• Liam Neeson admits in interview to wanting to exact revenge for his friends rape
    182 replies, posted
I don't want him to be disonest. I want him to delve into the subtext. I want him to get into the ideas and really dissect this with the nauance it deserves. A long form interview where he could lay it all bare, maybe have a frank discussion about with an expert or a contemporary who experienced the violence and turmoil in Ireland too to reinforce his points. I don't want him doing it at a half assed press junket where at best he's only got a short time to put himself out there and get misrepresented and at worst looks like he used to be some weirdo who'd ruminate on murdering a rando for a week. Does that clear it up? That this isnt a binary "share/dont share"? Why can't I criticize his delivery, while agreeing with the ultimate message? For someone whos so up in arms about "thought policing" you sure do make a lot of citizens arrests.
In no way shape or form am I preventing you from sharing your opinion or policing your thoughts lol. I haven't prevented, or tried to prevent your perspective from exisitng. I've merely argued against it, and for you to call that thought policing is silly.
How so? You and other people in this thread accuse myself and others of "thought policing" or "punishing" or "condemning". Do those words not mean anything? Is it just to get a rise out of us? You accuse of of silencing people and expect us not to be upset? I say for Nesson to do better, you call that "thought policing". Isn't that kind of ridiculous? You say I don't want people to share their experiences, isn't that shitty and disingenuous? Your don't argue against me when you say things like that, you point your finger and imply I'm some kind of regressive anti-free speech type. What else is someone accused of "thought policing" or trying to silence others supposed to think?
So I feel like there's somethings to breakdown in this context then, if you don't mind. Liam Neeson is being attacked for these statements. He's receiving calls to "never be hired again". There is a full scale outrage about this, that falls directly within our current era of "Cancel culture". We figure if we yell loud enough, we can remove people from their positions. Maybe you're not taking the extreme of this that much of the internet outrage community is, but enough people are that this is a common position. People are trying to "cancel" Liam Neeson over this. You might not be, but plenty of people who share your view and have gone just a tad further into that "side" do. They're not calling for greater nuance, or more thoughtful presentations of the argument or the discussion. They're upset that someone said something dark about their past, they see those events of the past as direct reflections of that person at the moment, and they seemingly believe personal growth is impossible. Whether or not you agree with this or not, this is the prevailing, "winning" argument currently. For all the calls to nuance and thoughtful discussion people like myself may make, the prevailing belief of the loudest people are that Liam is a racist, always was and will always be, and that this event is an example of what a bad person he is. They are "thought policing", "punishing" and "condemning". In response, people like myself who are frustrated that the obvious implications of his statements are going to be ignored for quick "Gotcha" style thought processes, have argued for more nuance and more thoughtful discussions. And hey, if you're for that, I'm sorry I ever implied or stated you weren't. I see the problems with trying to have a nuanced, deep discussion about complicated topics in this current culture. We have black people tweeting at Neeson telling him "thank you for sharing this" and we have people totally disconnected from his experience calling him a monster. How are we going to have these discussions in that societal context?
Stop making this about you.
Maybe by not immediately putting me in this nebulous camp of social media users? Maybe by not saying things like "I know the mindset of yourself and people like you." I've said time and time again that I have a criticism of the way Neeson handled this. Thats it. I wanted something this delicate handled in a better manner. We can disagree on that point, thats cool. I'm just tired of saying over and that all I have is a criticism of how he framed it, being greeted with "Hmm, MAYBE you're not part of some internet lynch mob, but I'm still going to say you are a thought cop here on behalf of the internet lynch mob." Like, why do I not get ANY benefit of the doubt that I might not be here to "cancel" him?
I mean your first post is probably why you don't get any benefit of the doubt
I don't know why this is getting snowflake ratings Feeble Oaf has never taking this particular sub-forum that seriously
I mean, thats kind of my point. Why is "You could have done this better" equivilant to "Don't share your negative experiences"? If you feel I'm missrepresenting Neeson because of my difference in culture, I get it. I admit, tahts a compelling argument, so why misrepresent me by saying I'm trying to silence him?
Since most people in this sub forum dont give a fuck about a posters history but look at the post itself. Which in this case makes a damn good point.
It only makes sense if you ignore the other things liam neeson said
Well given you're posts in the thread you, and others, are doin a shit job of proving that viewpoint incorrect.
It makes even more sense if you listen to the other things he said and especially in the follow up interview where he says race was not the only question he asked. Thats where he also says he'd have the same reaction if his friend said it was an irishman, scot or brit who raped her. This had nothing to do with it being a black man.
the man had a terrible thought, realized it was terrible, cooled down, and is remorseful for it and changed his thoughts. isn't this exactly what people SHOULD be doing, and what we WANT people with these kinds of thoughts to do? why are people ragging on liam neeson for thought crime years after the fact, along with his renewed perspective that denounces that kind of thinking.
i'm not really sure it's worthy of praise when the only reason he didn't kill some innocent black guy is because he couldn't find one
Please change the title as it is very misleading. He admitted that he wanted to in the past for a brief period not that he has want in the present.
