It is dumb to say that modern day people should owe others something because of it.
>>71856007
>And you need to resort calling daughters and shit slave owners that's pretty fucking sad
The way the 1% figure is reached is by counting women & children among the population that didn't own slaves. The problem with this is that in the south many women were married to men that owned slaves, many sons & daughters lived in a family that owned slaves. In this way you could have 6 people living on a plantation with slaves, yet only one of them will be counted as being a "SLAVE OWNER" in the statistics. There's no reason to use this narrow definition of slave owner except if you want to deliberately depress the statistical representation of slave ownership.
The "1%" figure is just a specious statistical game.
>>71856321
So even if you multiply that figure by 3 or even 6 it doesn't exactly suggest that a large percentage of modern White Americans were descendants of slave owners.
And again even if they were it doesn't mean they should harbor any guilt over it or that they owe modern day people of any color anything whatsoever.
I hope you'd at the very least agree on that last point.
>>71856417
>suggest that a large percentage of modern White Americans were descendants of slave owners.
I don't care about this. You seem to think I'm arguing in favor of white guilt or something when I'm only interested in putting the "ONLY 1% AT ITS PEAK" myth in perspective.
The fact that nearly 1/3 families in the South owned slaves is a much more telling statistic about the reality of the prevalence of slavery in the US at the time than the specious "1.4%!!" garbage, a figure whose only purpose is to diminish the extent of slavery for the sake of combating a liberal boogeyman.
>>71856690
>The fact that nearly 1/3 families in the South owned slaves is a much more telling statistic about the reality of the prevalence of slavery in the US at the time
Not really because it only focuses on the south.
If we were talking specifically about slavery in the south and not in the USA as a whole then I might agree with you.
If the non-southern states had more people and a really low rate of slave ownership then the somewhat significant prevalence of slavery in the south wouldn't nessasarily be enough to bring the overall figure even close to say 10% which would make the prevalence of slavery not that bad though not insignificant either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lp5FV6LxJ8
>>71856912
My final note is that if you are just arguing against the 1% figure then I respect what you said.
I don't know enough about that time in history to say you are definitely wrong.
Have a good one.
>>71848126
>current year
>not hating niggers
