Liam Neeson racism admission

    • NotD

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Liam Neeson racism admission

      So for those of you that have been keeping up with the news, Liam Neeson admitted in an interview that 30/40 years ago he roamed the streets attempting to find and murder an innocent black man because someone raped someone dear to him. Let us just get this out of the way, what he attempted to do was racist and wrong, something that whilst understandable considering the environment at the time, does not make it justifiable.

      This has started a furore of debate, condemning and vilifying Neeson. The issue I would like to debate is, what does this make of Neeson.

      Is he still racist and should be condemned?
      Or freely admitting faults and opening up a valuable topic that needs to be discussed in order to combat racism.

      Please

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • Let's be absolutely clear about this. It is the fear-mongering media painting a very skewed picture of people of colour, leading to this kind of behaviour. It is a well-established fact in science that repeating a lie often enough gradually starts convincing people (the current President of the US being a brilliant daily example of this). When you grow up in a society that bombards you with prejudice against people of colour, you are more likely to start attributing all sorts of negative factual inaccuracies to people of colour.

      The whole thing is a non-starter once you realize this. He wished to hurt a person which caused his friend great pain. The media and society have taught him to always suspect the foreigner/person of colour/person of a different religion, so naturally he did just that. But an important detail is that he stopped himself before he did something bad. He realized he wanted to do something wrong, and then stopped himself. End of story really. The rest is just people blowing this way, way out of proportion, and embellishing the story with non-existent details.
      56G TD, Top 1 solo
      61G TD, Top 1 ACS
      137G TD, Top 1 solo ninja
      In order to insult me, I must first value your opinion...Nice try though.
    • had a similar conversation with a friend today. I would say it's an incident that changes a core understanding of who he is as a person, and is very much worth talking about. Now he may or may not be a racist currently but bringing ot up is still important.

      I tend to believe that people change and are allowed to grow and develop new ideas and thoughts. Surely he was in a racist mind set back then, but if over the rest of his life or anyones if they have supenba change in their thoughts and behaviors i feel they deserve a new chance. People change and it's no excuse, but understanding your mistakes admitting them and learning and growing as a person seems like something we all deserve. I want to say if we are talking actual murder assaults or violent crime I would feel different.

      Basically was it racist yes, has he grown as a person and realized it? It seems yes, and I would allow him the chance to continue being better. Although it does make me think less of him as a person.
    • I think as well his admittance is good. It brings to light that people think horrible thoughts and may plan horrible things. His condemnation of it now is important because change is good. It shows empathy, possibly as an example to those who do have these thoughts and challenging that perception.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • this is tame compared to what Liam Neeson said he did

      but once

      a certain player upset me

      and i spent about a week wishing the entire Indian sub-continent would slide sideways into the Bay of Bengal, never to be seen again.

      then i shook myself out of it, cos you can't blame a whole race of people like that.

      yes, it's racist.

      but i also think it's a thing that many people think when they get upset.

      thoughts only harm the person thinking them.

      trying to act it out - that's another matter.

      i don't know what Mr Neeson hoped to gain by making that comment.
      MOST HATED RANK #1

      TOP 1 (solo) x 2 (ACS) x 1

      TOP 10 (solo) x 3 (ACS) x 9
      Super Adv x 64
      Adv x 290
      Basic x 1711
      RIP KILLS 6518



    • maybe

      but we all have a tendency to make sweeping generalisations

      high emotion can affect the way you think

      but thoughts are just thoughts

      it concerns me that he was walking around the streets looking for a random (and innocent) black person to exact his revenge

      i don't think he's done himself any favours by admitting this now

      stupid behaviour from the past - best left in the past. especially since nothing actually happened.
      MOST HATED RANK #1

      TOP 1 (solo) x 2 (ACS) x 1

      TOP 10 (solo) x 3 (ACS) x 9
      Super Adv x 64
      Adv x 290
      Basic x 1711
      RIP KILLS 6518



    • i agree

      nothing happened and he shouldn't be condemned for it

      but given the fragile nature of his profession, i think he was a bit naive in his expectations when he sparked this debate.

      studios can drop stars in the blink of an eye

      yes, he is big box office - now.

      but that can change so quickly.

      he's a good actor, but there are many other good actors.

      i hope he doesn't end up in the wilderness for the next 10 years because of this.

      MOST HATED RANK #1

      TOP 1 (solo) x 2 (ACS) x 1

      TOP 10 (solo) x 3 (ACS) x 9
      Super Adv x 64
      Adv x 290
      Basic x 1711
      RIP KILLS 6518



    • That is a different scenario. In Liam Neeson's case this is more a lesson that people have horrible thoughts and that we should be aware of these thoughts and their bias to avoid acting on them. He brought up a valuable lesson that needs to be learnt by people.

      Damon on the other hand, made comments which weren't particularly relevant and not a lesson that needs to be learnt at the time of #MeToo. It wasn't made from experience either, so it was patronising and what some may call "mansplaining".

      As for being condemned, nothing thankfully happened, but that was down to luck due to anything. His tale serves as a warning more than anything.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • Oh dear......

