Liam Neeson says some mad shit

[David]

16 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.

Christ, I never saw this while I was typing my reply, but this kind of plays into where I said;

3 minutes ago, David said:

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.

 

[Brewster McCloud]

1 minute ago, Carbomb said:

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).

It's not the fact that's it's possible to write about both - Neeson's confession should have been dealt with on TMZ, not ostensibly serious newspapers. His "intent to commit murder" is very possibly humbug, said, recklessly, by someone on promotional duty. It's hardly news, is it? And yet here we are talking about it. I've no idea if Liam Neeson actually did walk around with a weapon looking to harm someone of a contrasting hue or whether he simply thought, stupidly, it would be a thing to say that would boost his image. 

#MeToo is a separate issue, and he's hardly the first to say silly things about it. Hollywood is a closed community that looks after its own; you only need to look at how Roman Polanski is regarded to understand that. I don't know why you hate the word "hysteria" but the fact we're talking about an actor's thought would suggest to me that it's absolutely appropriate. 

[Loki]

First of all, what a fucking idiot.  I suspect he thought the story would make him seem a bit hard as well as somehow relatable?  A massive mistake to air this shit in public.

That said, I'm not sure what the benefit is when someone admits to having been a racist in his youth, and saying he realised it was wrong, to then point the finger at him and shout "racist".

Well, yes, he admitted that.  But as badly as he handled the interview, I think it's clear his point was that rage took him to a dark place and he was disgusted by that.  And if he then lived the next 40 years of his life NOT being racist, then that's a good thing right?

I'm not Neeson's age, but I was born in the 70s, and life really WAS a lot different.  Sexism and racism weren't a private shame, they were everywhere in public life and tv, usually a nod and a wink to say that it was basically ok.  You'd hear racist jokes all the time in the schoolyard, from kids who had no idea what they actually meant.  The same was true of gay jokes, that was about 90% of all kid jokes.  

So like most people of even my generation, I had to undergo a journey away from that and into realising that was wrong, as a teenager.  And obviously there were plenty of people who never did and continue to hold such views.

I think it's a good thing for a public figure to talk about this, even in such an offhand and odd way.  Most people 40 and up will have said some pretty terrible shit in their time, by modern standards, and you can't take that back, but it doesn't define your entire life I would hope.

[Carbomb]

2 minutes ago, David said:

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.

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.

OK, I can take that point. I still think it's focusing a little too much on the method of delivery rather than the content, but I can see where you're coming from.

2 minutes ago, David said:

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.

But I'm also talking about the here and now, and there have been a number of blog articles published in the past few days discussing this matter relatively extensively. The stuff on social media is largely ridiculous, but that isn't what I'm referring to. I'm with Barnes on the stripping of the OBE thing; unless people are prepared to have Churchill's legacy completely levelled for his racism, human rights violations, and genocide, Neeson doesn't deserve anywhere near that. 

2 minutes ago, David said:

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.

This cuts to the heart of the issue: he contextualised the murderous intent by placing it against the backdrop of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, where for him and others like him, internecine violence was normalised. He didn't contextualise the racism nor did he express himself in such a way as to make his contrition clear.

2 minutes ago, David said:

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? 

Absolutely. I really hope he either had her family's permission to discuss it, or they've raked him over the coals for bringing it up.

2 minutes ago, David said:

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.

What, so people like you and me can't go into detailed debate about the nature of racialised violence and abuse in the 21st Century because of a bunch of skids on social media?

We're part of "the conversation" too (lord, I hate that expression, but here we are), and we're advocating scrutiny and nuanced response. Sure, we're not reaching a huge portion of the population, but I daresay this whole thread is reaching a fair number, and if we're at it, chances are that many others are too.

2 minutes ago, David said:

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.

Normally, I'd be cynical enough to agree with you, but I'm a little more optimistic these days. I've seen a fair few over the years on numerous topics to stop me slitting my wrists at the state of it.

2 minutes ago, David said:

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

 

Yeah, and I agree, but you also talked about how no-one was discussing the reaction of a young man to friend being raped, with focus on the racism. But hey - a bloke brought up racism, it's a bit hollow to write off others discussing his racism as sensationalism. You are absolutely right in that he should have kept his mouth firmly shut, particularly as he didn't actually kill anyone. Through dumb luck, the world knows Liam Neeson as a Hollywood actor, and not a racist murderer languishing in gaol.

[Brewster McCloud]

16 minutes ago, David said:

Christ, I never saw this while I was typing my reply, but this kind of plays into where I said;

 

Except I didn't back Neeson, take a jab at snowflakes or say that the country (which?) was going to the dogs. I do think it's an overreaction, though, so well done for spotting that. 

[Carbomb]

5 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

It's not the fact that's it's possible to write about both - Neeson's confession should have been dealt with on TMZ, not ostensibly serious newspapers. His "intent to commit murder" is very possibly humbug, said, recklessly, by someone on promotional duty. It's hardly news, is it? And yet here we are talking about it. I've no idea if Liam Neeson actually did walk around with a weapon looking to harm someone of a contrasting hue or whether he simply thought, stupidly, it would be a thing to say that would boost his image. 

You think TMZ is an appropriate milieu to discuss the nature of racism and motivation to murderous violence? 

It's a serious issue, and nobody has to have died for it to be taken seriously. We're not talking about arresting him or putting him on trial, this is a discussion on the nature of a society that can give rise to someone thinking that way, because if it's happened to one person who didn't commit any murders, chances are it's happened to those who did. Even commentators defending him are taking it seriously.

5 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

#MeToo is a separate issue, and he's hardly the first to say silly things about it. Hollywood is a closed community that looks after its own; you only need to look at how Roman Polanski is regarded to understand that. I don't know why you hate the word "hysteria" but the fact we're talking about an actor's thought would suggest to me that it's absolutely appropriate. 

It's not separate in the context of someone's reaction to a social justice issue.

(I hate the word "hysteria" because of its origins - the implication that it's a form of frivolous insanity derived from having a womb.) And no, it's not appropriate - do you not understand yet that thoughts, ideas, beliefs, etc. are the pre-cursor to and motivation for action? Racial violence doesn't happen out of nowhere, it starts with social conditioning, and the point of all this is to say "this guy has admitted to being a racist, but hasn't denounced it enough for people to think he's got past it, and may influence others into thinking the same things".

[Brewster McCloud]

12 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

You think TMZ is an appropriate milieu to discuss the nature of racism and motivation to murderous violence? 

It's a serious issue, and nobody has to have died for it to be taken seriously. We're not talking about arresting him or putting him on trial, this is a discussion on the nature of a society that can give rise to someone thinking that way, because if it's happened to one person who didn't commit any murders, chances are it's happened to those who did. Even commentators defending him are taking it seriously.

It's not separate in the context of someone's reaction to a social justice issue.

(I hate the word "hysteria" because of its origins - the implication that it's a form of frivolous insanity derived from having a womb.) And no, it's not appropriate - do you not understand yet that thoughts, ideas, beliefs, etc. are the pre-cursor to and motivation for action? Racial violence doesn't happen out of nowhere, it starts with social conditioning, and the point of all this is to say "this guy has admitted to being a racist, but hasn't denounced it enough for people to think he's got past it, and may influence others into thinking the same things".

I think any bullshit that actors spout should be dealt with in the gossip columns, yes, unless they do something truly outrageous based on the bullshit. The serious issue was already being discussed before Neeson opened his big Irish gob. People have been racist since the dawn of time, it's not some frightening new development that should get us all a-fluster. I suspect that there's no way to "denounce it enough" that will please everyone; we are a culture that has the twin flaws of venerating celebrities and having a desire to pillory them for their peccadilloes. What is an apology anymore? Everyone knows you only apologise when you get caught. How florid must it be to resonate?

[David]

2 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

But I'm also talking about the here and now, and there have been a number of blog articles published in the past few days discussing this matter relatively extensively. The stuff on social media is largely ridiculous, but that isn't what I'm referring to.

I know you aren't, but it's social media that drives the conversation today, rightly or wrongly. There were a whole load of intelligent and engaging blog posts discussing the impending doom and flawed logic of Donald Trump being elected President, but it's coming to light that it was shenanigans via social media that made all the difference.

As ridiculous as it is, social media plays a bigger part in engagement on matters such as this than anything else.

8 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

This cuts to the heart of the issue: he contextualised the murderous intent by placing it against the backdrop of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, where for him and others like him, internecine violence was normalised. He didn't contextualise the racism nor did he express himself in such a way as to make his contrition clear.

Do you know why he most likely didn't really focus on the race aspect? Because, despite what we may think in 2019, it didn't really matter back then. In fact, it could be said that in the context of his story it still doesn't matter more than the other aspects involved.

He said that if his friend had said it was a Scottish, Welsh or Lithuanian person he'd have been triggered by any of those accents. 

