Chris Rock is a Racist!

overkill said:
Carefull here SOK, I went to a company do in London a few years back and it was an Irish guy who got sick of the 'comedian's Irish jokes and nearly caused an almighty scene!:D He was right, as it was cringe inducing, but there you go.........

If the Irish jokes were funny I would have laughed at them.

I've always had the philosophy that you have to be able to laugh at yourself first before you can laugh at others.
 
As a true Brit, I laugh at myself on a daily basis :)
 
abraxus said:
As such, other races often perceive themselves as lesser, and whites (perhaps not deliberately or malicioulsy) end up seeing themselves as better. This results in whites not ever facing the feeling of being the victim of racism and largely explains why other races can be more sensitive to it whereas whites are not.
So according to this we can't solve racism because racism is only percieved by people with a complex of inferiority?
White people don't feel victim of racism because other races feel inferior?

I think I don't agree there. As a white person if I walked in some parts a certain cities I can pretty much feel racism around me and often feel scared at what could happen. It's got nothing to do with feeling inferior or superior, it's got to do with being picked on and threatened because of a difference which in this case is the colour of my skin.

Racism against white people is as real as racism against other races. I clearly remember racist remarks against white people being written inside the doors of the girls toilets in my school 10 years ago. At the time and still now I felt quite offended by it.

Also if you think about the recent fights in Birmingham, it didn't involve "white" people but black and asian people. It was as racist as can be nontheless.
 
Sadly, I think there is deeply entrenched racism in both the UK, and the USA, and it's pervades society. The target is almost always ethic minorities, not the white majority, and minorities are far more vulnerable anyway, because of demographics, and economic opportunity. Anything that addresses the imbalance a bit, is OK by me.

It seems to me that Chris Rock probably shines a light on some of the unspoken absurdities in different cultures. This is perfectly OK, if the audience is in on the joke, and may even benefit multi-cultural understanding. But it's a thin line between doing this, and appealing to lowest common denominator sensibilities, for commercial reasons.

Jim Davidson, on the hand, deliberately attempted to ridicule people of other cultures, and subsequently was overtly racist. He probably can't even spell irony.
 
Jenn said:
So according to this we can't solve racism because racism is only percieved by people with a complex of inferiority?
White people don't feel victim of racism because other races feel inferior?

I think I don't agree there. As a white person if I walked in some parts a certain cities I can pretty much feel racism around me and often feel scared at what could happen. It's got nothing to do with feeling inferior or superior, it's got to do with being picked on and threatened because of a difference which in this case is the colour of my skin.

Racism against white people is as real as racism against other races. I clearly remember racist remarks against white people being written inside the doors of the girls toilets in my school 10 years ago. At the time and still now I felt quite offended by it.

Also if you think about the recent fights in Birmingham, it didn't involve "white" people but black and asian people. It was as racist as can be nontheless.

I understand what you're saying, and perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there were different types of racism. I totally agree that racism against white people does exist.

However the point, that the writer I was referring to, was making, was that even when threatened or abused, whilst a white person will of course feel intimidated by these things, it is unlikley that this will ever lead to any feeling of inferiority.

The further point is that these feelings of inferiority/superiority are more deep seated, pervasive and long lasting, than any transitory feelings of offence and temporary insecurity.

I don't know whether I agree with all he said, but acknowledge that it gave me something to think about that I hadn't previously considered.
 
overkill said:
I would agree to the latter. ;)

I would also agree that comedy should be allowed to be given a free reign and the new laws regarding 'racist behaviour' may indeed inhibit comedians and damage free speech.

However, I still hold to the view that some 'jokes' are tasteless and unnecessary, and the 'sick jokes' you refer to are the cheap option of buffons who aren't capable of producing any better material. The comment about those sort of jokes and growing out of them wasn't meant as a personal comment either. No-one I know enjoys those sort of jokes - apart from my son, who's in year 7! ;)

There is always though, a line over which you should not step. I cannot see that there is a 'price to pay'. Why should people have to accept crude tasteless jokes about, for example, their disabilities, when the comedian can, and should, just write better quality lines?

All we are doing by accepting this behaviour as 'throwaway' is encouraging bigotry, and equally criminal, crap comedy writing!

Like I said, we agree to differ. I know you weren't making any personal comment and even understand where you're coming from.

There is always though, a line over which you should not step.

No there isn't. Unless you can clearly and categorically say where that line is and who decides it. From this thread alone you can see that some people have lines they wont cross that others will, so who decides? I would guess that your line is somewhere different to mine. You and I may even agree in some instances where that line should be, but then again someone else wont. It ends being littlle more than censorship based on individual opinion.

If it were mandatory for everyone to listen to all comedy and jokes then fair enough, but it isn't. If we don't like it we can walk away. As much as I may always think I'm right:D I don't believe I should judge what others tastes should be.

I agree with you on crap comedy, but also believe that bigots exist and will exist regardless of comedy, and dont believe in censorsing the majority who can see things for what they are and make their own minds up just because it might encourage the minority of idiots.
 
I think that Chris Rock is a pretty funny guy, and as for him being racist, i'm not so sure he his...all he is doing is using peoples stereotypes of others and using them to take the mickey. It's similar to the type of comedy Goodness Gracious Me was...loved that show, Indians taking the mickey out of Indian stereotypes was a great laugh :)
 
goatywoaty said:
I think that Chris Rock is a pretty funny guy, and as for him being racist, i'm not so sure he his...all he is doing is using peoples stereotypes of others and using them to take the mickey. It's similar to the type of comedy Goodness Gracious Me was...loved that show, Indians taking the mickey out of Indian stereotypes was a great laugh :)
You need to see Russell Peters!
 
goatywoaty said:
... It's similar to the type of comedy Goodness Gracious Me was...loved that show, Indians taking the mickey out of Indian stereotypes was a great laugh :)
Similar stuff with offshoot The Kumars at No. 42, and also... Father Ted (Irish and Catholicism), Seinfeld/Larry David/Curb Your Enthusiasm (Americans and American/NY Jews). Enjoy all of those shows :rotfl:

Being of Indian origin, I found quite a few Goodness Gracious Me sketches funny, though there was about 50% filler with the many mediocre/unfunny sketches and musical pieces. It pretty much ran out of puff with its Radio 4 series (with original GGM member/writer Nitin Sawhney) and first TV series. The longer running Kumars is much funner and sharper in its observations and the comedy in general in my view.
 
Agree with the 50% filler in GGM, but the funny scenes were really funny and I loved them :)

I happen to be half Indian so thats maybe why I find it funny...Indians tend to find it funnier than others IMO...

I didn't really like the Kumars that much...seemed like they were trying to be funny, but the jokes were a bit lame, so i've not really followed it...
 
SOK said:
If the Irish jokes were funny I would have laughed at them.

I've always had the philosophy that you have to be able to laugh at yourself first before you can laugh at others.
I doubt it. I spoke to the Irish guy before the do and he was as easy going as you can get. It was a classic example of where I and Abraxas disagree. Jokes about "tick', moronic paddy's" are not funny, and drew muted laughs even from the rest of the audience. This 'comedian' stepped over the line and nearly ruined everyones evening by causing a rumpus.

Abraxas said:
No there isn't. Unless you can clearly and categorically say where that line is and who decides it. From this thread alone you can see that some people have lines they wont cross that others will, so who decides? I would guess that your line is somewhere different to mine. You and I may even agree in some instances where that line should be, but then again someone else wont. It ends being littlle more than censorship based on individual opinion.
Of course there is. Someone at a 'do' for the parents of disabled children cracking jokes about paedophiles isn't going to get a laugh. That's because they stepped over the line. Even at this very forum there are lines drawn as to what is, and isn't acceptable.

At this moment in time it's actually easier to get away with much more on television than you could even ten years ago, but make a joke about crippled children, and boy will you find yourself short of bookings! That's because society draws up the rules of what is acceptable, and unless you want to live outside society you accept those rules and where the line is drawn. In the 60's and 70's the line on vulgar, racist remarks was a lot harder to cross than it is now. But, it still existed.

To think there are not 'acceptable boundaries' is naive in the extreme. Pushing boundaries is fine, but when all that involves is making the sort of crude, racist jokes that did the rounds amongst the NF fans when I was at school, is hardly the work of a comic genius - or acceptable.
 
This thread's ace.... :thumbsup:


Chris Rock is a racist? :rotfl:


Chris Rock has probably got all of: black men, white men, white women, mostly-white men, brown-ish women, sort-of-half-yellow men, gay (we think?) men, fat women, ugly men, muslims, christians, sihks, atheists, jews and hindus in his standup routines....

....and on the basis of the comments in this thread alone, he's got us all laughing at ourselves, and he's got us all laughing at each other.



To me at least, 'Chris Rock' comedy is surely the very antithesis of racism ?? :clap:



- and every other kind of discrimination too, as to comedians like him we are all fair game, are we not? ;)
 
overkill said:
Of course there is. Someone at a 'do' for the parents of disabled children cracking jokes about paedophiles isn't going to get a laugh. That's because they stepped over the line. Even at this very forum there are lines drawn as to what is, and isn't acceptable.

At this moment in time it's actually easier to get away with much more on television than you could even ten years ago, but make a joke about crippled children, and boy will you find yourself short of bookings! That's because society draws up the rules of what is acceptable, and unless you want to live outside society you accept those rules and where the line is drawn. In the 60's and 70's the line on vulgar, racist remarks was a lot harder to cross than it is now. But, it still existed.

To think there are not 'acceptable boundaries' is naive in the extreme. Pushing boundaries is fine, but when all that involves is making the sort of crude, racist jokes that did the rounds amongst the NF fans when I was at school, is hardly the work of a comic genius - or acceptable.

And on that I can agree, in that the "rules" are determined by the audience. If the audience don't like it then they will either walk, lynch the comedian or never re-book.

Of course there is. Someone at a 'do' for the parents of disabled children cracking jokes about paedophiles isn't going to get a laugh.

However, the same jokes at a rugby club dinner may keep the audiences in stitches. If audiences find it funny, then I don't agree that a third party can decide whether it's tasteless or not.

To think there are not 'acceptable boundaries' is naive in the extreme. Pushing boundaries is fine, but when all that involves is making the sort of crude, racist jokes that did the rounds amongst the NF fans when I was at school, is hardly the work of a comic genius - or acceptable

In your opinion.

Of course any comedian has to use common sense and tailor his material to his audience in order to survive. But that's his choice and not for someone else to till him what he can and can't say or what his audience can or can't laugh at.
 
abraxus said:
However, the same jokes at a rugby club dinner may keep the audiences in stitches. If audiences find it funny, then I don't agree that a third party can decide whether it's tasteless or not.
If people at a rugby club found a series of jokes about paedophiles 'funny', I hope a third party would get involved. The boys in blue spring to mind...... ;)



abraxus said:
In your opinion.

Of course any comedian has to use common sense and tailor his material to his audience in order to survive. But that's his choice and not for someone else to till him what he can and can't say or what his audience can or can't laugh at.
Beg your pardon? NF style jokes are unacceptable in my opinion? I think not, or I wouldn't be frequenting this forum, or watching any comedy act - and I've seen plenty.

This is going round and round and getting us nowhere. I'm sorry but jokes along extremist lines are unacceptable. As before, they contribute nothing, and achieve nothing but fostering hate. If that sits fine with you then, ok, but me, I'd rather not be bombarded by jokes that turn my stomach.

As soon as they become acceptable, they become the norm, as certain types of activity has on TV now. I'm not sure that's either healthy or desirable.
 
overkill said:
I doubt it. I spoke to the Irish guy before the do and he was as easy going as you can get. It was a classic example of where I and Abraxas disagree. Jokes about "tick', moronic paddy's" are not funny, and drew muted laughs even from the rest of the audience. This 'comedian' stepped over the line and nearly ruined everyones evening by causing a rumpus.

Of course there is. Someone at a 'do' for the parents of disabled children cracking jokes about paedophiles isn't going to get a laugh. That's because they stepped over the line. Even at this very forum there are lines drawn as to what is, and isn't acceptable.

At this moment in time it's actually easier to get away with much more on television than you could even ten years ago, but make a joke about crippled children, and boy will you find yourself short of bookings! That's because society draws up the rules of what is acceptable, and unless you want to live outside society you accept those rules and where the line is drawn. In the 60's and 70's the line on vulgar, racist remarks was a lot harder to cross than it is now. But, it still existed.

To think there are not 'acceptable boundaries' is naive in the extreme. Pushing boundaries is fine, but when all that involves is making the sort of crude, racist jokes that did the rounds amongst the NF fans when I was at school, is hardly the work of a comic genius - or acceptable.

