Is Liam Neeson a Racist? How Should We Deal With This?

1. 80

   crankaliciousposted 6 years ago

   Interesting happenings:
   
   https://ew.com/movies/2019/02/04/liam-n … XWUM5IPJQo
   
   So basically Liam Neeson admits to having racist thoughts back when a friend of his was raped by a black man. Neeson apparently went around hoping to be attacked by a black man so he could kill him as revenge. The question raised here that makes the statement blatantly racist is whether or not Neeson would have walked around hoping to be attacked by a white man if the rapist was white.
   
   So, can we clearly identify this as racism? I think we can.
   
   What is interesting that doesn't seem to be getting much play is that, as far as I can tell, Neeson is confessing to something "horrible". I mean, in order to move past being a racist, one needs to identify bad behavior and understand it.
   
   That said, admitting such a thing in the context of promoting a film is a bit weird.
   
   I know this all will probably go off the rails, but what do you think?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      After reading the article you linked, I had the impression he himself was ashamed of his actions after he had time to think about it. I despise racists of any sort, but I can forgive them when they realize their actions were wrong.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Randy, that was my impression too. He seemed to be saying that he had these horrible thoughts and realized how stupid he was being. However, he's being attacked in social media for his racism and white privilege and such.
         
         There's definite white privilege here - black people don't get to be aggressive like this without being attacked or arrested or beaten (it seems), but I think Neeson deserves some credit for recognizing these thoughts and coming to the right conclusion about them. My point in posting this was to say we need to give appropriate credit when people make amends for things they've done. Sometimes this stuff is hard when we don't know the whole context.

         replyreport
      2. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         +10000000000000000000000000000000, Randy.

         replyreport
      3. 82

         Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Well, said, Randy, I take pleasure in dealing with a truly repentant man. I forgave Robert Byrd and found him more frank and honest than say, Trent Lott.  Bryd, a dyed in the wool southern man, had the courage to stay with the Democratic Party and move with the party in a progressive direction away from its segregationist past, while his companions bolted to the Republican Party in reaction as part of the Southern Strategy.
         
         I always have room for people who can acknowledge the error of their ways.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I feel the same, Cred! The act of forgiveness is it's own reward as we also learn from other's mistakes. Some never learn though....

            replyreport
         2. 59

            Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You guys slay me. Self righteous rot. 'Only the penitent man shall pass'. The gauntlet created, with special exits for particular people, of your choosing, is stupendous.
            
            This is the problem with the left. You think you are judge and jury and will,  at times, deign to be magnanimous and forgiving. How regal of you all. Although, Neesan having a ladder for the left to crawl out of the gutter and into his head, in order to play judge and jury helped. I guess.
            
            

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I suppose this is where you claim:
               
               Actor = politician
               One self-confessed incident = several blatantly racist actions and statements
               Apologizing = doubling down and/or denying.
               
               Yeah, they're the same.
               
               Right?

               replyreport
            2. 82

               Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

               What is your problem?
               
               So, I am to just welcome this man into my company as a racist and bigoted pig who continues in that behavior unchanged?
               
               If that is what you think, than the REAL problems emanates from your side.
               
               What gauntlet? If previously offensive people change their way, don't you think the act of forgiveness is noble, or is that uncharacteristic of rightwing oriented people?
               
               Where do you get these crazy perspectives, what is the root of your problem, I don't understand?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I've seen the left cannibalize human beings who did less, further back.
                  
                  You aren't God. Accept in your divine presence, or don't. I don't believe your judgment means anymore than the next person's. None of you have some moral high ground, except in a delusional social media setting.
                  
                  Just because you'think' he's worthy of forgiveness means you think you know what motivates those you condemn. Without benefit of a conversation. Which means you are judging unfairly.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     And you're not judging us?   

                     replyreport
                  2. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Wow, you've really gone off the deep end.
                     