Bro, no one is saying that at all. People are praising the courage to talk about something he is deeply ashamed of, something very dark and wrong, hateful. This is something people should be talking about, so that we can all learn about why it's wrong to act on those feelings, about redemption, about patience, and how to end the cycle of hate, bigotry, and revenge. If you take this at the misconstrued face value that everyone is going " oh good job you didn't kill a black man" then the lesson is lost on you I guess. Most of this thread has been, more or less, debating over the definition of racism and the like.
Pretty sure he found black people during his week or so of stress-induced mental illness. Its just that he wanted someone to try to attack him. Where are people getting this idea he wanted to just kill any black person he could find?
You would know that wasn't the reason if you actually read/listened to what he said.
ok let's actually address the outrage. "man walks around thinking for a week" This is actually the entirety of the outrage here. Now let's address the praise. "man admits a dark brief breakdown due to a traumatic attack to a close friend" how can't people get through their skulls, the actuality of this situation. people are either too scared or too lazy to talk about it so they jump to the easiest, safest conclusion. he knows he thought wrong, and he learned from it on his own even during a horrific war. let's look at that again, he "THOUGHT" wrong, not even did, he didn't threat or attack not a SINGLE fly that week. He walked around thinking, that was the extent of his actions. He did carry around a solid object, which nowadays is a criminal offense but 40 years ago when there is a war going on, I don't think it's stupid to carry this. And to those saying "If it was a black man walking around wanting to kill a white man", you have missed the point completely. It is a deep cultural issue. You can't just change a few boxes to fit a new story because it's not realistic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze66N6XK88M
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO this makes me so ANGRY I'm fucking shaking with anger I really want to kill Liam Neeson [Ten Years Later Breaking News and I am on there ] "Yeah about 10 years ago Liam Neeson said he wanted to kill a Black man before and that made me so angry that I really wanted to kill Liam Neeson. I walked around looking for Liam Neeson or even anyone that looked like Liam Neeson, ready to kill this guy. I realize how awful it was wanting to kill a man I never even met, but it was a dark time and i'm over that period of my life." [An angered person on McFlapper (the new social media platform) clicks off their wireless VR headset which they had been watching the news on] OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO this makes me so ANGRY I'm fucking shaking with anger I really want to kill this Facepunch user Nutsack [Ten Years Later] "So you wanted to kill some dude on a forum?" "Yea." [Response] OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (angrier while being infinitely louder and whinier) [Ten Years Later] All communication has ceased to exist since everybody had the chance to endanger somebody else's life with their words, so all infants from 2040 on were removed of vocal cords and everybody just fucks all the time for basically no reason.
I don't know if you've been to Ireland where I'm assuming this happened but there's not many black people there
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYr3YTEkgCk I know Joe Rogan is hit or miss, but 4:30 to 6:05 is basically the point that I and many have been trying to make. This is an example of what could have been instrumental violence, not racial violence.
The only point i've been trying to make is that America just isn't old enough to have an adult conversation about this. It's like listening to a well-meaning 14-yearold trying to teach adults the point of their own teachable-moment infused anecdote. Like, how dense do you have to be to take the moral lesson someone else is sharing with the class and try to turn it back on them? How self-important can an entire country feel? It's just baffling... and noisy. This used to be a quiet neighborhood.
https://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow/videos/615436418885605/ Trevor Noah's weighed in.
wtf you record father getting beat up instead of help ?
did denmark have this conversation when I wasn't looking?
The Trevor Noah and John Barnes bits are okay, but they're still not hitting the mark. It really shows how big the cultural disparity is between Northern Ireland and the rest of the Anglosphere. They're still viewing it as a racialised indictment, which I can understand from their viewpoint, but it isn't accurate. I wish Liam Neeson would have elaborated more, but I think the attitude he had imprinted upon him by NI society is so engrained that he isn't even aware of how to articulate it. For me, the giveaway was in the interviews when he said he knew people "involved" in the Troubles. That was the key point in his interviews where I knew where the conversation was going. That to me says he knew paramilitary members, or affiliates of paramilitaries, who were the ones carrying out reprisal killings. I didn't even consider the notion that people outside NI would construe it as a racially motivated attack.
if we're keeping this "america is a 14 year old" I think these awkward discussions about race and gender are good because it means society is on the path twords gaining a better knowledge about these issues. Just think about sexual assault. 40 or 50 years ago, that word didn't exist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.