I am sorry overkill, but you are wrong.
Not completely, but you are applying sweeping sets of rules that just don't fit with how society works.
It is audience specific - there is a huge difference between an early saturday evening audience and a late night club audience. There are differences from club to club, group to group.
People like adult material, yet the same people will agree that it is not for a family audience.

You can't dictate what people find funny. We can only say that before watersheds, we expect things to be within certain rules, but outside those boundaries, as long as it does not directly insite people to commit crimes, then tough.

.... or are you going to sit at home each night deciding what is simply a gag, and what is artistic expression ?
because I am sure as hell not going to have people telling me what I can and can't read, laugh at or watch.

I have an extremely dark sense of humor, but I can differentiate between humor and real life - and acceptable ways of treating and behaving towards others.

Or should I be arrested for finding Emo Philips funny ?
 
overkill said:
If people at a rugby club found a series of jokes about paedophiles 'funny', I hope a third party would get involved. The boys in blue spring to mind...... ;)
Well now you're just being ridiculous (although I'm now not sure if you're joking or not:confused: ). What on earth would it have to do with the police? There's nothing illegal about telling paedophile jokes. What is even worse is that you make a blanket condemnation about a jokes subject matter without even knowing what the joke is. This kind of suggests that you're a bit of prude or perhaps over sensitive. Nothing wrong with that of course until you try and start imposing your sensitivities on others.

overkill said:
Beg your pardon? NF style jokes are unacceptable in my opinion? I think not, or I wouldn't be frequenting this forum, or watching any comedy act - and I've seen plenty.
Whether you think not is largely academic, because in this instance you're wrong, it is your opinion. Whilst I have no time for the NF or racism, if at one their meetings they told jokes that they found funny, then those jokes would be acceptable. The fact that you and I may dislike them or find them tasteless is irrelevant.

I'm a libertarian, and one of the constant frustrations of this is that not only do I have to accept that some people have a different view to me, but also that they are allowed to express them. That's life. Give me the choice of shutting someone up by persuading them they're wrong, or by banning them from expressing their view and I'll take the former every time. Apart from being more reasonable, it's more permanent.

overkill said:
This is going round and round and getting us nowhere. I'm sorry but jokes along extremist lines are unacceptable. As before, they contribute nothing, and achieve nothing but fostering hate. If that sits fine with you then, ok, but me, I'd rather not be bombarded by jokes that turn my stomach.
Wrong again, only unnaceptable in your opinion. How on earth do you define extremism? I'm sure that there are some jokes that you've found funny that someone else could find offensive. In my opinion censorship and restrcition on the freedom of speech (even for things I dislike) is unnaceptable. No-ones asking you to be bombarded with anything, just that you leave others to make their own decisions and don't bombard everyone else with your narrow view on what is and isn't acceptable.

overkill said:
As soon as they become acceptable, they become the norm, as certain types of activity has on TV now. I'm not sure that's either healthy or desirable.
Wrong yet again. If that were the case then the comedy of Alf Garnett, Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning would be the mainstream and would have turned this country into a seething mass of racism by now. In reality what happened is that overexposure of this sort of thing brought it out in the open where it could be properly and intelligently opposed, made people see it as stupid and ignorant and society turned against it, before needing the jackboot of puritanical censorship to tell us all what we should and shouldn't laugh at. Pushing it underground and consolidating it's base is what causes hate, not keeping it in the open where society can dilute it's dangers. As a result, I suspect more people laugh at those sort of people than with them. As with most things, give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves but try and gag them and they'll always find a voice.

Originally I could kind of see where you were coming from, but am now even more concerned about where it would lead. Once the list of topics that you don't like is banned, what next? Religion? Politics? Some comedy by it's very nature is devisive, and we're often laughing at someone and not with them, that's the joke. If you don't like it or get it then don't listen to it, it's easy and your choice. Any sort of censorship is just the the thin end of the wedge, and history has shown that once it starts it knows no end.

I had assumed that you were just expressing an opinion (which is fine) that I disagreed with and so debated the pros and cons with you. However, you've rejected the idea that it's just an opinion and tried to suggest that your idea of acceptable is in effect fact, and tried to back that up with examples that just don't reflect how society has moved forward. On this basis I'm sorry, but you're not only wrong, but wrong in every possible way that it is to be wrong.

