Liam Neeson has landed himself in a spot of trouble

El_Duderino 09

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

... Kinda like when the father of a victim of Larry Nassar lunged at him in court last year. It was a wrong action but a perfectly understandable one.

The father lunged at the actual perpetrator or he lunged at a random person with the same gender and race as the perpetratorm?

So many attempts to normalise the behaviour without acknowledging the 2 qualifiers he was looking for - gender and ethnicity.

The "PC gone mad" types would want to be very careful about normalising Neesons reaction. It only goes to legitimise the push to highlight racist behaviour

jiltloop

Edward M wrote: »

Why, is that important?

It's usually advised before sticking your oar in yes.

Edgware

And he used watch The Black and White Minstrel Show growing up.
Burn burn!

Edward M

jiltloop wrote: »

I don't think you've read the article or actually understand what the thread is about.

I'm back, because I feel bold today.
I read the article, I think the thread title is pretty self explanatory.
I'm a Liam Neeson fan BTW too.
But looking at the thread title and article, I call bull**** on it.
I don't believe for one minute LN went around with a cosh or intend to kill or beat up any BB.
I think it's a story of how an actor who happens to appear in a few action movies is somehow trying to convince his audience of how his real personality could easily turn violent vigilante.
They way he worded it has made it easy to criticise him and turn it into a witch hunt as to his racial feelings.
Looking beyond that I feel is just utter crap for the brigades on each side of a debate as to whether it was racist or not.
I think he made his point as to his machoness in the wrong way, and in the middle of his interview realised it and started back peddling, no more deep or meaningful than that.

Edward M

jiltloop wrote: »

It's usually advised before sticking your oar in yes.

So sorry, I now realise how stupid that was. Please forgive me.

jmayo

It never ceases to amaze me why some people just can't stay quite about certain things.

Richard Hillman

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1092747754881929216?s=09


Ouch. John Barnes just put the media back in their saboteuring box

EdgeCase

What's really annoying me is that there are been sweeping statements made about how somehow this is some kind of dark admission of thoughts that everyone's had.

Really? Do most people think like that? I would doubt it somehow.

It's very uncomfortable and disappointing to hear him utter those words, but I do think we need to be careful of explaining away what was a very strange incident as somehow normal. I don't think it was normal 20-30 years ago anymore than it is now.

I can appreciate the honesty and that he didn't go through with it and that he has learnt from it and has perspective, but it doesn't change what it was.

El_Duderino 09

jmayo wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me why some people just can't stay quite about certain things.

Why? To make it easier to pretend those things don't actually happen?

FunLover18

I think everyone can agree that wanting to kill the person who raped a friend (or even to want that person dead) is somewhat understandable.

However wanting to kill an innocent man who shares a trait with a rapist is insane, whether that trait be race or religion or nationality, it is beyond logical reasoning and you can apply that to any crime. Thinking about taking revenge on a "tribe" for the actions of an individual is not something we should be shrugging our shoulders at and saying "well, that's a natural reaction". It's not.

Wibbs

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1092747754881929216?s=09


Ouch. John Barnes just put the media back in their saboteuring box

That interview is well worth watching. John Barnes nails it and not just this, but the usual spin that gets trotted out. Fair play that man.

seamus

EdgeCase wrote: »

What's really annoying me is that there are been sweeping statements made about how somehow this is some kind of dark admission of thoughts that everyone's had.

Really? Do most people think like that? I would doubt it somehow.

It's very uncomfortable and disappointing to hear him utter those words, but I do think we need to be careful of explaining away what was a very strange incident as somehow normal. I don't think it was normal 20-30 years ago anymore than it is now.

I can appreciate the honesty and that he didn't go through with it and that he has learnt from it and has perspective, but it doesn't change what it was.

I think you're mistaking understanding, with normalising.

The context is anger, and Neeson trying to relate to how anger can lead an otherwise sane individual to do really bizarre, irrational and violent things.

I can relate to what Neeson has said. Maybe not exactly to the circumstances, but to feeling so insanely angry and violated that you're hoping for someone to start on you just so you can take your anger out on them.

Is it normal? No. Is it acceptable? No. Is it understandable? Yes. Do we see it all the time? Yes.

