Liam Neeson admits in interview to wanting to exact revenge for his friends rape
182 replies, posted
That he's a fucking murderer?
What's hard to get about this? He didn't do the thing you're acting like he did.
We don't judge people on the shit that isn't a part of reality, so why do we need to condemn him as a racist murder when 1) he didn't hurt anyone 2) the accusations of racism are contextual at best and 3) he seemed to have genuinely grown from the situation.
it's almost like you would rather just condemn him for the actions he didn't do.
There's a very big difference between being angry at a group of people and thinking of killing any one of them that antagonizes you and going so far as to actually kill someone.
That it was a murder motivated by reprisal, not because of race that's trying to be shoehorned into this discussion. Racial division has no relevance in Northern Ireland.
1. The clue he focused on was race and thats the widest fucking net you could possibly cast. Like, jesus, that really doesn't narrow it down. He spent a week stewing on this based only on the perp's race.
2. If the perp had been white, he would still have been stalking around looking to fight and kill someone if we're going with that line of thinking. Still a really bad take.
3. His "sympathy" was to decide he was living in one of his own action movies and decided, as far as hes told us, to go around hoping to get into a brawl based on the race of the perp, without asking the victim what SHE wanted done about it. Making her personal tragedy a vehicle for his own anger and darkness is a pretty toxicly masculine thing to do.
4. Again, if the perp was white, I'd still think Neeson's reaction is really dumb.
5. Why are so many people willing to play "what if" when it comes to the perp being white, but not if he'd actually gons and killed a man? I like how you can somehow "prove" its not racist by inventing a scenario where race is less of a factor.
6. I'm not claiming expert knowledge of peoples brains. Neeson focused in on the person's race and decided he wanted to fight and kill someone of that race if the opportunity presented itself. What else am I supposed to take from that.
7. I'm not trying to "out" Nesson. Get off your fucking anti-sjw high horse for a second. "My reaction to a friends rape was to spend A WEEK contemplating murder against someone WHO MAY NOT EVEN BE TANGENTIALLY INVLOVED is a bad look. I can criticize Neeson for this. He's a big boy. I can criticize the way he told this story and his actions at the time while acknowledging he's improved.
Bottom line, maybe sharing the racially charged aspects of the story would be better related to a therapist than an interviewer for a hollywood puff piece.
Also, how about you stop putting words in my mouth?
""People and people like me" want to make everyone hide the pain and never relate trauma or negative feelings? Fuck off dude. You spent half your paragraphs telling me how I think while simultaneously accusing me of doing the same.
1) So if he had been given a different clue, he would have focused on that. No one is defending obsessing over a piece of info as "brave" or anything, what they're doing is understanding where that comes from, emotionally.
2) Yes, no one is stating otherwise? He still didn't hurt anyone. So focusing on that aspect of the story doesn't make the most sense to me. I might as well focus on equally nebulous "what if's" regarding you as a person. it's just as valid, no?
3) And his realization "I'm wasting my time and should be supporting that person" means literally nothing to you apparently. What if's mean more to you than reality.
4) No one is saying it wouldn't be wrong, or dumb for him to hurt someone over this for fucks sakes. they're just empathizing and understanding the position he felt he was in. If the perp was white, half of your initial post about racism that drives your anger in the first place wouldn't exist, and you wouldn't be here.
5) We've already said what we'd consider him if he hurt or killed someone. Guilty of those fucking actions. But you can't say he did those things, and deserves the consequences you almost seem to be begging for, for not having done those things. Thoughtcrime much?
6) He had a detail. He obssessed on that detail. BECAUSE that detail was racial, you draw all of the racial bias you can possibly bring to bear and accuse him of that. Had that detail been different, he'd still have been focused on the detail, but you wouldn't be able to call him racially motivated. How is this hard to get?
