Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Tiresias · Nov 21, 2006, 11:01 AM

I got to thinking about this in view of Michael Richard's insane racist rant, with Gibson's insane racist rant still in living memory. A lot of people take the view that: "People show how they really feel when they're wasted." I even remember Larry King asking a psychologist this on CNN after Gibson went off. I listened with intense interest. The psychologist's reply was not very revealing. He just said, "Yes, pretty much." I don't know if Richard's was wasted, but the same argument is used for blind rages as well. Loads of people on YouTube are saying: "Yep. People show their true colors when they're angry."

This is not my view. What do you think? It's an important question re: Gibson/Richards, because it is the key to answering the question: "Are they really racist?"

Dakar² · Nov 21, 2006, 11:05 AM

I think its true to a certain degree.

But what does it mean if you regret things that you've done drunk? That's not the real you?

GSixZero · Nov 21, 2006, 11:08 AM

In vino veritas.

BlueSky · Nov 21, 2006, 11:10 AM

Let he who is without gin cast the first stone.

Tiresias · Nov 21, 2006, 11:11 AM

Here's my humble little hypothesis.

When people get mad... really really f**king mad, they wanna hurt the person that's making them mad. Sometimes, it leads to a crime of passion, a murder. Other times (Gibson/Kramer) they just look at some cat and decide to say the nastiest sh*t they can think of. They've lost it. It's all on. They decide to go for the jugular, whatever it happens to be If that person were fat, they'd go for that. If they were a cripple, or whatever, then it'd be that. Gibson is only thought of as an anti-semite because the dude he flipped out because of happened to be Jewish. Same goes for Richards.

There's still a mayhaps that they really are a racist. But it seems more probable to me that these two just went for the low blow... they were impelled to hit below the belt, and where that happened to be was kinda beside the point.

Eriamjh · Nov 21, 2006, 11:16 AM

I think that more people are slightly more rascist deep down than they would like to admit. Being drunk removes your inhibitons, hence the outbursts. Being angry also tends to bring out the worst in someone.

Today, it is considered incorrect to view any group as different from yourself or to refer to any group using terms that may be considered derogatory. Truth is, most people dislike, distrust, or just plain don't like others not like them be they black, hispanic, white, german, etc.

If you dislike gays, you are homophobic. If you dislike blacks, you are racist.

What if you dislike stupid people? What if you dislike lazy people? What if you dislike fat people? So far, no one is making a big deal about that.

Should companies not hire people who are racist? Wouldn't that be discrimination? Aren't people entitled to an opinion especially if it is not job-related?

This one may piss some people off: Racism may be a basic human trait that isn't learned (although it can be reinforced) as much as it is a way of reacting to someone different.

I'd like to think I'm not racsist or prejudiced, but I wonder if it is truly possible not to be?

Responses? (Don't get mad at me for offering these concepts. I don't necessarily believe them, but some might. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.)

Chuckit · Nov 21, 2006, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

I think its true to a certain degree.

But what does it mean if you regret things that you've done drunk? That's not the real you?

There is no "real you." People have a lot of different feelings and ideas, a lot of them conflicting. A person will act differently at a party than they will at a grocery store, and both of those are probably different than they act when they're drunk and just got pulled over by cops. Is one of these "real" while the others are façades? Not necessarily. They're just different parts of the same personality.

For instance, there's a part of me that kind of resents religion. If I were drunk and talking about the subject, I might come off as very anti-religious. But in actuality, I have a fair amount of respect for religion, because there's another part of me that recognizes all the good it does in the world. Neither of these is "truer," they are just two different feelings I have.

Tiresias · Nov 21, 2006, 11:22 AM

Interesting point, Eriamjh. And I don't think it's as controversial as you make out. This kind of discussion is part of the solution, not the problem.

However, you're talking about racism as a fait accompli. I'm talking about determining whether racist beliefs necessarily underlie a racist outburst. I don't think they do.

