Liam Neeson admits he wanted to kill after friend was raped (1 Viewer)

49erKiller

I am 100% human
Joined
Aug 15, 1999
Messages
4,429
Reaction score
3,027
Location
New Orleans, La.
Offline
Sticky Post
Liam Neeson admits he wanted to kill after friend was raped

Neeson says that after being told the attacker was black, he "went up and down areas with a cosh (stick or truncheon)" hoping a black person "would come out of a pub and have a go at me about something, you know? So that I could kill him."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/liam-neeson-admits-he-wanted-to-kill-after-friend-was-raped/ar-BBTazy7?li=BBnbfcL

I don't know what to make of this.

On a side note, I wasn't sure how to handle the title of this thread, so I went with the article's title. If the admins, mods, or other posters don't like it or are offended, I request and welcome a change by an admin or mod.
 
Last edited:

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
20,658
Reaction score
32,456
Location
Lebronto
Offline
On the other hand, you may have been witnessing an evolutionary successful model of a family, complete with a division of responsibilities between male and female. The female first turned to tend to the child, while the male turned to face the perceived threat. Instinctive cooperation among the two sexes.

Probably not something one would learn in a gender studies course.
Certainly you might, especially if it's an anthropology-based course (although you use the word 'evolution' which might have a decidedly different - i.e. non-gender studies - connotation if you're talking about developing traits that are directed toward species survival). There are plenty of courses that would be considered 'gender studies' that includes this. Not all of them obviously. But also not none of them.

What's the familiarity with the field of sociology/anthropology/gender studies/women's studies/etc that would lead you to assume otherwise?
 

UndeadSnoopy

Coffin Fresh!
VIP Contributor
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
901
Reaction score
1,010
Location
Pet Sematary
Online
the problem wasn't the immediate reaction - -it's hard for us to control those
the issue was that he remained flummoxed even after he saw there was no threat

it's maladaptive - -like having a prehensile tail even if we're not brachiating in the trees anymore
I've been curious and I have to ask. Is Dennis Miller a relative of yours?
 

Flipx99

Thanks MJ!
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
15,045
Reaction score
15,254
Offline
Certainly you might, especially if it's an anthropology-based course (although you use the word 'evolution' which might have a decidedly different - i.e. non-gender studies - connotation if you're talking about developing traits that are directed toward species survival). There are plenty of courses that would be considered 'gender studies' that includes this. Not all of them obviously. But also not none of them.

What's the familiarity with the field of sociology/anthropology/gender studies/women's studies/etc that would lead you to assume otherwise?
Yeah shall know them by their fruits.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
1,347
Location
The Vieux
Online
I don't know, it seems like when these people get caught with a photo or a voice recording then come out and act all remorseful and sorry, we all say it would different if they had gotten out ahead of it, but now they're just saying they were sorry because of the bad press.

This dude owned up to it without being prompted. He could have hidden from this forever but instead he put it out there and admitted it was horrible and he's sorry about it. We'd all like to live in a world where no one has terrible thoughts, but he seems to have handled his in the most accountable way possible. If you want to drag the dude through the dirt for it, that's certainly your choice, but the dude did it about the best way possible under the circumstances.
 

Madmarsha

Love this team!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
17,609
Reaction score
17,948
Offline
If you want to drag the dude through the dirt for it, that's certainly your choice, but the dude did it about the best way possible under the circumstances.
Personally, I'm not dragging Liam Neeson through the mud, I'm dragging ALL men through it.
 

UndeadSnoopy

Coffin Fresh!
VIP Contributor
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
901
Reaction score
1,010
Location
Pet Sematary
Online
No. But I think it would behoove all ya'll to really think and make sure it's not about how YOU feel when your loved one/friend has been assaulted.
I was with you on on how men react, but I have to disagree when you mentioned feelings. I would be outraged and I think many women would have those feelings too. I concede a woman's expression of that rage would typically be much more subdued. From what I've read he realized it was horrible to have those thoughts. To focus his anger on all black men was disturbing though.

Edit: I'll confess that I misread your post the first time. We are basically saying the same thing.
 
Last edited:

Saintamaniac

Purple & Gold for Life
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
3,377
Reaction score
6,207
Age
49
Location
Laplace, LA
Offline
No, he did not say that. What he said was bad enough, but that was that he went out "hoping I’d be approached by somebody", who'd "have a go at me about something", so he could take out his anger on them, by killing them.

Not "any black man", or "the first black man he found", but a black man who'd approach him and have a go at him. Which evidently didn't happen.

That's more than bad enough to criticise. He's essentially conflating a random black man who'd approach him and have a go at him with the rapist. But it's not the same as putting literally any black man in that group.

That said, John Barnes (black British football-, sorry, soccer legend) has a different take on it to what I just said, but one which is worth considering I think: https://news.sky.com/story/amp/john-barnes-liam-neeson-deserves-a-medal-for-race-admission-11628709
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Doesn't "random" like literally mean "any"? How are you seeing a difference? It seems that the only prerequisite would be the color of the person's skin. Fat , skinny, tall, short ....no matter as long as they were black. It is EXACTLY the same as putting literally any black man in that group. You may want to revisit the definition of random and any. They mean the same thing.
 

Arathrael

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Apr 23, 2014
Messages
797
Reaction score
2,082
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Doesn't "random" like literally mean "any"? How are you seeing a difference? It seems that the only prerequisite would be the color of the person's skin. Fat , skinny, tall, short ....no matter as long as they were black. It is EXACTLY the same as putting literally any black man in that group. You may want to revisit the definition of random and any. They mean the same thing.
I think you may want to revisit reading entire sentences. It's not the difference between "any black man" and "random black man", it's the difference between "any black man" and "random black man who'd approach him and have a go at him", as I said.

Unless you think "black man who'd approach him and have a go at him" is the same as "any black man", they're very different things. And if you did think they were the same, you'd be saying all black men approach people and have a go at them, and I don't think so.
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
48,519
Reaction score
73,503
Location
by the cemeteries
Offline
I think you may want to revisit reading entire sentences. It's not the difference between "any black man" and "random black man", it's the difference between "any black man" and "random black man who'd approach him and have a go at him", as I said.

Unless you think "black man who'd approach him and have a go at him" is the same as "any black man", they're very different things. And if you did think they were the same, you'd be saying all black men approach people and have a go at them, and I don't think so.
Not really a big enough difference to bother with the nuance
The context is clear enough
 

Arathrael

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Apr 23, 2014
Messages
797
Reaction score
2,082
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
Not really a big enough difference to bother with the nuance
The context is clear enough
Hey, I thought it was clear, but apparently it isn't.

It's a significant difference. For starters, it's the difference between Neeson having actually attacked someone and not; it wouldn't have been hard for him to find literally any black man. But he wasn't looking for any black man. He was looking for one who would have a go at him, one who in his warped view he could conflate with the rapist and who deserved to be attacked.

He was essentially going out as a vigilante for a week and a half, specifically looking for black male targets. That is undeniably bad. It is not the same as being a serial killer who goes out looking for black male victims. Those are very different.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)




Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom