TedEH
Cromulent
^ And I think that says a lot about the difference between our two characters. You would be "righting" a wrong with a much worse wrong, IMO.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
I mean, I hate exaggerated outrage as much as the next guy, but that's clear intent to murder someone. I don't care how mad you are, intent to murder is still telling of a person's character on some level. Adding a racial edge to it really doesn't help.
It's one thing to say you're so mad you could kill, as a figure of speech - it's another to take actual steps towards that end.
Yes. I was also 22 years old and just come from a traumatic childhood of right wing extreme christian psychopaths. I knew more about guns and the end of the world than I knew about how to interact with people. I was young and ignorant. I wasn't thinking about and did not care about the future.^ And I think that says a lot about the difference between our two characters. You would be "righting" a wrong with a much worse wrong, IMO.
Maybe I'm an exception, but I've never reacted to being wronged by entertaining the idea that someone should die for it. It's one thing to fantasize or recognize that the violence would feel cathartic, but there's a distinction to be made between "man, I wish I could teach that guy a lesson" and actually teaching said guy a lesson.C'mon, who didn't have moronic thoughts of overly violent reactions towards someone at some point in their youth?
Yet no violence actually occurred in either case.Maybe I'm an exception, but I've never reacted to being wronged by entertaining the idea that someone should die for it. It's one thing to fantasize or recognize that the violence would feel cathartic, but there's a distinction to be made between "man, I wish I could teach that guy a lesson" and actually teaching said guy a lesson.
Basically, my beef with the whole deal is people are saying he is racist when actually he was racist at a point in time many years ago.
I think, for me, the other important thing here is he REALIZED he was wrong, at the time, and changed.Again - he brought it up himself. He said it was terrible. He was growing up during the troubles. I fully believe that if it had been a scot or whatever other groups were fighting at the time he'd have been cruising looking for one of THEM. This is such utter bs. I get say, the Kevin Hart outrage to some degree, since that was other people digging it up, and then he didn't apologize for it until he eventually did one of those "i'm sorry that you're offended" things. I completely get the virginia guy doing something horribly racist and years later (at age 25) still being proud of it enough to put it in his yearbook page, and then DENYING that it's him, but this is absolutely not that.
How DARE someone do (i mean, THINK - let's not forget no one was even assaulted here, let alone killed) something stupid in their youth that they're still so haunted by that they bring it up themselves, when if they'd remained silent no one would have ever found out and screeched on Twitter?
Nah, they cancelled the red carpet event for a movie premiere of something he starred in. It could be more moronic reactionary BS, or it could just be because if they didn't they'd obviously have gotten a bunch of screeching young white people overtaking the event trying to crucify him for his virulent racism.The article that made me roll my eyes said basically, "Oscars red carpet cancelled because Liam Neeson wanted to kill a black man." Like...racist Liam was going to hide behind a plant at the event, and jump out and kill a black person at the Oscars, so they cancelled it for everyone's safety...and now his plans were foiled.
Nah, they cancelled the red carpet event for a movie premiere of something he starred in. It could be more moronic reactionary BS, or it could just be because if they didn't they'd obviously have gotten a bunch of screeching young white people overtaking the event trying to crucify him for his virulent racism.
Maybe I'm an exception, but I've never reacted to being wronged by entertaining the idea that someone should die for it. It's one thing to fantasize or recognize that the violence would feel cathartic, but there's a distinction to be made between "man, I wish I could teach that guy a lesson" and actually teaching said guy a lesson.
I disagree entirely. If circumstances had been different, and he managed to get into some kind of altercation, then the end result would have not been the same at all. It's only by chance/circumstance that these are comparable. It's like saying it's ok to take a swing at someone (or shoot at them), as long as you miss.there's no difference between "man, I wish I could teach that guy a lesson" and what Neeson did!
I disagree entirely. If circumstances had been different, and he managed to get into some kind of altercation, then the end result would have not been the same at all. It's only by chance/circumstance that these are comparable. It's like saying it's ok to take a swing at someone (or shoot at them), as long as you miss.
I've absolutely been mad enough to think something like "I wish I could just run that guy over". But you don't then get in the car and drive in that direction. That crosses the line from an emotionally charged thought into actually beginning to put the terrible idea into action.
I disagree entirely. If circumstances had been different, and he managed to get into some kind of altercation, then the end result would have not been the same at all. It's only by chance/circumstance that these are comparable. It's like saying it's ok to take a swing at someone (or shoot at them), as long as you miss.
I've absolutely been mad enough to think something like "I wish I could just run that guy over". But you don't then get in the car and drive in that direction. That crosses the line from an emotionally charged thought into actually beginning to put the terrible idea into action.
I'm not passing any judgement on anyone in the sense of "anyone who responds to something with violence is immediately a terrible person!", simply making a distinction between thinking something and putting it into action.I'm comfortable with that.
I didn't think it was necessary, since I was speaking directly to the end results comment already so I figured it was implied. Pretend I included that part, and then re-read it with that context if you think it changes any of what I said.You cut off the "in end results"
Did I interpret something wrong, or did he not go into public looking for a fight in the hopes that it would lead to him killing someone?
I would count that as doing something wrong, even without the race part.