This freaks me out cos' I used to get in fights and search for something nasty to say. If my enemy wore glasses, or were fat, or whatever, I'd pick on their weakness. That didn't mean I hated glasses or fat people, because by the time it got to that stage I was already angry about something else. Now, if my enemy had been black or a Jew and I wasn't in the schoolyard but on stage doing stand up like Richards... there, but for the grace of God is me.

nonhuman · Nov 21, 2006, 11:23 AM

In my experience, drunkenness does little other than amplify the feelings you already have. On the one hand you're more likely to say or do something that you've been holding back, on the other hand you're also more likely to take things to an extreme and go even further than what you actually think.

So I think that yes, people show their true colors when they're wasted, but in an overly exaggerated way.

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Let he who is without gin cast the first stone.

Yeah, they'll have better aim.

Tiresias · Nov 21, 2006, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

So I think that yes, people show their true colors when they're wasted, but in an overly exaggerated way.

So, in truth, Gibson only thinks Jews are responsible for one or two wars?

nonhuman · Nov 21, 2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Tiresias

So, in truth, Gibson only thinks Jews are responsible for one or two wars?

Haha, yeah.

I'd say he probably has a few issues with people who are 'different', maybe specifically with Jews for whatever reason, but not to the extent that it would seem from his drunken ramblings. It could also be that he was taught that Jews are bad or whatever and, even if he doesn't really believe it anymore, the idea is still in his head lurking and was triggered by the situation.

Dakar² · Nov 21, 2006, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

There is no "real you." People have a lot of different feelings and ideas, a lot of them conflicting. A person will act differently at a party than they will at a grocery store, and both of those are probably different than they act when they're drunk and just got pulled over by cops. Is one of these "real" while the others are façades? Not necessarily. They're just different parts of the same personality.

For instance, there's a part of me that kind of resents religion. If I were drunk and talking about the subject, I might come off as very anti-religious. But in actuality, I have a fair amount of respect for religion, because there's another part of me that recognizes all the good it does in the world. Neither of these is "truer," they are just two different feelings I have.

What you're talking about seems more like context, though. If you were drunk and someone called you out on being anti-religious, would you spit out that statement about respect?

I dunno. I think there's a fine line where you're making decisions but not feeling self-conscious, and then where you're making decisions completely out of emotion. Does that second part really count as 'you'?

kmkkid · Nov 21, 2006, 12:02 PM

In my experience, yes, yes Alcohol does bring out your true feelings.

Gossamer · Nov 21, 2006, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

What you're talking about seems more like context, though. If you were drunk and someone called you out on being anti-religious, would you spit out that statement about respect?

I dunno. I think there's a fine line where you're making decisions but not feeling self-conscious, and then where you're making decisions completely out of emotion. Does that second part really count as 'you'?

I think in some ways, yes it cuts through the BS front most people put up. People are no longer inhibited by the need to feel politically or socially correct. Say what you really feel.

Dakar² · Nov 21, 2006, 12:21 PM

So you think the all emotion part is true too?

Tiresias · Nov 21, 2006, 12:29 PM

I think, as far as all the possible dimensions of self are concerned, they are all equally true. It's like asking which side of a cube is the correct side. You can never see all sides simultaneously, but to understand a cube correctly, you must think of it as the sum of its sides. The same could be said of human personalities. Time is the fourth dimension of the self. Why does that sound kooky?

Atomic Rooster · Nov 21, 2006, 01:53 PM

I've seen drunken guys call girls 'sluts' because the girl said no when asked to dance. Meanwhile he doesn't even know her.

And I've been called nasty things by girls...well...ah, that doesn't matter.

Tiresias · Nov 21, 2006, 02:07 PM

That's stupid cos' a girl who doesn't wanna dance is--if anything--being chaste.

So then what about a comparison to IQ. If your IQ is normal but you score like 25 on an IQ test because you've had 12 whiskeys, no one is going to call you a cretin. What is so different about emotional intelligence? Moral judgement? Social sense? And so on.

Oversoul · Nov 21, 2006, 02:11 PM

Well, alcohol tends to lower your inhibitions, so to that degree yes.

Gossamer · Nov 21, 2006, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Tiresias

I think, as far as all the possible dimensions of self are concerned, they are all equally true. It's like asking which side of a cube is the correct side. You can never see all sides simultaneously, but to understand a cube correctly, you must think of it as the sum of its sides. The same could be said of human personalities.

