Skip to main content

Michael Richards' Downfall and the Sterilization of Society

The fallout after Michael Richards' on-stage breakdown ironically showcases an extent of intolerance which miraculously stands beyond reproach: intolerance for honesty and expressed emotion in a solitary moment of vulnerability. 

Despite a decades-long career spectacularly devoid of any gaffes or blemishes, one isolated moment would ultimately define Richards' career and his legacy in the minds of many: that moment on stage when he shouted pejoratives at hecklers during his performance at Hollywood's Laugh Factory in 2006. 

Of course, those of the school of reason see it very differently. 



Every person is uniquely imperfect, and those imperfections are merely accentuated by one's placement under the spotlight. 

The average person lives out his entire existence outside the limelight, in the sanctuary of his home, the comforts of his selected social group, and the confines of his preferred echo-chamber. 

The average person, therefore, avoids the sharp scrutiny of being nakedly human under the public eye, which is eager to exploit any misstep. 

It is easy for the layman to cast judgment on another fellow's outburst, especially when that layman's personal flaws conveniently evade exposure. 

All of this simply keeps us from being honest about the subject, from operating in the reality of an imperfect world where misguided aspirers ambitiously seek to emulate impossible archetypes that exist only hyperbolically as caricatures for manuscripts, magazines or dramatic effect. 

Placed under adversity or discomfort of any kind, the average person will certainly succumb to temptations that he might otherwise capably overcome. 

The average person occasionally employs words that he later or even instantly regrets, and that is nothing short of being human. 

When faced with an opponent and immense frustration, the average person tends to seek out words that intensely describe the sensation. 

Again, this is only human. 

The popular denunciation of this strictly human phenomenon amounts to sheer naiveté around the nature of the human mind and social interaction; it amounts to a rejection of the human being in his most honest and vulnerable state. 

The disappointment stemming from Richards' on-stage breakdown is attributable to one's imaginative interpretation of his character, one's fantastical idolization of a fellow human being, and the unrealistic assumption that he is something more than human. 

The attending derision that targeted Richards' character, in addition to his words, originates from an unshakable focus on those words, their interpreted meanings, their assumed representation of Richards' character, and the collective self-righteousness of critics who fancy themselves impervious to uncontrollable emotional behavior. 

Ultimately, all of the fanfare projects a radically dishonest picture of life, the human being, and the meaning of tolerance. 

Whereas certain stand-up comedians garner praise for premeditatedly leveraging racial commentary to their benefit, oftentimes at the critical expense of a particular race or demographic, the current status quo — insofar as it is projected, at least — robotically rejects unpremeditated expressions of emotion that reference race. 

This appears congruent with a burgeoning trend of excusing the behavior of so-called victims despite their own actions, excusing the behaviors of some because of the unpopular words of others, and more broadly excusing the behaviors of some with an overwhelming preference for the words of others. 

In this sense, that status quo continues to prioritize words over actions and certain people — those of the so-called protected class — over others who are reportedly privileged

It appears to also prioritize fantasy over reality, setting expectations that are wholly unmeetable, while signaling an unwavering intolerance for all things offensive. 

Ironically, this entire movement prides itself as the paragon of tolerance, which appears to stretch only as far as their agreement. 

Beyond the limit of this agreement, this movement will not cease until every opponent is completely ruined, until every opponent isolates himself from the limelight to avoid offending that status quo, and thence until every aspect of the human experience has been sterilized to avoid offending anyone and to shy away from anything remotely human. 

Of course, that is not tolerance; it is fashion-wear for an agenda hinged to contempt for humanity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…