                     Can you give us an example of someone who volunteered to share a racist thought they had many years ago, and now deeply regrets, and who was then vilified by credence2, Randy, or myself?

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        "crickets"

                        replyreport
                  3. 82

                     Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     God has nothing to do with it. I have problems with unrepentant bigots and sexists, just a pet peeve of mine. You don't mind do you?
                     
                     My opinion and judgement is mine alone, I never said that it was a universal standard.
                     
                     When it comes to racists are you really equivocating regarding moral relevancy associated with this character failing?
                     --------------
                     I am letting this guy off of the hook, isn't that a cause to rejoice? I will withhold one of my 'plagues' as a result. So, I have said, so,it shall be done"...............

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't know if it's just cause, or not. His reaction, albeit racist, in the short run, makes sense. He was upset and wanted to lash out. Common sense prevailed and he understood the bad in that decision. Or so it seems.
                        
                        Your ability to follow, understand, and accept his progression does not make it better, or worse, than another's. It makes you more empathetic with his story. I don't see that as reason enough to condemn one in your mind and give a free pass to another. If you have ever condemned another with similar circumstances, you run the risk of hypocrisy by not doing the same in this instance.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           As far as I can tell, no one is giving him more of a pass than anyone else who readily admits he acted in a racist manner.
                           
                           No one, including your perfect self, is immune to hypocrisy on these forums.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              I'm not perfect. Never claimed to be. But, if you think I am I can certainly enlighten you in order to divest you of that mistaken conclusion.
                              
                              But, hey. I know that was sarcasm.
                              
                              Edit. But, you guys have no problem eating anyone alive for pretty much similar, if not lesser, transgressions.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 Prove your edit then, LTL. It should be no problem as we eat so many people alive.

                                 replyreport
                        2. 82

                           Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           None of it makes sense, why blame every black fellow because your friend was raped by one?
                           
                           
                           I am not pretending to be holier than thou. I don't abide racists. I am not
                           empathetic, I respect anyone who will admit they were wrong and I am willing to give this person another chance as long as his apology is reflected in his future behavior. I did the same for George Wallace.
                           
                           I will always condemn racists and sexist people, but always welcome them back into the fold from the "dark side" if they are willing to make amends. No unrepentant racist or sexist will ever get a free pass from me. I speak for myself, solely. So, where is the hypocrisy?

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              But credence. The problem is how to define racism. It isn't as easy as you would like to believe. Many statements by you in these forums have, to me, appeared racist. I doubt you would consider yourself to be one.
                              
                              Should you blame everyone for an act of an individual? Of course not. Is it human nature to lash out at an entire group when emotion reigns? Of course it is.
                              
                              Racism is a body of action, over a period of time. Not one incident. Nor, to me, can an act decades ago define an individual. Even an act yesterday, depending on circumstances, can't be used to cry racism, sexism or any ism.
                              
                              I am tired of watching social media and the news attempt to create a false narrative. Attempt to paint people evil because of human nature. There is good and bad in all of us. Ruining a life because of one moment is bad. It's something to be ashamed of being a part of. Giving one person a free pass, without understanding the wrong of not giving others the benefit of the doubt is a problem.

                              replyreport
                              1. 82

                                 Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 How do we define racism, that is a good question. Giving some thought to the point of view on the subject of this thread, his initial response to the assault on his friend may well not have been a rational act, but the action of a crazed and angry man and you are correct in your assessment that racism is not impulsive by nature.
                                 
                                 One act does not define an individual, but a pattern of behavior does. That is something that  I can hold people accountable for. Conservatives talk about color blind society which is an ideal that is truly yet to be attained.
                                 
                                 We all tend to favor and cling to our own tribe, and that is natural. The attitude is to work for an impartial and system where people rise and earn based on merit.  To be in a position to acquire the merit that means equal opportunity from the beginning to the greatest extent possible under the law. Are we there yet?
                                 
                                 Moving toward societal civility and away from tribalism takes work for us all and it starts the moment one steps outside private property and private life, that is if we are going continue to a have peaceful society.
                                 
                                 I know for white folks, that issue as always a "moving target", and I don't want to subject anyone to a "no win" scenario.
                                 
                                 Liam apologized for his behavior and attitude and that apology may have been appropriate for anyone adversely affected by his attitude.
                                 
                                 I can't give anyone the "benefit of the doubt" when well worn and familiar behavior patterns are identified from the offending individual(s)
                                 
                                 I can't deny the wisdom in your last paragraph, I am saying you are blowing it out of proportion. This fellow revealed for the public racist thoughts, I did not make him reveal them. But if he came to grips with them for whatever reason, what else can I do but applaud?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    Tim Truzy info4uposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    Cred, you bring up a great point: Conservatives (and I was one for many years) often talk about a "color-blind" society. No thank you. Besides, being "color-blind" creates hazards at traffic lights.
                                    Instead, recognize and respect my history as I do yours, and then we can get to the point that color doesn't matter.
                                    Understand that people of color contributed to the world; understand that all cultures were barbaric during their existence; then, we can get to the point where color doesn't matter.
                                    Comprehend that everyone has potential today to do good things. Then, we can get to the point where color doesn't matter.
                                    Along the way, people make missteps, like Mr. Neeson (see, I even called the man, mister), but he's probably further along than others who have not given these subjects a thought.
                                    Simply put: Color-blindness is another way of saying, I don't see you so you can't possibly matter.
                                    Well, it mattered enough to the actor to do soul searching and make changes.

                                    replyreport
            3. 94

               MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               You do make me wonder why he went public with it in the first place (unless, of course he had already done or said something racist publicly.)  I wonder if this is a publicity stunt or is he just acting stupid?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I like his blunt honesty. But, I'm not part of the lynch mob salivating for fresh meat with each new interview. I think he's just old and says what he wants. I do hope he isn't treated too poorly.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     I just hope he isn't "eaten alive" like some folks claim! 

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        A large contingent on the left has developed a taste for eating innocent people alive. From many comments I've read of yours here, you included. Although I'd like to see that group move away from their cannibalistic ways I have not seen evidence for hope.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Then why didn't give an example like I requested from you then? Who was innocent and eaten alive? 
                           
                           And I likewise have no hope for anyone who defends Trump or his ideals.
                           ( a bad word for his beliefs)

                           replyreport
                        2. 80

                           crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Please identify who has been eaten alive.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              I've already asked her twice, but apparently she's "Trumping it".

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 She often levels very specific criticisms but declines to back them up with examples or evidence when asked.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 86

                              GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              The first one was John Heccum. He was a publicist for Harvey Weinstein, and it was Brad Pilsner, (a policy advisor for Nancy Pelosi), that hosted the open-pit barbeque where they actually spit-roasted his caucus and ate him on crusty French rolls. (sort of like a pulled pork with sauce recipe)
                              
                              The surprising question is how would Live-to-learn know about this? It was an invitation-only gathering. (I only know because my cousin was pit master)
                              
                              

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 Hey, I remember that BBQ!  He tasted like...…..chicken.

                                 replyreport
                           3. 59

                              Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              Who has been eaten alive? Kavanaugh, for a dubious (at best) accusation. The Sandmann kid for the audacity of waiting for a bus, anyone who had the misfortune of being in a viral video, the two Hispanic marines who were attacked and called white supremacists, then had ethnic slurs thrown at them.
                              
                              I'm sorry crank. I hope this vicious cycle is a precursor to a radical change, brought about once people accept the hatred involved in the need to categorize everything by race. The problem is, race is inconsequential. There is as much diversity between individuals within a particular subset the left is attempting to define as there is between individuals in different subsets. Categorizing by race is, in effect, racist.
                              
                              And, it creates confusion and hatred. Because we can't judge life by color or ethnicity. It's uncivil and ignorant.

                              replyreport
                              1. 80

                                 crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 In my opinion, Kavanaugh got what he deserved. He lied to Congress about several different things: his drinking (there were many people who said he was a belligerent drunk), his understanding of the word "boof", and his understanding of the phrase "Devil's triangle". He flat-out lied. He knew what both words meant but didn't want to say because it would have called into question his character. Those in Congress who didn't call this out are even more despicable for being dumb-asses, probably because they all know what the words mean.
                                 
                                 He lied. To Congress. Makes me think he was lying about other stuff or he was just to black-out drunk to remember any of it.
                                 
                                 However, even given my opinion about that, I would like to see accusations like that handled differently and not be tried in public. That could ensnare just about anyone and it's not fair. There's no way to defend yourself from a public lynching (I use that word cautiously).
                                 
                                 Having said that, he gets a whole bunch of white privilege there. He got out of it. This is related to the Neeson issue in that the white guys usually get the benefit of the doubt, usually get to defend themselves.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    Idon't know. Does a belligerent drunk know they are a belligerent drunk? Probably not. Was it a consensus of all people who have had a few too many with him that he was a belligerent drunk? I don't drink anymore but I remember I got belligerent once. It was not,by any means, considered a norm. Although, I really didn't drink much. I would say a person, that day, might tell you I was one. It wouldn't be accurate, from anything else anyone has ever told me.
                                    
                                    If you asked me what devils triangle means I'd try to figure a definition. It wouldn't match a dirty one. I've never heard that term, except for near Bermuda.
                                    
                                    Boofing does sound like what he said it meant. When I was in prep school, that term was used in the way he said. I'm about his age.
                                    
                                    But, I agree. He got what he deserved. In the end. He got his appointment.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 80

                                       crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                       I disagree. He should never been given an appointment and I know lawyers who, if they have to argue in front of him, will refuse because he violated a code of ethics. I don't really care if you know what a Devil's Triangle is. What we know, almost absolutely for sure, is that he knows what it is, but he lied about it. Our SCOTUS members are held to a higher standard. It would be a simple thing to get another Neil Gorsuch. Instead, we have Brett Kavanaugh, who is a liar and a boofer.
                                       
                                       A better analogy for the point you are making is the Covington students wearing the MAGA hats. The media jumped all over that and got it wrong.
                                       
                                       Are you saying if a belligerent drunk rapes somebody but doesn't remember it, he's not guilty?

                                       report
                                       1. 59

                                          Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                          Ok. How do we know he knows what it means and knew that dirty definition at that age?
                                          
                                          I swear, I'm constantly boggled at what damning evidence the left 'knows for sure' but if it's concerning someone they like they just can't commit to being sure.

                                          report
                                    2. 80

                                       crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                       Because it's in his yearbook.
                                       
                                       But your point is well taken. Everyone tends to have different standards for those we like and those we don't or those we agree with and those we don't.
                                       
                                       If you compare Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, the right and the left, collectively, appear to have no standards, no morals, and no ethics. I am waiting for somebody from the left to stand up and formerly disavow support for Bill Clinton.

                                       report
                                       1. 59

                                          Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                          Unequivocally disavow support for Clinton? It'll never happen. But, their star has fallen. So, that's good enough for me.
                                          
                                          As to something being in a yearbook. I don't see that as necessarily indicative of the individual. Kids want to fit in, have malleable morals and do incredibly stupid things. Plus, to judge words used then by urban dictionary definitions now is fraught with problems.

                                          report
   2. 86

      Sharlee01posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      After reading the article, I came away with he was remorseful for his perhaps an immediate base emotional reaction to his friend's rape. It's very human to react poorly to a shocking incident, and then regret one's words after calming down and having time to put all into perspective.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I agree. He wasn't being interrogated. He wasn't under indictment. He wasn't on trial. He offered it up as a mea culpa, acknowledging his feelings and admitting that, these many years later, the feelings weren't right and his actions weren't right. He was talking about the effects of anger.

         replyreport
   3. 95

      Tim Truzy info4uposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Can anyone say George Wallace?
      Most people probably do have these thoughts at some time concerning (the other,", but should he had mentioned what happened then aloud? Maybe he was confessing and I give him credit for clearing his heart. A brave act.
      But that Sounds like it should have been a therapy session.
      In any case, he's a stellar actor and I have no problem with somebody evolving their understanding of humanity.
      Good for him.

      replyreport
2. 59

   Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

   Color me confused. How has he gotten by without being ostracized, attacked, demonized and thoroughly chastised. Is it because he isn't American?
   
   Edit. Sorry. Is that politically incorrect? Noticing that?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What I'm trying (ineffectively, apparently) to suggest is that he should be both criticized for whatever people want, but he also deserves credit for recognizing he was being stupid.
      
      I guess I'm asking whether people have the ability to apologize anymore? I mean, there are good apologies and bad ones, but he seems to be saying he was an idiot.
      
      That all said, I do see the white privilege here. I just don't think he's being asked to go that deep. I don't know. What type of apology is sufficient here and to whom? If no apology is sufficient, then we've got a problem.
      
      As a personal example, I used to live very near a city's main gay park hangout. There was a time when I was a kid where I thought negatively about gay people (I think a gay guy pinched my butt once and I got momentarily indignant). I now realize that was stupid. Am I forever marked as a homophobe? I'm definitely not a homophobe nor, frankly, was I ever. But sometimes when you're mad about something or irrational, you have stupid thoughts. I think we need to be a society where we allow people to admit their mistakes.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I got that. My observation has been that the left does not allow for people to grow and learn. They are to be beaten down hard and unmercifully at even the slightest of transgressions.
         
         Which was what caused my confusion. What does the left see in him that gives him a free pass when they are always on the lookout for a lynching.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            He volunteered the information as part of a self-examination.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Oh. So if you state, openly, that you once had what could be viewed as a racist thought then that is different from being observed having what can be viewed as a racist thought? Even if you knew it but didn't state it.
               
               Gotcha.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Try not to be dense, if that's possible.
                  
                  Somebody volunteering information in an effort to examine one's behavior and acknowledge its stupidity is quite a bit different than somebody openly engaging in that behavior and denying what it is. Introspection, self-examination - all good qualities.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     I'd have to disagree with who was being dense in this exchange.
                     
                     Location,location, location. If I feel I'm in a safe environment I'll be more open, honest and engaging then if I'm in a situation where I feel I'm being attacked.  If one feels they are being misjudged they may present a defense different from the one they might if approached from a different angle.
                     
                     I can't harshly judge if I believe the person is handicapped with emotion during the exchange. Given the opportunity to calm down, feel safe and speak more from the heart and less off the cuff I can gauge their true thoughts and intent.

                     replyreport
      2. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         From my point of view, he is just an actor who is voluntarily coming clean about his own racism. He wasn't outed or accused by someone else and now has to explain like so many (the current Governor Northam episode, for example). Also, to my knowledge, he hasn't displayed overt racism toward others, or repeatedly made racist remarks, so I'm inclined to forgive and forget.
         
         Now, if he were a politician who is supposed to represent all people, that would be different.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Tim Truzy info4uposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Thumbs up, P.P.

            replyreport
3. 66

   Glenis Rixposted 6 years ago

   It seems to me that he was expressing regret for the understandable rage that he felt when somebody who he loves was the victim of rape. It’s astonishing that he felt that he could exact revenge by a random murder. Good that he eventually came to his senses, foolish that he spoke about the episode to a journalist. I don’t interpret his story as an indication  that he is or was a racist - if the loved one had identified the rapist as white his reaction would have been the same rage, but directed at a person with a white skin. The past is another country but a sensational story still  sells newspapers. Move on.

   replyreport