I don't think that one at different states of one's life is like looking at different sides of a cube, but more like looking at a painting through different colored filters. When you look through the 'good behavior' filter you might see someone who looks to be a pretty good person, but when they're drunk you see who they truly are on the inside, just as looking at a painting through a red filter is completely different that seeing it unfiltered.
I guess I see alcohol as a filter remover.

Gossamer · Nov 21, 2006, 02:43 PM

A woman was shopping at her local supermarket where she selected:

A half-gallon of 2% milk,
A carton of eggs,
A quart of orange juice,
A head of romaine lettuce,
A 2 lb. can of coffee, and
A 1 lb. package of bacon.

As she was unloading her items on the conveyor belt to check out, a
drunk standing behind her watched as she placed the items in front of
the cashier.

While the cashier was ringing up her purchases, the drunk calmly stated,
"You must be single."

The woman was a bit startled by this proclamation, but she was intrigued
by the derelict's intuition, since she was indeed single.

She looked at her six items on the belt and saw nothing particularly
unusual about her selections that could have tipped off the drunk to her
marital status.

Curiosity getting the better of her, she said, "Well, you know what,
you're absolutely correct. But how on earth did you know that?"

The drunk replied, "'cause you're ugly."

Dakar² · Nov 21, 2006, 03:02 PM

One night in the House of Commons, Churchill, after imbibing a few drinks, stumbled into Bessie Braddock, a corpulent Labourite member from Liverpool. An angry Bessie straightened her clothes and addressed the British statesman.

"Winston," she roared. "You are drunk, and what’s more, you are disgustingly drunk."

Churchill, surveying Bessie, replied, "And might I say, Mrs. Braddock, you are ugly, and what’s more, disgustingly ugly.

But tomorrow," Churchill added, "I shall be sober."

kmkkid · Nov 21, 2006, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

One night in the House of Commons, Churchill, after imbibing a few drinks, stumbled into Bessie Braddock, a corpulent Labourite member from Liverpool. An angry Bessie straightened her clothes and addressed the British statesman.

"Winston," she roared. "You are drunk, and what’s more, you are disgustingly drunk."

Churchill, surveying Bessie, replied, "And might I say, Mrs. Braddock, you are ugly, and what’s more, disgustingly ugly.

But tomorrow," Churchill added, "I shall be sober."

PB2K · Nov 22, 2006, 05:58 AM

alcohol makes you overreact to anything, usually drunks think they are in the middle of attention, or at least try to be. they think they are funny while they are on a completely different bandwith than sober people. i have been really really drunk quite a few times but i never slipped my tongue and said racist stuff, most probably because i just don't have any obvious racist thoughts anyhow.

i do think mel gibson said this stuff because he secretly holds antisemitic views. it's very pathetic.

Paco500 · Nov 22, 2006, 07:42 AM

We tend to call intoxicants "mind-altering" substances. I don't believe that a person's true self necessarily comes out when drunk, as they are dealing with an altered state of conciousness. Depending on the degree of inebriation, an outburst may be the result of lowered inhibitions, or it may be that the drunk's perception of reality is altered.

I don't think being drunk shows your true self, only your drunk self.

Tiresias · Nov 22, 2006, 08:40 AM

But what about Michael Richards? What about rage?

Dakar² · Nov 22, 2006, 08:43 AM

No, I don't think it's a true representation of self either.

Tiresias · 09:02 AM

Richards on Letterman was one of the most pitiable things I've ever seen, second only to the last "You got me there. I'm all washed up. I gotta stand on a stage" comment at the Comedy Factory.

He shoulda played it like it was all part of his act. Pushing the envelope. He'd get flak, of course, but he wouldn't look so hangdog. His advantage over Gibson was he was on-stage, and he should've used that to his advantage. He coulda said: "I was in character!" and made out like it was done as a form of Transgressive art, social satire, a la Borat and others. A few final flourishes to the routine—say, going into character as a Southern lynch-mob Klansman—could've made this more plausible. But then, he didn't know it was being filmed.

Remember Billy Collony's bit about "I wish they'd hurry up and behead that whinning hostage"? That blew over, and everyone was like "He's an entertainer. It's his job to push buttons." If Kramer had taken that line, he would have come out in better form. As it is, his apology—the shaking... the long, dead silences... that just served to foreground and magnify the gravity of the situation.