There's a reason why the majority of violent offenders are men under 25. And why every absolute scumbag with multiple violent convictions seems like a horribly irrational person. Combining anger and testosterone is like pouring water on a chip pan fire.

If Neeson was now saying, "Ah sure, boys will be boys", he'd have a case to answer. But he's not. He's called his own behaviour out for what it is. He hasn't excused it or pretended it was OK.

jiltloop

Edward M wrote: »

I'm back, because I feel bold today.
I read the article, I think the thread title is pretty self explanatory.
I'm a Liam Neeson fan BTW too.
But looking at the thread title and article, I call bull**** on it.
I don't believe for one minute LN went around with a cosh or intend to kill or beat up any BB.
I think it's a story of how an actor who happens to appear in a few action movies is somehow trying to convince his audience of how his real personality could easily turn violent vigilante.
They way he worded it has made it easy to criticise him and turn it into a witch hunt as to his racial feelings.
Looking beyond that I feel is just utter crap for the brigades on each side of a debate as to whether it was racist or not.
I think he made his point as to his machoness in the wrong way, and in the middle of his interview realised it and started back peddling, no more deep or meaningful than that.

I disagree that he was trying to prove some kind of machismo and I think he probably did go out a few nights in a rage looking for a black man as he described. I think he was probably jaded from performing so many press appearances plugging the new film and decided mid interview (maybe because it's the Guardian and perceived as bit more high brow) that he was going to deviate from the script a bit and did it in a really clumsy way.

I think the "black man" part, if considered in the context of Northern Ireland 40 odd years ago, seems to be more of an identifying feature because of the paucity of black men in Northern Ireland back then.

But I'm only sharing my opinion, it's difficult to tell without knowing the man personally, I just always got the impression from his interviews that he seems to be a reasonably down to earth and honest sort of person.

El_Duderino 09

FunLover18 wrote: »

I think everyone can agree that wanting to kill the person who raped a friend (or even to want that person dead) is somewhat understandable.

However wanting to kill an innocent man who shares a trait with a rapist is insane, whether that trait be race or religion or nationality, it is beyond logical reasoning and you can apply that to any crime. Thinking about taking revenge on a "tribe" for the actions of an individual is not something we should be shrugging our shoulders at and saying "well, that's a natural reaction". It's not.

More interesting again is what would happen if you take people at their word. What if lots of people think it's pretty normal to want to beat any black man because of a crime committed by another black man.

Is it somewhat normal for some people to have that reaction to that situation? How common is that kind of reaction? How often do people challenge those reactions?

SoundsRight

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The father lunged at the actual perpetrator or he lunged at a random person with the same gender and race as the perpetratorm?

So many attempts to normalise the behaviour without acknowledging the 2 qualifiers he was looking for - gender and ethnicity.

The "PC gone mad" types would want to be very careful about normalising Neesons reaction. It only goes to legitimise the push to highlight racist behaviour

Neeson's reaction was entirely normal. Someone close to him had been raped in a random attack. He wanted to do the same thing to balance it out. If you don't understand his motivation then you've lived a very privileged life.

Omackeral

FunLover18 wrote: »

I think everyone can agree that wanting to kill the person who raped a friend (or even to want that person dead) is somewhat understandable.

However wanting to kill an innocent man who shares a trait with a rapist is insane, whether that trait be race or religion or nationality, it is beyond logical reasoning and you can apply that to any crime. Thinking about taking revenge on a "tribe" for the actions of an individual is not something we should be shrugging our shoulders at and saying "well, that's a natural reaction". It's not.

Absolutely. And Neeson says he realised that shortly after. He was disgusted and embarrassed and ashamed that he felt it. That fact has been left off by some circles though.

MPFGLB

EdgeCase wrote: »

What's really annoying me is that there are been sweeping statements made about how somehow this is some kind of dark admission of thoughts that everyone's had.

Really? Do most people think like that? I would doubt it somehow.

It's very uncomfortable and disappointing to hear him utter those words, but I do think we need to be careful of explaining away what was a very strange incident as somehow normal. I don't think it was normal 20-30 years ago anymore than it is now.