By all means watch and enjoy only those things that are acceptable to you, but please don't try and tell others what is or should be acceptable to them.
 
abraxus said:
This kind of suggests that you're a bit of prude or perhaps over sensitive.

Thats whats wrong with the entire world now. Everybody's over sensitive!!

Everybody takes offence at everything that is said - leaving our world a very sad, sterile place.

If you don't like it then just turn over - don't watch it. But we are in such a society now that people feel obliged to moan about everything on TV. We are a litigation society too - where we will take everything possible to court.

Life's too important and short to be worrying about **** like this - get on with your life.
 
Just look at things like the cartoons of Mohamed months ago. Who's to say they were acceptable or not? Many people from "predominantly white" countries thought it was freedom of expression etc. however Muslim people weren't as amused.
The same with that Jerry Springer play with a gay Jesus. Some people wanted it banned.

I'm sure the list is endless but should we forbid any humour that could offend someone somewhere?
 
Ethics Gradient said:
I am sorry overkill, but you are wrong.
Not completely, but you are applying sweeping sets of rules that just don't fit with how society works.
It is audience specific - there is a huge difference between an early saturday evening audience and a late night club audience. There are differences from club to club, group to group.
People like adult material, yet the same people will agree that it is not for a family audience.

You can't dictate what people find funny. We can only say that before watersheds, we expect things to be within certain rules, but outside those boundaries, as long as it does not directly insite people to commit crimes, then tough.

.... or are you going to sit at home each night deciding what is simply a gag, and what is artistic expression ?
because I am sure as hell not going to have people telling me what I can and can't read, laugh at or watch.

I have an extremely dark sense of humor, but I can differentiate between humor and real life - and acceptable ways of treating and behaving towards others.

Or should I be arrested for finding Emo Philips funny ?
:D Come on EG, you should know me better than that! A few points:-

I know you cannot dictate what people find funny, nor can you apply a blanket set of rules to every situation.

I agree totally that it is audience specific.

I agree that's what the watershed is for.

I also agree that there is no way someone should (including me) should dictate what we laugh at. However, on your second point there, people already do tell us what we can watch, read or laugh at. My sister in law is one of them.

No you shouldn't be arrested for finding emo philips funny. For being a truculant B***** at times yes, but not for finding Emo Philips funny! :D
 
abraxus said:
Well now you're just being ridiculous (although I'm now not sure if you're joking or not:confused: ). What on earth would it have to do with the police? There's nothing illegal about telling paedophile jokes. What is even worse is that you make a blanket condemnation about a jokes subject matter without even knowing what the joke is. This kind of suggests that you're a bit of prude or perhaps over sensitive. Nothing wrong with that of course until you try and start imposing your sensitivities on others.
It was a joke. :rolleyes: It was also typical of your 'liberatarian approach' that you took it at face value. I'm hardly 'over-sensitive' nor do I have any intention, or ever have, of forcing my values on anbody else. However, going on the tension evident in your posts I cannot say the same for you. ;)


abraxus said:
Whether you think not is largely academic, because in this instance you're wrong, it is your opinion. Whilst I have no time for the NF or racism, if at one their meetings they told jokes that they found funny, then those jokes would be acceptable. The fact that you and I may dislike them or find them tasteless is irrelevant.
Glad to be dismissed so easily by a 'libertarian'. What is the point of that whole section? If a bunch of NF skins choose to make foul jokes at one of their meetings - great. That's 'fine' in that context. As you know that's not what I meant. The same offensive jokes are not acceptable in other contexts. Challenging racism should be something we are proud to do, not run away from it because it might offend some moron!

abraxus said:
I'm a libertarian, and one of the constant frustrations of this is that not only do I have to accept that some people have a different view to me, but also that they are allowed to express them. That's life. Give me the choice of shutting someone up by persuading them they're wrong, or by banning them from expressing their view and I'll take the former every time. Apart from being more reasonable, it's more permanent.
On the first point I agree totally. However, on the second you are utterly and worringly incorrect. You cannot persuade people who have extreme views from holding them. They either discover they are wrong for themselves or just carry on. Normally the latter. This whole 'keep it in the open and it'll go away' is proved wrong time and time again. Events in Germany have disastrously shown how not banning certain views can have serious consquences. It's fine for 'libertarians' to glibly say 'it'll all be well if we give them freedom for us to persuade them they're wrong' but in practise, as the resurgence of NAZI's in Germany has shown since the ban was lifted it doesn't work. People are paying a huge price for such self indulgence.


abraxus said:
Wrong again, only unnaceptable in your opinion. How on earth do you define extremism? I'm sure that there are some jokes that you've found funny that someone else could find offensive. In my opinion censorship and restrcition on the freedom of speech (even for things I dislike) is unnaceptable. No-ones asking you to be bombarded with anything, just that you leave others to make their own decisions and don't bombard everyone else with your narrow view on what is and isn't acceptable.
This is terrific stuff. On the one hand you claim to be offering the hand of freedom then you shout down anyone who disagrees! Magic! Freedom of speech should not be restricted I agree, but there will always be bounds of acceptibility. If you really cannot see that then, well.....................


abraxus said:
Wrong yet again. If that were the case then the comedy of Alf Garnett, Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning would be the mainstream and would have turned this country into a seething mass of racism by now. In reality what happened is that overexposure of this sort of thing brought it out in the open where it could be properly and intelligently opposed, made people see it as stupid and ignorant and society turned against it, before needing the jackboot of puritanical censorship to tell us all what we should and shouldn't laugh at. Pushing it underground and consolidating it's base is what causes hate, not keeping it in the open where society can dilute it's dangers. As a result, I suspect more people laugh at those sort of people than with them. As with most things, give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves but try and gag them and they'll always find a voice.
You claim to be willing to discuss freely but are happy to shoot down rather than discuss? This is not freedom of speech. It is you telling me what is right. Very libertarian............. What a clanger too! Davidson, Manning and co were seen as 'mainstream' once upon a time. People discussed it and 'intelligently opposed it'. Oh brother.........:rolleyes: Not a bit of it. People are still racist, and the only thing that stopped overt racism was pressure from above. The so called PC brigade (with their jackboots on no doubt) cracked down on what was deemed 'acceptable' in the workplace and this permeated into some parts of society. The racist certainly does not hang himself. He openly discusses his views down the 'local' and convinces many people he's right. Give them enough rope and they will hang us.

abraxus said:
Originally I could kind of see where you were coming from, but am now even more concerned about where it would lead. Once the list of topics that you don't like is banned, what next? Religion? Politics? Some comedy by it's very nature is devisive, and we're often laughing at someone and not with them, that's the joke. If you don't like it or get it then don't listen to it, it's easy and your choice. Any sort of censorship is just the the thin end of the wedge, and history has shown that once it starts it knows no end.
All I was trying to say is that some people find nasty sick jokes offensive, and that there is a line that should be drawn somewhere, and now I'm a crazed bigot out to attack our individual liberties. Blimey! Talk about paranoid, not to mention miles off the mark.:cool: :)

abraxus said:
I had assumed that you were just expressing an opinion (which is fine) that I disagreed with and so debated the pros and cons with you. However, you've rejected the idea that it's just an opinion and tried to suggest that your idea of acceptable is in effect fact, and tried to back that up with examples that just don't reflect how society has moved forward. On this basis I'm sorry, but you're not only wrong, but wrong in every possible way that it is to be wrong.
I wasn't even voicing my own opinion as frankly I can turn the other cheek quite easily. It is however, the opinion of many who don't like the sort of humour that I can handle. It's their voice that's being squashed flat - and they are reacting! Negatively. Society has moved forward? I wish I had your optimism. By the very fact that crude racist jokes still get a good laugh, I wonder, I really do. Not to mention the undercurrent of hatred generated by lurid headlines about immigrants. No?

abraxus said:
By all means watch and enjoy only those things that are acceptable to you, but please don't try and tell others what is or should be acceptable to them.
What I enjoy is doubtless as rich and varied as you. If not more. I have no intention of telling anyone 'what to watch'. Its been fun though, reading comments that basicaly I should put up and shut up from someone keen on freedom of expression.......:D
 
Reign-Mack said:
Has anybody seen The Amazing Racist?

rofl yeh,made me laugh like nothing else, that guy has a serious death wish though, walking around a black community in klu klux gear, i think being asian just makes me laugh at it even more, you have to have serious balls or like i say a death wish to try out summat like that.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom