Liam Neeson says some mad shit

[Murtz]

It's amazing that the majority seem to be more appalled by the racist remarks over the fact that he wanted to kill someone. Racism > Murder.

[Factotum]

Ironically it is now Neeson who finds himself under the cosh

I apologise for that. I'm off to buy a black turtleneck

[Brewster McCloud]

I do wonder if Neeson, being a cosseted Hollywood celebrity who now makes his money starring in entertainingly stupid revenge films, without a clue about reality - as no famous person seemingly does - merely thought he was upping his hardman gimmick and chucking in a confession, to lead to ego-stroking support from idiots on social media and redemption, into the bargain - #Weshouldallbesohonest - trying to kill 2 birds and missing wildly? The reformed racist gambit might have worked if he hadn’t mentioned walking around with a weapon and singling out a specific race as a target, which is just mental and something most people in traumatic situations don’t do, regardless of the skin tone of whoever did one wrong. Marky Mark did something much worse in his salad days, committing an actually racially motivated crime, but hey ho, let’s vent spleen about Neeson and show to everyone what good non-racists we are by castigating the fucker.

Nevertheless, his cack-handed admission has hopefully made some people realise, through Internet badinage, that saying something bovine isn’t itself a crime, and we should probably focus our attention on the actual crimes being committed by far worse cunts in power, rather than some dickhead actor with a film to promote. Whataboutery? Perhaps. I was far more angered by Trump's speech than Neeson's peculiar anecdote, though.

[Carbomb]

14 hours ago, David said:

The article is terrible. 

Are you saying Younge is "getting racism all wrong"? 

I'm not saying I agree with him all the way through, but he's just conveyed a viewpoint that has arisen from his lived experience as a black person, and you've gone and dismissed it. I think it deserves a little more than you scoffing at it as "ridiculous" or "terrible".

This has been a very controversial and much-discussed issue. There are plenty of commentators online who have taken positions on either side of the argument, and have made excellent points, as well as people amongst my own personal acquaintance, my own family included. There are many who believe that Neeson should be forgiven, even lauded, for his honesty and his self-reflection, whereas there are others who believe he has insufficiently dealt with the issues stemming from what he's said, taking no actual personal responsibility for his internal conditioning, and still others who believe he's cynically commodified a friend's personal tragedy and black pain to market a film.

[Brewster McCloud]

20 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Are you saying Younge is "getting racism all wrong"? 

I'm not saying I agree with him all the way through, but he's just conveyed a viewpoint that has arisen from his lived experience as a black person, and you've gone and dismissed it. I think it deserves a little more than you scoffing at it as "ridiculous" or "terrible".

 

Sorry to jump in here, but it could have been a better article. He says this: "Because the sanctity of black life has yet to be settled. When some white people look at us they see anything from a misplaced grievance to a cautionary tale. What they do not see are human beings. We are still fair game." Now that's just pathos-inducing claptrap, isn't it? He's talking about a tiny minority of people who are so aberrant they're not worthy of being part of the discussion. The sanctity of black life has yet to be settled? Erm, the "sanctity" of all life has been settled in law. I mean, is he really suggesting that black life is somehow more precious than anyone else's life? What an odd choice of word. 

[David]

20 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Are you saying Younge is "getting racism all wrong"? 

No, I'm saying it's a terrible article. It looks like he's written it quickly in order to maximise exposure while the topic is "hot news." 

21 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

I'm not saying I agree with him all the way through, but he's just conveyed a viewpoint that has arisen from his lived experience as a black person, and you've gone and dismissed it. I think it deserves a little more than you scoffing at it as "ridiculous" or "terrible".

Again, I'm not dismissing his experiences or his viewpoint, I just think the article itself is terrible. I pointed out the reasons why. I've read his stuff before, so I know that even though I don't always agree with him he isn't stupid. He's obviously hit publish without reading back what he's written.

Maybe he was hit with a directive from his editor to put something together quickly? Regardless, it's not his finest article by a long shot.

24 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

This has been a very controversial and much-discussed issue. There are plenty of commentators online who have taken positions on either side of the argument, and have made excellent points, as well as people amongst my own personal acquaintance, my own family included. There are many who believe that Neeson should be forgiven, even lauded, for his honesty and his self-reflection, whereas there are others who believe he has insufficiently dealt with the issues stemming from what he's said, taking no actual personal responsibility for his internal conditioning, and still others who believe he's cynically commodified a friend's personal tragedy and black pain to market a film.

Absolutely, there are a ton of viewpoints out there. Some of them valid, most of them absolute tosh in my opinion. Like I said, opinions expressed in 280 characters or less with accompanying hashtags. It's the era we live in, and when you have people trying to discuss a matter like this under such restrictions the wheels are always destined to fall off.

The problem with someone like Neeson coming out and saying what he did, no matter how misguided or how badly he expressed it, is that in today's world it's going to be leapt upon as an opportunity to increase Twitter followers, gain a spike in ad revenue from website traffic and "be first" with an opinion piece that gets the writer and their publication on the first page of Google. 

It's sad, but any slim chance of something positive being taken from Neeson's message was literally dead the minute it was first broadcast. How a young man reacts to a dear friend being raped, how he dealt with his emotions in entirely the wrong way, how the female involved is afforded hardly a second thought, any of it. We're now hit by a deluge of people trying to work their own angle, while the actual situation he describes plays second fiddle.

Like I said, he'd have been better keeping his mouth shut. There's nowhere near the capacity to deal with such matters in a constructive manner today. It just doesn't work.

[Hannibal Scorch]

I think it was either a very brave move or stupid to have admitted this. The thing is, from my point of view, he has said he did something we can all agree is racist. He followed that up with how appalled he was that he even felt/acted in that way.

No one should applaud him for not murdering a black man. But he has candidly admitted to something he almost immedietly regretted. I was mugged and beaten by a gang of black teenagers when I was younger. I never went out to beat anyone up, however for a few years after I would see a group of black men together and change direction or cross the road because I immediately felt the worst was going to happen. Was I racist? I guess I was, I just never saw it that way. Of course, I later realized that this could have been any group of people that had done this and now I am always cautious but I don't think the worst of people because of their skin color. Because lets face it, cunts come in all different creeds and colours. 

[BomberPat]

7 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

I mean, is he really suggesting that black life is somehow more precious than anyone else's life? What an odd choice of word. 

No, he's suggesting that black life is largely considered less precious than other lives. And there are plenty of innocent teenagers murdered by American police, posthumously put through the wringer of trial-by-media and described as "thugs" or left to Fox News to debate whether they deserved to be murdered by the police, that would be able to attest to that, were they still around to do so.

[Carbomb]

2 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Sorry to jump in here, but it could have been a better article. He says this: "Because the sanctity of black life has yet to be settled. When some white people look at us they see anything from a misplaced grievance to a cautionary tale. What they do not see are human beings. We are still fair game." Now that's just pathos-inducing claptrap, isn't it? He's talking about a tiny minority of people who are so aberrant they're not worthy of being part of the discussion. The sanctity of black life has yet to be settled? Erm, the "sanctity" of all life has been settled in law. I mean, is he really suggesting that black life is somehow more precious than anyone else's life? What an odd choice of word. 

Firstly, the sanctity of life being settled in law doesn't mean it's been settled in practice, and I think you're intelligent enough to know that that is a frequently-occurring disconnect with many things.

Secondly, are you really going for the #AllLivesMatter tag? The wilful misinterpretation of Black Lives Matter as "Only Black Lives Matter" instead of its actual, intended meaning of "Black Lives Matter Too"? He's clearly not suggesting black life is more precious than others, and quite frankly, I think anyone who's displayed at least a modicum of intelligence who chooses to interpret it that way is being wilfully disingenuous.

Thirdly, it's not "pathos-inducing claptrap". The sheer number of black deaths at the hands of the police in the US, and the spike in racial abuse in the UK following Brexit suggests that it's not a "tiny minority", or at the very least it's not a minority that we can afford to ignore, given that their narrative is not being challenged effectively enough either by society, the media, or government.

[Brewster McCloud]

9 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Firstly, the sanctity of life being settled in law doesn't mean it's been settled in practice, and I think you're intelligent enough to know that that is a frequently-occurring disconnect with many things.

Secondly, are you really going for the #AllLivesMatter tag? The wilful misinterpretation of Black Lives Matter as "Only Black Lives Matter" instead of its actual, intended meaning of "Black Lives Matter Too"? He's clearly not suggesting black life is more precious than others, and quite frankly, I think anyone who's displayed at least a modicum of intelligence who chooses to interpret it that way is being wilfully disingenuous.

Thirdly, it's not "pathos-inducing claptrap". The sheer number of black deaths at the hands of the police in the US, and the spike in racial abuse in the UK following Brexit suggests that it's not a "tiny minority", or at the very least it's not a minority that we can afford to ignore, given that their narrative is not being challenged effectively enough either by society, the media, or government.

Of course, I'm well aware that black people, especially in America, get a bum deal by the rozzers. It's an issue worth discussing, but is an actor saying something stupid the right platform on which to inflame emotions? I think not. I didn't choose to interpret it that way, but I could see how others could. My beef is with lousy Guardian journalism, not victims of racially motivated crime. And, it is, statisically, a tiny minority. We shouldn't ignore it/them, but it's not like there's some massive resurgance of lynching. 

[Carbomb]

6 minutes ago, David said:

No, I'm saying it's a terrible article. It looks like he's written it quickly in order to maximise exposure while the topic is "hot news." 

Again, I'm not dismissing his experiences or his viewpoint, I just think the article itself is terrible. I pointed out the reasons why. I've read his stuff before, so I know that even though I don't always agree with him he isn't stupid. He's obviously hit publish without reading back what he's written.

Maybe he was hit with a directive from his editor to put something together quickly? Regardless, it's not his finest article by a long shot.

Given that your response only dealt with what you thought was ridiculous, and didn't address any of the valid points he raised, you can see why I thought you might be dismissing him, yes? Especially as you were championing Barnes, who, whilst I agree with a big chunk of what he said, came out with the equally-ridiculous claim that Neeson should get a medal.

6 minutes ago, David said:

Absolutely, there are a ton of viewpoints out there. Some of them valid, most of them absolute tosh in my opinion. Like I said, opinions expressed in 280 characters or less with accompanying hashtags. It's the era we live in, and when you have people trying to discuss a matter like this under such restrictions the wheels are always destined to fall off.

I'm not just talking about tweets, though. I'm talking about articles, extensive threads, interviews, and conversations. This subject has been gone into plenty of times in detail from many angles, both in terms of itself, and of countless precedents.

6 minutes ago, David said:

The problem with someone like Neeson coming out and saying what he did, no matter how misguided or how badly he expressed it, is that in today's world it's going to be leapt upon as an opportunity to increase Twitter followers, gain a spike in ad revenue from website traffic and "be first" with an opinion piece that gets the writer and their publication on the first page of Google. 

It's sad, but any slim chance of something positive being taken from Neeson's message was literally dead the minute it was first broadcast. How a young man reacts to a dear friend being raped, how he dealt with his emotions in entirely the wrong way, how the female involved is afforded hardly a second thought, any of it. We're now hit by a deluge of people trying to work their own angle, while the actual situation he describes plays second fiddle.

Like I said, he'd have been better keeping his mouth shut. There's nowhere near the capacity to deal with such matters in a constructive manner today. It just doesn't work.

That's his own fault, though: he himself brought up the story as a means of publicising his film, and he himself said his first reaction was to ask about the race of the man. 

[Carbomb]

9 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Of course, I'm well aware that black people, especially in America, get a bum deal by the rozzers. It's an issue worth discussing, but is an actor saying something stupid the right platform on which to inflame emotions? I think not. I didn't choose to interpret it that way, but I could see how others could. My beef is with lousy Guardian journalism, not victims of racially motivated crime. 

Emotions are already inflamed, and the response Neeson is getting is because people are feeling unsafe and vulnerable, and they know that such viewpoints need to be addressed and dealt with before they're normalised, and at the absolute least, let others know that these issues are important, and will be scrutinised unlike before, when they were ignored or trivialised. Especially in this era, where racists are indeed now feeling emboldened enough to try and drag things back to what they were thirty or forty years ago.

Younge may have been guilty of using overly-emotional language, but it doesn't make the article lousy, as his points are still valid. And there's a school of thought amongst journalists on social justice that believes that, given the populist and overly-emotional approach of the alt-right and white supremacist movement, it's necessary to fight fire with fire and use the same mechanisms to appeal to people that their opponents have, as they've clearly been effective. Not an approach I would use, but I'm not going to write off the content of what he's written because of the manner in which he's written it.

EDIT: Given that you've edited your post - so what if it is statistically tiny? It's still having enough of an influence on others. The US is in grips of MAGA, who are a large enough movement to damage all the progress made by civil rights and social justice movements. At worst, that tiny minority are influential enough to get a large chunk of the population to, if not engage in committing grievances against POC, at least shrug their shoulders at, turn a blind eye to, and offer mealy-mouthed justifications for those committed by others.

And does there have to be a "resurgence of lynching" before you'll take people at their word? POC being killed or abused in the numbers they are isn't enough? We don't get up in arms out of a vague sense of pique, you know. 

[Brewster McCloud]

3 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Emotions are already inflamed, and the response Neeson is getting is because people are feeling unsafe and vulnerable, and they know that such viewpoints need to be addressed and dealt with before they're normalised, and at the absolute least, let others know that these issues are important, and will be scrutinised unlike before, when they were ignored or trivialised. Especially in this era, where racists are indeed now feeling emboldened enough to try and drag things back to what they were thirty or forty years ago.

Younge may have been guilty of using overly-emotional language, but it doesn't make the article lousy, as his points are still valid. And there's a school of thought amongst journalists on social justice that believes that, given the populist and overly-emotional approach of the alt-right and white supremacist movement, it's necessary to fight fire with fire and use the same mechanisms to appeal to people that their opponents have, as they've clearly been effective. Not an approach I would use, but I'm not going to write off the content of what he's written because of the manner in which he's written it.

Yes, fine. But! But! Neeson didn't commit a crime. Let's not piss our pants. There are more deserving targets, so write an article about them instead. I don't think the alt-right "movement" does rely on emotion, anyway (more like a corruption of logic), or at least no more or less than any credo does. 

[David]

1 minute ago, Carbomb said:

Given that your response only dealt with what you thought was ridiculous, and didn't address any of the valid points he raised, you can see why I thought you might be dismissing him, yes?

In fairness, you posted an article, and I addressed the article. I stand by my assessment that it's been cobbled together and is poorly written. Like I said, it doesn't do Younge justice at all in my opinion. I don't always agree, but he's usually a good read and can offer a balanced, well-written viewpoint.

That's why I reckon it may have been a directive from above to get something out there quickly, establishing The Guardian as part of the conversation early.

4 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Especially as you were championing Barnes, who, whilst I agree with a big chunk of what he said, came out with the equally-ridiculous claim that Neeson should get a medal.

I never seen the part where he said that, I saw a clip of him talking on Sky News with the presenter repeatedly trying to cut him off. 

For the record, anyone who claims that Younge doesn't know the subject matter or that he "isn't getting it right" is way off base, just as they are if they say the same thing about Barnes. Both of these guys know what they're talking about, and the very idea of their experience or views being questioned by people who haven't lived their lives is ridiculous.

That's why I'm stressing that I'm only being critical of the article, and not of the general views held by the person who wrote it. There are valid points in there, but he's all over the place and has reduced himself to making silly comments and even contradicting himself where he says he isn't going to ignore Neeson's shame before going on to completely ignore Neeson's shame.

He can do much better than that, and I've seen other readers say the same.

11 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

I'm not just talking about tweets, though. I'm talking about articles, extensive threads, interviews, and conversations. This subject has been gone into plenty of times in detail from many angles, both in terms of itself, and of countless precedents.

Yes, but I'm talking about the here & now. Sadly, the conversation tends to be driven by social media, doesn't it?

The red carpet event for his movie has been cancelled amid "fears" of the backlash, and there's now campaigns to strip him of his OBE and boycott his movies. Those aren't being created and popularised in intelligent articles, discussions and suchlike. 

They're being led on social media, by people who are trying to work their own angle and become a part of the narrative. It's the modern day version of lit torches and pitchforks.

Like I said, the other aspects have been completely downtrodden and stomped into the dirt. A snapshot into how one man in his mid 20's in the late 1970's reacted to the news that a friend was raped? The fact that the person involved actively wanted to kill someone is largely being overlooked as well in favour of the colour of the person. If he'd told the same story but left out the part about it being a black person would it have received as much coverage? Probably not. 

I've seen at least two qualified doctors claim that they believe Neeson was suffering from clinical depression when he acted this way. That's not an excuse, of course, but it could be a reason. A generally decent person doesn't usually spend a week or so actively wanting to be attacked so they can kill someone.

Where's the woman who was raped in all of this? I know she died a few years back, but she's just an afterthought now, isn't she? 

None of the above matters. What matters is starting campaigns to have meaningless awards taken away and campaigns to have people not watch his movies, all done with accompanying hashtags of course.

And just as prevalent will be the opposite side of the coin, the campaigns to back Neeson and take a jab at "snowflakes" and talk about how he didn't actually do anything wrong, how the country is going to the dogs, how everyone is overreacting.

There'll be a few decent articles written on the subject, but no one will read them. They won't be sensational enough, they won't have the right tags.

24 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

That's his own fault, though: he himself brought up the story as a means of publicising his film, and he himself said his first reaction was to ask about the race of the man. 

I never said it wasn't his own fault. He should have kept his mouth closed.

 

[Carbomb]

3 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Yes, fine. But! But! Neeson didn't commit a crime. Let's not piss our pants. There are more deserving targets, so write an article about them instead. I don't think the alt-right "movement" does rely on emotion, anyway (more like a corruption of logic), or at least no more or less than any credo does. 

It's perfectly possible to write about both, and I'm very confident that people who've written about Neeson have probably written extensively about more major issues and more deserving targets. Just as I and my family and friends are able to talk about numerous topics. 

He didn't commit a crime, but he admitted to a racist thought process that motivated him to attempt to realise an intent to murder, and it's only by sheer fortune that he didn't. Moreover, he's expressed this in an interview where his use of language left people in a lot of doubt as to whether he'd truly moved past the racist element of it. Bear in mind this is a guy who in the past has referred to the #MeToo movement as a "witch-hunt", so he'll already have a number of commentators' backs up.

The anger at Neeson isn't a "right or wrong" situation; there are plenty for whom the contrition he's thus far shown is enough for them to forgive him and move on, but there are others for whom it's not, because of their own experiences of other white people who've expressed similar sentiments, and it is infinitely preferable to discuss the nature of this anger and the situation which provoked it, rather than dismissing it as some kind of trumped-up hysteria (I hate that word, but am at a loss for a better one right now).