7) So what ARE you trying to do? I'm able to understand the rage at someone elses rape, and the feeling of being unable to help, and the desire for punishment and revenge. I understand that, but I, and most everyone here doesn't condone it. Understanding =/= Condoning. I've been in that situation, and I understand that endless rage you can't apply towards anything and wanting to hurt someone because of it. Neeson realized after a week(what a detail for you to obsess about, do you know how fucking short a week is?) that this was a waste of his time. Many people go many years before letting things like that go. You aren't acknowledging he's improved, you're still acting like his past is his current form. I don't know how you can say you acknowledge that with a straight face honestly.
I've seen enough people stating the same things you're stating here, and really, the only conclusion I can draw from the behavior is a desire to hide ugly truths from people who don't want to see them and to condemn anyones past actions as the entirety of their character. If you don't feel that way, fine, but I've seen enough similar arguments from people who do state in no uncertain terms, that stories like this are of absolutely no value, and that he should be punished for something or other that share enough in common with how you've stated things it's quite easy to conflate the two.
@SpookySpaceKook Not everywhere is America, buddy. We're not all burdened with the guilt of social division based on racial slavery. You're projecting American perceptions of race onto a completely different country. Congrats. Northern Ireland is 98% white, so racial division doesn't even have a grounding to develop. A total lack of consideration for the social context that Neeson was brought up in i.e. a divided society along religious and political lines, between two white ethnic communities, where reprisal attacks were and still are common.
The futility of reprisal attacks are what should be taken away from this. Race doesn't come into it.
Hey, when you re-write the narrative of a story, don't do it to something there's a video of.
He asked if the person was known to them first, then he asked for that as a detail. If you go into the follow up pieces about this, he actually asked for more information.
It's funny how much false narrative manipulation is going on here.
The quote I read awhile ago had race as something like the third question about the perpetrator that Neeson asked. It just happened to be the first one that the victim had an actual answer for.
I think people are being very generous to Neeson about this. What he did and intended to do was very ugly and while I can appreciate that he's reflecting upon it now and calling it out for what it is, I still find it quite gross that he brought it up in an interview to promote a movie. Saying 'well he would have been the same no matter the race of the attacker' also seems disingenuous: he immediately jumped to asking about colour, and the terminology he used, 'black bastards', that's not something that someone who is objective says. I've heard that term a lot, used very casually by people who come from ignorant communities who just don't know any better, but that doesn't make it okay. I don't think it's right to downplay the racial aspect of his thought process, and that is definitely what a lot of people, but not all, are doing.
It's a complicated incident and to say that anyone who is uncomfortable with this is just 'playing the race card', or is a 'binary mong' (nice slur about people with Down's syndrome btw @Coffee ), I think that's harsh.
Wait hold up
I call people "bastards" all the time. I often pre-face this with the tihng they've done to piss me off. "Tech illiterate bastard" etc. Why is it that as soon as the word "black" comes in there, everything in the world changes, and rather than just being an intense hatred of a person who harmed someone you know, it's a full blown racial thing?
Isn't this kind of just jumping the gun, analyzing language with an authority that is assumed without good reason, and going off of assumptions?
He was asked how he taps into the subject of revenge and he answered the question.
"Ewww gross, he's talking about a bad time in his life"
Racism is not an open and shut topic, it is very complicated. Instead of venting your disgust, why not realise what actually happens on this earth. This world has very dark histories and if you just go "eww this is gross, that's gross" nobody is ever going to learn a damn thing and we'll be stuck in this stupid stagnant twitter era.
If you slice this thread down to who's getting it and who's not. The group of people who's just not getting it is overwhelmingly American. The same group will probably sincerely think this observation makes me a bigot. It doesn't. It makes me observant.
You absolutely are, you're entirely misrepresenting what he said and he did to create a false narrative. You're twisting it in a way to give yourself some nonexistent moral superiority ground that doesn't actually exist.
Okay, this is getting annoying now. There's a culture of reprisal killings in Northern Ireland borne out of the social division between Unionists and Nationalists. Reprisal killings are the problem - they're a pervasive part of Northern Irish criminal culture. Racial attacks have nothing to do with it. Neeson's victim was going to be black because the perpetrator was black. That's it.
Yeah, he even talks about how life during The Troubles was a part of it and how living through that impacted him.
Racist means the action would be galvanized entirely by the race of the man in question. Not the actions.
He wanted to do what he wanted to do because of the actions, not the race. It's almost like boiling things down to a nuanceless black and white interpretation of things is not a good way to do things.
This is tabloid "journalism" levels of bullshitting. Grabbing big images of out of context parts of a statement, tossing them in, then slipping in little parts of the intervening context so you can later try to point to it and pretend, "No, I wasn't misrepresenting it! See, I totally had all the context and definitely didn't skew the story!"
No, because he didn't ask his friend "Was it a black person who did it?" He asked questions to narrow down who the perpetrator might be. You'd know that if you watched the video of him on morning TV explaining that.
Again, you're projecting American perceptions. The KKK is an American problem. We don't have that.
But it didn't happen because that person was allegedly black, it happened because of a rape. I know context isn't important to a lot of people, but I think it is.
What outcome are you even seeking here?
No, if you pull dishonest crap trying to change the context of a person's statement while using garbage tricks against the reader hoping they'll simply not read in to it, that's tabloid journalism.
So would you think it's racist if he did that to the first white person he met, or does the race of the black person irrevocably change the situation so that it is incomparable to a white on white crime?
I'd ask you to think about this further, but I have a feeling you'll rage at that suggestion.
How am I being a dick? You're just as rude lol, and have been since the start of the convo.
So, it's a white guy, beating a white guy, because of race? Do the contexts and the situation people exist in not matter? They must not based on your breakdown of motivations?
No, its chopped up parts of a statement, stripped of context, then thrown in with a small amount of your own version of the context added back in. Wanna do a quote? Try the actual thing with its actual context in its actual formatting.
So the context of why he's looking for that person has NO RELEVANCE?
@Asaratha You're really not getting the motivation. It's a reprisal attack. It doesn't matter whether his victim is the perpetrator of the rape or not.
In the Northern Irish context:
UVF kill an IRA member.
IRA responds by killing a UVF member.
UVF responds by bombing an Irish nationalist area.
IRA responds by killing a group of Protestants.
This is the same psychology, transplanted onto an individual.
I mean you can expand it out into that if you want, but if his friend said the perpetrator is black, he's not going to look to attack a white person.
The victim said the perpetrator is black. If he attacks a black person, chances are that it might be the perpetrator. There's a 0% chance if Neeson's victim is white. Where this would be a racially motivated attack is if the victim said they didn't know what race the perpetrator was and Neeson wanted to attack a black person anyway. This scenario wouldn't make sense in Northern Ireland, though, especially in the Troubles. It's actually unusual that the perpetrator was black, given how small the black population is here.
If you want to look at where Neeson's biases may naturally lie, it's more likely that his initial assumption of the perpetrator was that they were Protestant - he was raised Catholic, and the bigotry in Northern Ireland is sectarian i.e. Catholics vs. Protestants.
Justification doesn't come into it. Murdering someone's a crime regardless of the motivation. That's not what this discussion has turned into though. The UVF and IRA both killed civilians who had nothing to do with their criminality, didn't stop them from doing is out of revenge for the other's actions.
How...? Whaat? How do you need clarification on this?
He had a piece of evidence he acknowledged was faulty, however that piece of information was about race. To you, it seems to me, that any inclusion or thought about race makes an event racist for dealing with race. This doesn't make sense to me, because it implies a bias that seeks to always bring race to the forefront, even in unrelated issues. There are instances of people of different races disliking each other, but it seems to me, you'd draw the distinction that it's racist, because race is involved. This seems to flatten the discussion of quite a lot of nuance, that exists in the real world.
That's really not indicative of how this has went. You really haven't considered the context of a society outside of America, which is visibly dominated by racial divisions as its primary form of bigotry - we get reminded about it enough in the rest of the world.
If you keep saying:
then it's obvious that you're not considering that Northern Ireland is not a society with racial divisions like the US. We're too embroiled in our own divisions along ethnic, political and religious to even fit racism in there - as if we could, anyway, with our 98% white population.
His victim was going to be black because the perpetrator of the rape was black. Nothing more to it. Reprisal attacks aren't built on complex motivations.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.