Well, his explicit statements afterwards that he lost control and was sorry for it may give a clue . . .

But Carlos Mencias does...

His comments afterward have no bearing on the reaction to his comments. The media firestorm began the moment that tape was released on the internet. People strung him up right away. The apology didn't come for 48 hours after the tape became public.

So, hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a double standard here. Perhaps Chris Rock just hasn't apologized yet...

Good point. It would be intersting to see the 2-3 minutes leading up to that clip. For all we know he could've been doing a peice about dumb hick racists, and morphed it into his rebuttal of the heckler. There may be context that was left out.

It'd be pretty easy to pull a 3 minute clip from a lot of standup acts and call them offensive and degrading.

Not that I'm jumping to his defense; he's deemed it appropriate to apologize for his "rage". I just wouldn't want to paint him as a racist over a 3 minute clip from a stand up act.

No, but it has a lot of bearing on the intent of his comments.

If he was trying to be funny or satirical, he would have said that. You know, the ol' "botched joke" thing.

But, instead he said he was fed up with the hecklers, went into a rage and lost control.

There doesn't need to be an analysis of the context or his intent, he's explained it already.

Does it necessarily make him a racist? I actually don't think so. He may be, or may not be.

I'm not defending Richards in any way here. I think it is obvious to most people that this was a case of him losing his cool and going over the edge.

My point here is to point out the idiotic double standard that exists in our society between what is considered ok to say by a black comedian is considered career suicide if said by a white comedian.

I was mainly addressing your question "How do we know it was not intended to be satire?"

Ah...the old "John Kerry defense"...

I agree that intention is a big factor when deciding whether a comment is racist, demeaning, derogatory etc. The dichotomy with the "N" word is case in point.

I have a brother who regularly calls me a "f__king Nazi" (we are both of German origin) as a quasi term of endearment because he thinks I'm more organized and punctual etc than he is.

I think also the first person vs. the third person is relevant. It's fairly difficult to be satirical in a first person attack on a specific individual. But a third-party descriptive comment lends itself more readily to satire.

I have also seen the tape - and I sure don't think Richards was being satirical - as was confirmed by his public apology. He lost it and let out the swine.

It's all just common sense really.

As far as double standard, I don't think that's necessarily true.

A double standard, I think, typically is when different standards are applied to otherwise equal things, people or groups. There is a lot of inequality here, based on history, so a real "double standard" is difficult to see.

Here's how I look at it here:

There are no insulting racial epithets that a black person can use against a white person that really have any emotional impact or meaning. I think that's mainly because of the not so recent (50-70 years) history in the US. Let's face it, it was not that long ago that blacks were legally second rate citizens. Riding the back of the bus. Not allowed in restaurants. And slaves before that. I don't think anyone would argue that blacks were not treated well at the hands of the governing whites in America in the relatively recent past.

The "N" word is closely tied to that terrible recent past. Many black people find it highly offensive for a white person to use that word in anger against a black person. They may not feel that way if a black person uses the word. They may even call themselves that sometimes among themselves. But if a white person uses it against them, given the history behind it, they find it offensive.

Is that reasonable? I think so. The word carries a lot of historical significance and tremendous weight and impact.

Plus, there is always a general group psychology, where words if spoken by a member are ok, but by a non-member of the group not ok. A family member can say "We are disfunctional" with no offense taken, but if a co-workers says "Your family is disfunctional" offense is taken. Recent immigrants can call themselves "FOBs" but if a Mayflower decendent calls one that, offense will be taken. A sports team member can say "Our team sucks," but it's another thing if a member of the opposing team says "your team sucks."

These don't seem like difficult concepts, but even if you don't agree with that, your not the person against whom the racial epithet is directed. So what you think is not relevant, and doesn't objectively create a "double standard."

Given the historical context, there just is not word a black can use against a white that has any real emotional impact. "Cracker" or "whitey" seems to be about the best that anyone can come up with, but they have no meaning or impact.

Why, thats mighty White of U to say so The.

What makes you think I'm white?

I still think you're getting this wrong. If a well-known black comedian lashed out at a white member of the audience in the manner that Richards did, and someone had a videotape of this, the media would have just as big a field day with it.

There's a brilliant Robin Williams DVD that I have where he makes the vilest racial slurs about absolutely every major race and ethnic group. And it works because everyone is slagged. It's inclusive. Its not a racial attack on any one person. It's a satire on a whole bunch of races.

Oh, I see. Blacks find the N word very offensive because of the history behind it. That must be why I've heard a number of black people use that word to describe themselves and other members of their race. ;)

Seems like it is only offense if a white person uses that word, it's not offensive if a black person uses that word.

I think you are absolutely right in your analyses.

Yes, to many black people, it is only offensive if a white person uses that word against them, and it's not offensive if a black person uses that word.

Why is that so difficult for so many of you to accept?

I agree with everything you said to some degree. Here is what I think fuels the double standard argument.

While your reasons maybe valid for the older generations, the new generations have no reason except to perpetrate the "victim" mentality. Sometimes use the N word among themselves??? Have you listened to any rap songs lately? Listened to any of the thug, gangsta wannabee punks? They purposefully preserve the term (by using it among themselves) as a means of justifying their actions when someone else uses it because "they" were victims of the white man.

You want to talk victims. How about Jew's. They were victims in Germany, but how many of them have preserved some pet slur and now use it as a description of themselves? I am 1/2 Jewish and don't know any.

I don't care what colour U are, pink, purple or zebra...but U just showed how ignorant U are...by not catching that ole timey saying..."Thats mighty White of U."

This is the old defense that says that minorities can't be racist because they don't have the power in society. I think that's BS. If you judge someone based on the color of their skin you are racist no matter what the color of YOUR skin happens to be.

All racial slurs serve to divide people, whether used by white, black, hispanic, indian, whatever. It is divisive for blacks to call each other "niggas" but get upset when a white person uses the same word.

I think what passes as "comedy" these days is largely vile trash that seeks to get a chuckle out of being shocking. Bill Cosby "Himself" is one of the funniest comedy shows I have ever seen and there is not one racial slur or curse word in the entire show.

Please explain it to me, then.