His story reminds me of a video I saw a while back recorded by a guy in a work van, parked on the side of a residential road having his lunch. He was approached by a guy who claimed to live nearby and who wanted to ask why he was parked there. The guy said he had been working in a house further down the road and was just having his lunch.

The guy who approached him told him to "fucking move on then" and go elsewhere, to which the driver asked him to calm down, and told him he was just having his lunch.

The guy then kicked out at the van, and told him to get his van off his fucking street. As the driver went to exit his van, understandably angry, the guy pulled out a hunting knife and asked him if he wanted to die. The driver locked his doors and started his engine, but not before you heard the guy yelling about how a van knocked down his mother and killed her as she crossed her street and there was no fucking way he'd let something like that happen again.

Totally irrational of course, but a traumatic event that triggered the response brought about by seeing this guy on his street in a van. 

I think, from reading what Neeson said, that his act wasn't racist. it was a case of someone temporarily losing the plot due to getting really bad news, and acting out in a way that isn't all that uncommon.

It just so happened that the perpetrator was black. In the same way as it just so happened that guys mother was knocked down and killed by a van driver going too fast down her street.

We've seen an event described by someone who struggled to deal with a situation involving the rape of a friend, how people (especially males) process such information, how they deal with their anger in such circumstances, and how this reaction would affect their friend who's already dealing with the traumatic experience of being raped.

But all of that has become an afterthought. One detail of the story has been picked up on and ran with, with the rest being discarded entirely. As I asked before, how do you think the reaction would have went to this story if Neeson hadn't mentioned that the culprit was black? Let's imagine if she'd told him the guy was English? Would we have seen more focus on the other aspects of the story? 

The racist aspect is just as important as the other factors, but for me it's not more important, which is how it's playing out.

We're not seeing hysteria and social media campaigns to strip him of his OBE or boycott his movies because he wanted to kill an innocent person, are we? Or because of how he reacted to his friend being raped?

What we've learned from this whole episode, and what some of us sadly already knew, is that you can't broach situations like this and expect a civilised, grown-up reaction. That's not how our society operates.

28 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Neeson's confession should have been dealt with on TMZ, not ostensibly serious newspapers. His "intent to commit murder" is very possibly humbug, said, recklessly, by someone on promotional duty. It's hardly news, is it? And yet here we are talking about it.

I can't agree with any of that. 

I've went into detail on why what he said is important enough to discuss. All of the factors involved are important, and they play out in young male minds across the country on a weekly, if not daily basis, when something harrowing occurs in their lives. The van driver in my story above could very easily have been another statistic, but the story would likely have received little by way of column inches.

[BomberPat]

9 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

People have been racist since the dawn of time, it's not some frightening new development that should get us all a-fluster. I suspect that there's no way to "denounce it enough" that will please everyone

Oh right, it's been around forever, so let's not make a fuss about it? 

Yesterday would have been Trayvon Martin's birthday, if he hadn't been murdered by a self-styled vigilante who stalked him and shot him based solely on him being a black teenager. Liam Neeson spouting racist revenge fantasies, and then being granted the platform to give an "I'm not racist" apology on national television, does not exist in a vacuum, it's part of a long history of vilification of people of colour that has real life consequences. 

The extent to which some of you are bending over backwards to claim that, "hoping I could kill a black bastard" is somehow not racist is staggering. 

[Carbomb]

5 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

I think any bullshit that actors spout should be dealt with in the gossip columns, yes, unless they do something truly outrageous based on the bullshit. The serious issue was already being discussed before Neeson opened his big Irish gob. People have been racist since the dawn of time, it's not some frightening new development that should get us all a-fluster. I suspect that there's no way to "denounce it enough" that will please everyone; we are a culture that has the twin flaws of venerating celebrities and having a desire to pillory them for their peccadilloes. What is an apology anymore? Everyone knows you only apologise when you get caught. How florid must it be to resonate?

For some reason, not being allowed to split the post any more.

Bit in Italics: It's not gossip - it's a serious issue, regardless of who's spouting it. Roseanne Barr didn't actually do anything, but she said something significant enough that people felt it had to be dealt with. It's about the influence they have, which you've pointed out in this post. And yes, the issue was already being discussed, and now Neeson's utterances have been submitted as the most recent entry to a body of instances up for discussion. 

Bit in bold: Just because it isn't new doesn't mean people shouldn't get pissed off. It's 2019, and issues that should've been dealt with a long time ago are still emerging today. 

Bit in regular: Who's asking for floridity? Everyone I've spoken to has expressed concerns about the content of his apology, not his diction. To take one anecdotal example from a friend of mine (and, needless to say, I'm aware she's not the ultimate authority on this, but her views are as valid as any other POC's): 'Not once did he or his interviewer say "that was racist." Nor did he say "I have some internal conditioning that I have worked hard to overcome" no personal accountability.'

 

[tiger_rick]

9 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

Oh right, it's been around forever, so let's not make a fuss about it? 

Yesterday would have been Trayvon Martin's birthday, if he hadn't been murdered by a self-styled vigilante who stalked him and shot him based solely on him being a black teenager. Liam Neeson spouting racist revenge fantasies, and then being granted the platform to give an "I'm not racist" apology on national television, does not exist in a vacuum, it's part of a long history of vilification of people of colour that has real life consequences. 

The extent to which some of you are bending over backwards to claim that, "hoping I could kill a black bastard" is somehow not racist is staggering. 

Not getting into anything Brewster says because he's a div but on Neeson, that's John Barnes exact point. He's not denying that it's racist or claiming it's not disgusting. He's saying he's not racist because he was ashamed of himself and his actions and changed.

That's what we need all racists to do. Not sweep it away because "that's how it's always been" but people to realise that their behaviour is abhorrent and change themselves and their peers. I think that's been lost because, as pointed out, loads of white people are hiding behind John Barnes "defence" of Neeson because it suits them. But Barnes IS right. As he often is.

[Brewster McCloud]

1 minute ago, BomberPat said:

Oh right, it's been around forever, so let's not make a fuss about it? 

Yesterday would have been Trayvon Martin's birthday, if he hadn't been murdered by a self-styled vigilante who stalked him and shot him based solely on him being a black teenager. Liam Neeson spouting racist revenge fantasies, and then being granted the platform to give an "I'm not racist" apology on national television, does not exist in a vacuum, it's part of a long history of vilification of people of colour that has real life consequences. 

Make a fuss if you wish, when it comes to actual crimes with actual victims I think we should, but not in this case.

How many self-styled vigilantes do you think are out there doing their self-styled vigilante things? You have, weirdly, linked the Trayvon Martin case to Liam Neeson's previously private thoughts, but I can't see the connection. The problem is the platmormer, not the platmormee. 

[Carbomb]

23 minutes ago, David said:

I know you aren't, but it's social media that drives the conversation today, rightly or wrongly. There were a whole load of intelligent and engaging blog posts discussing the impending doom and flawed logic of Donald Trump being elected President, but it's coming to light that it was shenanigans via social media that made all the difference.

As ridiculous as it is, social media plays a bigger part in engagement on matters such as this than anything else.

Depressing, but probably true, I guess.

Quote

Do you know why he most likely didn't really focus on the race aspect? Because, despite what we may think in 2019, it didn't really matter back then. In fact, it could be said that in the context of his story it still doesn't matter more than the other aspects involved.

It matters now, and he knows it matters now. He didn't do that interview in the 70s, he did it in 2019, to publicise a film for a potential audience in 2019. Race is an issue now, particularly now, it's not something that can be brought up as a throwaway.

Quote

He said that if his friend had said it was a Scottish, Welsh or Lithuanian person he'd have been triggered by any of those accents. 

And I personally accept his clarification. I'm not, however, going to dismiss the concerns of those who simply feel he's engaging in damage control and trying to walk his comments back. 

Quote

His story reminds me of a video I saw a while back recorded by a guy in a work van, parked on the side of a residential road having his lunch. He was approached by a guy who claimed to live nearby and who wanted to ask why he was parked there. The guy said he had been working in a house further down the road and was just having his lunch.

The guy who approached him told him to "fucking move on then" and go elsewhere, to which the driver asked him to calm down, and told him he was just having his lunch.

The guy then kicked out at the van, and told him to get his van off his fucking street. As the driver went to exit his van, understandably angry, the guy pulled out a hunting knife and asked him if he wanted to die. The driver locked his doors and started his engine, but not before you heard the guy yelling about how a van knocked down his mother and killed her as she crossed her street and there was no fucking way he'd let something like that happen again.

Totally irrational of course, but a traumatic event that triggered the response brought about by seeing this guy on his street in a van. 

I think, from reading what Neeson said, that his act wasn't racist. it was a case of someone temporarily losing the plot due to getting really bad news, and acting out in a way that isn't all that uncommon.

It just so happened that the perpetrator was black. In the same way as it just so happened that guys mother was knocked down and killed by a van driver going too fast down her street.

We've seen an event described by someone who struggled to deal with a situation involving the rape of a friend, how people (especially males) process such information, how they deal with their anger in such circumstances, and how this reaction would affect their friend who's already dealing with the traumatic experience of being raped.

But all of that has become an afterthought. One detail of the story has been picked up on and ran with, with the rest being discarded entirely. As I asked before, how do you think the reaction would have went to this story if Neeson hadn't mentioned that the culprit was black? Let's imagine if she'd told him the guy was English? Would we have seen more focus on the other aspects of the story? 

The racist aspect is just as important as the other factors, but for me it's not more important, which is how it's playing out.

Sorry, but that's bullshit. It was racist, he focused on the guy's race and no other aspects of the guy who raped his friend. There's nothing wrong with admitting it if he also admits he was utterly wrong and had to evolve past what he was, but don't make excuses for the guy.

Quote

We're not seeing hysteria and social media campaigns to strip him of his OBE or boycott his movies because he wanted to kill an innocent person, are we? Or because of how he reacted to his friend being raped?

What we've learned from this whole episode, and what some of us sadly already knew, is that you can't broach situations like this and expect a civilised, grown-up reaction. That's not how our society operates.

Or maybe you can broach topics like this provided you understand the need to address it in a way that assuages all the concerns that usually generates a backlash like the one he's getting. He'd still get a bit of one, but not one this big.

 

EDIT: Look, I think we're starting to circle a bit, so I think I'd better finish up my portion here until something new shows up. 

Here are my views as they stand: Liam Neeson has admitted to something horrendous, and feels ashamed and contrite for it. I personally believe, like others, that he has evolved past it, and is probably a decent human being now, and therefore deserves a little forgiveness. However, others are not satisfied because of how he expressed it, and the fact that he used both a friend's personal tragedy and opened up a racial issue to publicise a film, and has not, to their minds, shown sufficient regret with his words or actions - and I will not dismiss those concerns as "an overreaction", and I certainly don't think it's the prerogative of white people who think he should be forgiven to tell black people who don't that they're over-reacting.

[BomberPat]

1 minute ago, tiger_rick said:

Not getting into anything Brewster says because he's a div but on Neeson, that's John Barnes exact point. He's not denying that it's racist or claiming it's not disgusting. He's saying he's not racist because he was ashamed of himself and his actions and changed.

That's what we need all racists to do. Not sweep it away because "that's how it's always been" but people to realise that their behaviour is abhorrent and change themselves and their peers. I think that's been lost because, as pointed out, loads of white people are hiding behind John Barnes "defence" of Neeson because it suits them. But Barnes IS right. As he often is.

I mostly agree with this.

I still think it was irresponsible (and bizarre) for Neeson to say it, precisely because of the reasons I mentioned earlier - this isn't a standalone revenge fantasy of one bloke in Ireland in the '70s, it's something contextualised by hundreds of years of racist ideas, and of white vigilante-ism against black men. I don't buy for a second that Neeson would have had the same mindset had the perpetrator been Lithuanian or Scottish or whatever - it's a lynching fantasy and nothing more. To give voice to that fantasy, even as some regrettable vestige of his youth, will have plenty of people saying, "yeah, Liam Neeson did nothing wrong" (try doing a Twitter search for his name, or even the exact phrase "Liam Neeson did nothing wrong"), and hearing their racist world-view given a platform will embolden them.

And, yes, Neeson admitted that to have that mindset was wrong, but the whole thing is still incredibly sketchy. His apology was, as Carbomb said, insubstantial at best. And, to go back to the old Jeremy Hardy bit, there are countless people out there who have never indulged racist revenge fantasies in the first place, so I'm not going to spend my time patting someone on the back for having had one and then changed their mind.

[BomberPat]

7 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Make a fuss if you wish, when it comes to actual crimes with actual victims I think we should, but not in this case.

How many self-styled vigilantes do you think are out there doing their self-styled vigilante things? You have, weirdly, linked the Trayvon Martin case to Liam Neeson's previously private thoughts, but I can't see the connection. The problem is the platmormer, not the platmormee. 

I mentioned the Trayvon Martin case because the timing was prescient, and because it was a case of a black man being murdered for his blackness by a self-styled keeper of the peace who pursued and stalked him against police instructions. The exact thing that Neeson had admitted to fantasizing about.

Read Ibram X. Kendi's "Stamped From The Beginning" - the mentality Neeson has admitted to has had real life consequence for centuries, and continue to do so today. Maybe you think context doesn't matter and that racist rhetoric is somehow wholly unrelated to racist actions, but that's not borne out by reality.