      Let us commence.

      herr gonzo wrote:

      what he admitted makes no sense, just like his movies

      he an actor right?

      I'm sorry, did this become a "state your opinion board" when I resigned my modship here? Because clearly you have failed to conceive of reading the articles before voicing it. He was asked about vengeance in the interview and the motivations behind the character and he proceeded to give an example from real life that he experienced. At least try to read up about things you comment. Also, I see you don't know much about his repertoire if you state his movies don't make any sense. Or was Schindler's List too much for you?


      herr gonzo wrote:

      attention seeking whore for social justice warriors, that's he is

      Throwing meaningless insults is not part of the discussion and is against the rules. Although it does make it fairly obvious why you committed such an ignorant act of posting an opinion on here. This provides nothing to a debate apart from showing your clear disdain against people who object to social injustices and quite frankly just makes you look ignorant. Also reading other people's contributions on here might show why this is a topic worthy of discussion.


      herr gonzo wrote:

      it's not racist, it's plain stupid what he said to an interview, cause it makes no sense....
      It's not racist...... where is my rolling eyes smiley, :rolleyes2: Not quite the same as the old one, but ok.

      You have two black people, both of which have experience with racism in those articles I posted, saying that the act of going out on the street and looking for black men to murder as revenge COUNTS AS RACISM! I mean, I'm sorry but I am not sure how that can't be racism when you are trying to kill people because someone who just happens to have the same skin colour as them did something bad to someone you cared about. The fact that two men who will have far more knowledge of what constitutes as racism may have a better judgement call than you hasn't crossed your mind has it? Neeson in the 70s has clearly thought, well I might as well try and kill a black guy because one of "them" raped a close friend. He describes that as his thought at the time. That is racial prejudice. It is racism and that you can't see that means that you might harbour some thoughts along those lines. If so, go away. I have no time for people like that who are ignorant of basic science.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • So basically your comment is off-topic? Because this was not actually relevant to the discussion at all.

      If you want to discuss what constitutes as racism and whether racial prejudice counts as racism (which I am guessing is what you are talking about as you have failed to read the rules for this section) then please form a new topic and learn how to discuss things.

      If you just want to derail an honest conversation where the premise is that hunting black people for revenge is racist then GTFO and stop being racist. Because no matter what you say, by failing to understand what racism is, even after it has been explained to you, is often a sign of racism. If you can't bother to form an argument, to read the references provided which frame the debate, I'm sorry that would make you an idiot. Furthermore, it shows clear bias against an opposing viewpoint, which when I have quoted two black men, does smack of racism. So yes, you are promoting racism. Because you fail to actually engage in the actual discussion or outline your point.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • Racism is essentially a 'sub-category' of dicrimination. So, to answer your question, no they aren't racist.

      It's an interesting question to define 'race'. A Dutch court found nationality the same as race when a politician said he ''wanted to get rid of all Maroccans''. He got convicted (currently pending appeal).
      Caught up in the game
    • OK, let us kill two birds with one stone.

      The definition of racism is:

      prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

      So @Mafkees, it isn't just discrimination, but the fact that Neeson at the time was prejudiced against black men and was looking to kill one in the old "eye for an eye". It is racism.

      Regarding your other point about race, what race actually is, is that it is a societal concept, not a scientific one. Race is considered a pseudoscientific term now as it is pretty undefinable and now science uses the term ethnicity instead. In this case, the Dutch court would have been correct in some respects to count Moroccans as a "race" as they are certainly an ethnic group, therefore part of a "race" and protected against discrimination.

      @AMNeSia so you are saying that calling out discrimination and prejudice against someone because of their "race" is racist? That is ridiculous. It is a human right not to be discriminated against because of race, sex, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation or disability. That was introduced because of acts such as the Nazis where the Jewish "race" was slaughtered along with homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and others. Calling out this acts as bad is not prejudiced in any shape or form. It is protecting those who others consider inferior because of melanin levels. Calling out racism is important, it leads to more equal societies and there have been powerful civil rights movements based upon this fact. Anti-apartheid movements, the civil rights campaigns in the US, BLM, etc are all calling out injustices. Ignoring this importance is tantamount to being racist.

      As for stating personal opinions, you miss the point of this. The point is to read the articles and form an opinion using rational argument and reference to what has occurred. Stating your own opinion without engaging in the source material is rude essentially. The whole point is to encourage intelligent discussion and mutual respect.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • Largenton wrote:

      Regarding your other point about race, what race actually is, is that it is a societal concept, not a scientific one. Race is considered a pseudoscientific term now as it is pretty undefinable and now science uses the term ethnicity instead. In this case, the Dutch court would have been correct in some respects to count Moroccans as a "race" as they are certainly an ethnic group, therefore part of a "race" and protected against discrimination.
      Well, from a law point of view (it happens to be my occupation) it is not that simple.

      A conviction can only happen if the legislator (at the time of making the legislation!) intended for something to be punishable. So this trend might be true - but that doesn't mean it has implications on criminal law.
      Caught up in the game