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

The full original article is here: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...-man-revenge-taken-cold-pursuit-a8760896.html

I think it's absolutely fair to criticise Neeson, and he deserves it. I would also add that it's important for criticism to be directed and fully informed, and it's fair to note that he appears to agree with the criticism; he described it as "awful", and "horrible" himself, and said that while he understands "that need for revenge," "it just leads to more revenge, to more killing and more killing, and Northern Ireland’s proof of that." He's not advocating it, he's condemning it, while recognising his own personal failing in his response to that incident.

He still deserves to be criticised, obviously. He doesn't deserve to be criticised as if he was saying this was a good response, something to be proud of, or even something tolerable, though.
Well, I got that, without even reading it, that he wasn't saying it was a thought he was proud of. BUT still, it was his first thought, which, again, means a man trying to make a thing that WASN'T about him ABOUT HIM. Textbook "toxic masculinity". Which is kinda a good illustration what we women's been going on about rausing up such a ruckus.

Look, you don't have to agree with me here before you guys get all your dander up. I'm just offering you guys some insight from my perspective.
 
The bigger issue is Neeson saying he wanted to go to town on the first black man he found. Not the one that raped his friend. Just any black man. He's blaming an entire ethnicity/race for the actions of one.
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
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
Personally, I'm not dragging Liam Neeson through the mud, I'm dragging ALL men through it.
giphy.gif
 
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.
 

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

    Back
    Top Bottom