I can appreciate the honesty and that he didn't go through with it and that he has learnt from it and has perspective, but it doesn't change what it was.

We are talking about someone who has had a love one raped (or murdered) ..Have you been in that situation ?
People can be irrational in those circumstances and that is understandable...but he didnt act on the feelings

No one is shrugging off anything ..just looking to understand how one man felt A man who has owned his darkest thoughts

But as I said condemnation is all some have to give

Vela

I can't comment on the racism aspect because I'm white and it's not my place to tell someone whether they should be offended by it.

However, I do think he was simply being self-aware, truthful, and taking responsibility for what he admits was a terrible thing to think/do. His reasoning for it doesn't justify it by any means, but I'm not sure anyone can hang him for owning his own mistakes. There's a lot to be said for taking some personal responsibility.

EdgeCase

seamus wrote: »

If Neeson was now saying, "Ah sure, boys will be boys", he'd have a case to answer. But he's not. He's called his own behaviour out for what it is. He hasn't excused it or pretended it was OK.

He's not saying that and he is absolutely not attempting to normalise it. He sounded like he had very much understood that it was totally irrational and was quite horrified at how he had reacted and regretted it profoundly in hindsight.

However, there are other people commenting on social media who are normalising it, as if it's an admission of some kind of a thought process that we've all been through, which is just not accurate at all.

There's also a load of commentary online about how all Irish people are racist, which is ironically exactly the same kind of thought process of lumping a whole category of people together and applying a label.

Wibbs

FunLover18 wrote: »

I think everyone can agree that wanting to kill the person who raped a friend (or even to want that person dead) is somewhat understandable.

However wanting to kill an innocent man who shares a trait with a rapist is insane, whether that trait be race or religion or nationality, it is beyond logical reasoning and you can apply that to any crime.

Which is what Liam Neeson actually said.

Thinking about taking revenge on a "tribe" for the actions of an individual is not something we should be shrugging our shoulders at and saying "well, that's a natural reaction". It's not.

It is to a large degree. We all make value judgements all the time and about groups too. Higher reasoning where present dilutes and sifts that, but it's still required. Take a woman walking on her own at night, and she's passed by a nun, a black youth or an elderly white man, she's lying to herself if she says she's not making on the spot value and threat judgements accordingly. Unless of course she considers herself to be some sort of saint, but she isn't. None of us are.

El_Duderino 09

SoundsRight wrote: »

Neeson's reaction was entirely normal. Someone close to him had been raped in a random attack. He wanted to do the same thing to balance it out. If you don't understand his motivation then you've lived a very privileged life.

Entirely normal to want to beat any black man because of the crime of another black man?

Part of me wants to challenge you because I want to believe you're exaggerating. But I also think you might actually mean what you're saying.

Just to clarify, do you really mean it's Entirely normal to want to beat any black man because of the crime of another black man?

Edward M

jiltloop wrote: »

I disagree that he was trying to prove some kind of machismo and I think he probably did go out a few nights in a rage looking for a black man as he described. I think he was probably jaded from performing so many press appearances plugging the new film and decided mid interview (maybe because it's the Guardian and perceived as bit more high brow) that he was going to deviate from the script a bit and did it in a really clumsy way.

I think the "black man" part, if considered in the context of Northern Ireland 40 odd years ago, seems to be more of an identifying feature because of the paucity of black men in Northern Ireland back then.

But I'm only sharing my opinion, it's difficult to tell without knowing the man personally, I just always got the impression from his interviews that he seems to be a reasonably down to earth and honest sort of person.

I think you may well be right.
I think I might well be right too.
Sure we are both only offering our opinion, you jumped on mine though.

seamus

EdgeCase wrote: »

However, there are other people commenting on social media who are normalising it, as if it's an admission of some kind of a thought process that we've all been through, which is just not accurate at all.

Ah, well I haven't looked at those.

That's a problem with Social Media I guess, comments have to be compressed. And a result the complexities and nuance get lost.

Take my post above. Compress that down to just, "I can relate to what Neeson has said.", and suddenly that post takes on a whole different meaning. It sounds like I too have experienced the desire to bash in a black man's head and that it's perfectly normal.

Even though I haven't said that at all, the limitations of social media have garbled what I'm trying to say.

Which, incidentally, is why I don't get into complex topics on social media. Blithe one-liners are more fun on twitter than big long threads of rubbish.

EdgeCase

He doesn't appear to have been living in Northern Ireland since the early 1980s, so I would have my doubts that that's where he was talking about. The context is more likely to be England or the US.

Hector Savage

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47117177

Even BBC just piling the article with tweets.
Can't stand lazy journalism that just throws up a load of tweets as part of a story.

Wibbs

Hector Savage wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47117177

Even BBC just piling the article with tweets.
Can't stand lazy journalism that just throws up a load of tweets as part of a story.

The online news dept of the BBC has become a joke over the last few years. It's heavily slanted by a particular Guardian style worldview on a few subjects.

EdgeCase

Wibbs wrote: »

The online news dept of the BBC has become a joke over the last few years. It's heavily slanted by a particular Guardian style worldview on a few subjects.

Except Brexit, where it tends to wander off towards the Express at times.

Muckka

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Entirely normal to want to beat any black man because of the crime of another black man?

Part of me wants to challenge you because I want to believe you're exaggerating. But I also think you might actually mean what you're saying.

Just to clarify, do you really mean it's Entirely normal to want to beat any black man because of the crime of another black man?

I don't think it's normal, but maybe it was an overreaction.
Still he didn't act out on it.

He was probably more idiotic to come out with it and tell someone.

How many people sat in a plane and wondered what would happen if they opened the door while over the Atlantic, but didn't decide to see what would happen.

I don't know what all the outrage is about to be honest.

He doesn't care what the perpetually outraged think.

He'll still have his support from family and friends, so no skin off his back.

We can't have it every way.

It's done now, I wonder what the next racist fodder will be ?

Richard Hillman

Hector Savage wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47117177

Even BBC just piling the article with tweets.
Can't stand lazy journalism that just throws up a load of tweets as part of a story.

And the tweets are all from media columnists and self proclaimed "activists". If they went back to the traditional grabbing a passer-by in the street, they wouldn't get any of the contrived outrage.

jimgoose

So what we're saying here, essentially, is that despite all these very specific skills, he didn't actually find that black fella??

SoundsRight

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Entirely normal to want to beat any black man because of the crime of another black man?

Part of me wants to challenge you because I want to believe you're exaggerating. But I also think you might actually mean what you're saying.

Just to clarify, do you really mean it's Entirely normal to want to beat any black man because of the crime of another black man?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that it would be a normal, human reaction if a female close to you experienced one of the worst things imaginable. And he wasn't looking to attack any black guy, he wanted them to start him, to instigate it.

PhlegmyMoses

I don't know why everybody is trying to justify this. Old celeb says mental **** that he should know better than to say. I would even be highly surprised if he actually did any of the things that he claims to have done at that time, likely just spouting ****e. Reminds me of Glenn Hoddle going on about his religious beliefs about people with disabilities. A handy, late life lesson in the importance of keeping your mouth shut at the right times.

The Nal

Hector Savage wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47117177

Even BBC just piling the article with tweets.
Can't stand lazy journalism that just throws up a load of tweets as part of a story.

Twitter is poison. Fine for getting quick info etc but poison otherwise.

Dont see the big deal here myself but understand the faux outrage as its mainly a twitter story.

hatrickpatrick

Voat has the funniest take on this so far:

he's very honest and candid in how he speaks, a lot like Marlon Brando in some ways and Clint Eastwood. It's gas he was talking about mindless senseless anger and most missed his point to purposefully sound insulted (Samantha mumba). because that's what you do now. Fair play to him, it wont affect him as he's had something like that before with #metoo. tomorrows fish and chips paper and all that....

TheValeyard

So he told a story about how a the rape of a friend, made him bitter and angry, so much so he wanted to hurt a black lad. Then he realised how outrageous this was and was horrified by his thoughts.


How is this an issue?

Snow Garden

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

So he told a story about how a the rape of a friend, made him bitter and angry, so much so he wanted to hurt a black lad. Then he realised how outrageous this was and was horrified by his thoughts.


