Liam Neeson wants to kill a black man

[TedEH]

^ 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.

 

[wankerness]

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.

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?

 

[Yul Brynner]

^ 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.

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.

 

[wankerness]

C'mon, who didn't have moronic thoughts of overly violent reactions towards someone at some point in their youth? Someone swiping your girlfriend purely made you think "well, too bad, I wish the best for them!" instead of you entertaining thoughts of violence?

If you're brought up during a time of extensive violence all over the place (the troubles) of course those thoughts are going to be different than those of us that grew up in suburbs with college professors for parents. Yet we still have those thoughts, since that is biologically what humans are at our core.

 

[TedEH]

C'mon, who didn't have moronic thoughts of overly violent reactions towards someone at some point in their youth?

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.

 

[Yul Brynner]

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.

Yet no violence actually occurred in either case.

 

[Xaios]

It may seem hackneyed, but there's a movie scene that always plays out in my mind whenever I think about this kind of thing, both for myself and for others. While I think it's safe to say I've never done anything anywhere near intending to murder someone, I've still definitely, thought, said and done things that I regret. The pain of that knowledge of the person that we once were is a constant reminder to be better. Sometimes what we've done is unforgivable by its very nature, because it can never be undone. At the end of the day though, we have to find a way to live with ourselves and with each other, because we're human and we're stupid and we make mistakes.

This is the scene I always think about:

 

[spudmunkey]

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.

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.

 

[Drew]

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?

I think, for me, the other important thing here is he REALIZED he was wrong, at the time, and changed.

It's not like "oh, it's ok to be racist 40 years ago provided you aren't today," or something like that. Nor is it a binary "he's racist" or "he's not racist" and nothing in between.

Idunno. I feel like racism is badly understood in this country, and in particular I think that last point is worth meditating on. We treat it like being Republican or Democratic, or a Red Sox or Yankees fan, or some sort of identity like that, where it's a thing you either are, or you're not.

It's not. I hate to go all Avenue Q here, but racism is a spectrum, and it's possible to generally believe in racial equality and fairness and political correctness and all that jazz, and STILL find yourself reacting in a situation in a way that's objectively racist. We all do it - I even catch myself doing it on occasion. And, I think, that's ok - as long as you're aware of how you're reacting, learning from it, controlling from it, and doing everything in your part to not act in a racist manner, I think you're doing all you can be to be a decent person. I think also being honest about the fact that plenty of decent, normal people also occasionally display twinges of racism, and just because they, oh, once mistook a black man in a store for an employee or something, doesn't mean that everything they do is racist, they just kinda messed up there, just as pointing to the fact you have black friends doesn't mean you can't possibly do racist things to other people.

Idunno. To me his story was a "this was my first, thoughtless reaction - I fucked up, but I realized I was wrong and I learned something from that." And, I think that's a pretty healthy and important story to tell - if racism is a spectrum and our job is to move as far over to the "not racist" side as we possibly can, then none of us are gonna get anywhere unless we can't own it when we fuck up. Denying there is still work to be done is a pretty sure-fire way to assure it'll never happen.

 

[wankerness]

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.

 

[spudmunkey]

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.

Ahh, you'r right. I misremembered. The red carpet for his film's premier, no the Oscars. The headline was still the same, though, just with "oscars" removed.

 

[wankerness]

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.

My point was that I, as a generally pacifistic dude, have felt huge rage at something FAR, FAR less egregious than a best friend being raped. I have absolutely no doubts that I would entertain thoughts of killing the perpetrator in that situation. Sure, I doubt that I would go out and buy a club and do it, but I don't live in an environment like he did, plus I'm not a huge tough guy. If you are Mr. Zen and never have gotten that mad at anyone even in the face of something that terrible, great.

But regardless, in end results, there's no difference between "man, I wish I could teach that guy a lesson" and what Neeson did!

 

[TedEH]

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.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

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.

Well you don't even like sanctioned combat sports so there's that. If someone did what they did to my best friend, relative or anything, regardless of their color, they've got something coming to them if the justice system doesn't fix it. If that makes me a monster or something, so be it. I'm comfortable with that.

 

[wankerness]

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.

You cut off the "in end results" at the start of that sentence. If you cut that off, then yeah, what you posted is applicable!

 

[TedEH]

I'm comfortable with that.

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.

You cut off the "in end results"

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.

I disagree with the idea that nobody getting hurt negates the distinction between having violent thoughts and acting on those thoughts.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

I mean, personally, I don't think he did anything wrong. The worst part of it all was the racial motivation behind it. If he didn't attempt to do that based on someone's race and only due to the rape alone? Justified.

 

[TedEH]

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.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

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.

Right and I'm disagreeing with you on what I consider right or wrong. You're not going to change my mind in this instance. Someone does that to someone I love, again, REGARDLESS of what they look like, retribution is coming one way or another. In an ideal world, there would be a better justice system and all verified sexual assailants be put in general population with the knowledge of what he/she did made clear to everyone in general population.

 

[TedEH]

It baffles me that I'm so on board with what you said in the other thread about the whole "America isn't actually the best place ever" thing, but this is probably the point on which I disagree with you the most so far.

I can't see any scenario where going out with intent to kill someone outside of something like self defense is not wrong. I could even stretch as far as understanding someone wanting to kill the person who wronged them -> it's still wrong, but I get why someone would say it's not. But wanting an entirely innocent/unrelated-to-the-situation person to be dead to make you feel better about whatever you might be mad about, no matter how justified the inciting sense of anger might be -> In what universe is that ok?

It's ok to try to kill people just because you're mad? I cannot comprehend how that can be interpreted as not wrong.