How is this an issue?

Because outrage has become an addiction for many people. They have no lives.

Bob Harris

Are people outraged because of the threatened violence or that it was a black man?

malinheader

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1092747754881929216?s=09


Ouch. John Barnes just put the media back in their saboteuring box

Fair dues to John barnes. Thank God for common sense.

Bob Harris

jimgoose wrote: »

So what we're saying here, essentially, is that despite all these very specific skills, he didn't actually find that black fella??

Liam Neeson will not find you and he will not kill you.

Boggles

This is one of his next movies.

Charlie Johnson in the Flames

A political thriller about an American journalist who travels to Africa to hunt down a murderous Colonel and bring him to justice

I wonder has poor Liam just lost his marbles and confused reality with the parts he plays.

rob316

I really wish people would read the full story before reacting. He talked about how revenge is no good and how appalled at himself he was for thinking like all black people were bad. Not to mention it was 40 years ago.

An outstanding actor, I think I'll go watch a few of his later.

The Nal

rob316 wrote: »

I really wish people would read the full story before reacting. .

Twitter is only 280 characters

rob316

FunLover18 wrote: »

I think everyone can agree that wanting to kill the person who raped a friend (or even to want that person dead) is somewhat understandable.

However wanting to kill an innocent man who shares a trait with a rapist is insane, whether that trait be race or religion or nationality, it is beyond logical reasoning and you can apply that to any crime. Thinking about taking revenge on a "tribe" for the actions of an individual is not something we should be shrugging our shoulders at and saying "well, that's a natural reaction". It's not.

And he said how wrong and disgusted he was with himself.

rob316

EdgeCase wrote: »

What's really annoying me is that there are been sweeping statements made about how somehow this is some kind of dark admission of thoughts that everyone's had.

Really? Do most people think like that? I would doubt it somehow.

It's very uncomfortable and disappointing to hear him utter those words, but I do think we need to be careful of explaining away what was a very strange incident as somehow normal. I don't think it was normal 20-30 years ago anymore than it is now.

I can appreciate the honesty and that he didn't go through with it and that he has learnt from it and has perspective, but it doesn't change what it was.

If someone raped someone close to you or who you love, your thoughts wouldn't be the least bit rational either, I know mine wouldn't anyway.

mordeith

I find it bizarre the fact a woman got raped is a side story to a guy who briefly thought about something that he didn't actually do.

FunLover18

rob316 wrote: »

And he said how wrong and disgusted he was with himself.

Yes, he said he was disgusted and he'd learnt a lesson but that lesson was "I understand that need for revenge, but it just leads to more revenge, to more killing and more killing, and Northern Ireland's proof of that". From my reading it appears to be a rather general lesson about revenge being futile, whereas the fact he was seeking to enact revenge on a random innocent because they also happened to be black doesn't really come into it. I have no doubt that he regrets his actions though, that's very clear, I'm just unsure as to whether he realises the full implications of those actions.

Ariadne

mordeith wrote: »

I find it bizarre the fact a woman got raped is a side story to a guy who briefly thought about something that he didn't actually do.

I was just thinking of the woman who was raped. She's probably reliving all of this and the trauma of the rape. I wonder how she's feeling.

retro:electro

We’ve reached the stage where people on Twitter are outraged over something someone thought but didn’t act upon 40 years ago before most of them were born. Would ya be well

El_Duderino 09

Muckka wrote: »

I don't think it's normal, but maybe it was an overreaction.
Still he didn't act out on it.

He was probably more idiotic to come out with it and tell someone.

You don't think it was a normal reaction and you think it MIGHT have been an overreaction.

He actually prepared to beat any man of an entire race because one of them committed a crime. How long was carrying a weapon and looking to beat a black lad? 5 minutes? An hour? A week? Isnt it lucky he didnt actually get into a disagreement with a black man in that time.

I presume you agree that actually beating a black man would DEFINITELY been a bit of an over reaction. But it's worth asking.

Muckka wrote: »

It's done now, I wonder what the next racist fodder will be ?

Who knows? Maybe a toiletry manufacturer will make an ad that doesn't spend enough time complementing white men. The we'd see the toys fly out of the pram.