Racism Part two

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

But he also said of they were Irish or another culture it would be the same.

you can be black and Irish

his defence makes his position slightly worse

[maqroll]

Silly own goal from Neeson. 

[Stevo985]

13 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

But he also said of they were Irish or another culture it would be the same.

I don't think that really matters. 

But like I said I don't really think what he's said is so terrible. But I can see why people do.

[Dodgyknees]

Racism can **** off.

The only hatred I can understand is hating bald people. Bald people are the worst kind of human. 

[Keyblade]

A couple of wholesome quotes from Churchill, A Man of his Time™:

"I hate Indians, they are a beastly people with a beastly religion." 

"Starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks" 

"I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." 

"Keep England White" is a good slogan.

"I do not apologize for the takeover of the region by the Jews from the Palestinians in the same way I don't apologize for the takeover of America by the whites from the Red Indians or the takeover of Australia from the blacks. It is natural for a superior race to dominate an inferior one."

Edited February 6, 2019 by Keyblade

[Keyblade]

This thread is honestly a trip. If roaming the streets for a week looking for a black person to kill because his friend got raped by a black person isn't racist, then I shudder to think what actually makes the cut. Did he have to have been wearing a white hood with "I hate black people" written on it and burned for good measure? The goalposts for what constitutes racism is ever-narrowing. Someone could be publicly lynched (which is what Neeson was trying to do now that I think of it) and I bet you'd still have people saying "it wasn't racism per se...".

[snowychap]

41 minutes ago, Dick said:

Racism can **** off.

The only hatred I can understand is hating bald people. Bald people are the worst kind of human. 

Hair hair.

[mjmooney]

12 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

This thread is honestly a trip. If roaming the streets for a week looking for a black person to kill because his friend got raped by a black person isn't racist, then I shudder to think what actually makes the cut. Did he have to have been wearing a white hood with "I hate black people" written on it and burned for good measure? The goalposts for what constitutes racism is ever-narrowing. Someone could be publicly lynched (which is what Neeson was trying to do now that I think of it) and I bet you'd still have people saying "it wasn't racism per se...".

Nobody is saying it wasn't racist. On the contrary, Neeson was confessing that it was. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

11 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

This thread is honestly a trip. If roaming the streets for a week looking for a black person to kill because his friend got raped by a black person isn't racist, then I shudder to think what actually makes the cut. Did he have to have been wearing a white hood with "I hate black people" written on it and burned for good measure? The goalposts for what constitutes racism is ever-narrowing. Someone could be publicly lynched (which is what Neeson was trying to do now that I think of it) and I bet you'd still have people saying "it wasn't racism per se...".

So you're cherry picking one part of his 'story' without acknowledging his comments about his mental state at the time, how he doesn't think that way anymore and how he's deeply 'ashamed' about his behaviour. I'm not sure what you want. Is it not possible for people to disavow views that they may have held at one point in time, acknowledge this, be ashamed, change and henceforth be a better person?

[Dr_Pangloss]

3 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Nobody is saying it wasn't racist. On the contrary, Neeson was confessing that it was. 

I'd say it's a response symptomatic of the time we live in, no place for nuance or change in a person. He did something racist what, 40 years ago? Can't possibly have changed, can't possibly have learned, he's just a racist who should be boycotted. 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Dr_Pangloss

[chrisp65]

13 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

This thread is honestly a trip. If roaming the streets for a week looking for a black person to kill because his friend got raped by a black person isn't racist, then I shudder to think what actually makes the cut. Did he have to have been wearing a white hood with "I hate black people" written on it and burned for good measure? The goalposts for what constitutes racism is ever-narrowing. Someone could be publicly lynched (which is what Neeson was trying to do now that I think of it) and I bet you'd still have people saying "it wasn't racism per se...".

I think you've understood about as much of this as the people that want his work boycotted.

[Keyblade]

5 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Nobody is saying it wasn't racist. On the contrary, Neeson was confessing that it was. 

 

On 05/02/2019 at 04:09, lapal_fan said:

Is it racist?  No

 

On 05/02/2019 at 12:17, Rugeley Villa said:

The problem here is because it’s the word Black then people all of a sudden take offence and piss their pants with outrage. 

 

On 05/02/2019 at 03:34, Demitri_C said:

Referring to skin colour. He should have just said I wanted to kill the person he didn't have to go into skin colour as now it opens up a whole race debate.

There's plenty of downplaying of the racial aspect of it, which I would say is a pretty crucial factor. It's not like he just wanted to kill anyone. He had a very specific target in mind.

[Xela]

6 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

We might need to mention the 2-3 million dead in the Bengal Famine here as well. 

Can't pin that on Liam Neeson i'm afraid. 

[Keyblade]

29 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

So you're cherry picking one part of his 'story' without acknowledging his comments about his mental state at the time, how he doesn't think that way anymore and how he's deeply 'ashamed' about his behaviour. I'm not sure what you want. Is it not possible for people to disavow views that they may have held at one point in time, acknowledge this, be ashamed, change and henceforth be a better person?

I never commented on Neeson at all, if you'd notice. I actually sympathize with him on some level, he genuinely seems remorseful.

I'm more worried about the commentary surrounding what he did and how people are so quick to downplay any act of racism especially one as blatant as this one, decrying social media outrage and such, like people aren't right to be outraged. It's like this dirty word that people think will stick to them just by association for some reason and so they trip over themselves to downplay if not completely deny its role. Why can't there be a conversation about racism? I think a story about a celebrity admitting to trying to kill someone simply for being the same race as someone who harmed them is as good a time to have one as any.

It's not even about Neeson specifically, but as John Barnes alluded, to the conditioning of people by society/the media that even led Neeson to make a racial connection in the first place. That's the real outrage. When I first heard the story, I wasn't mad or outraged at Neeson, the man. I was more angry at the condition of society that led him to think the way he did. Racism led him to almost kill a man for something he didn't do. Would he have also killed a Mexican/Indian/Korean too? Yes. THAT'S RACIST TOO. Would he have even thought of killing a white person? **** no. So I'd respectfully say I'm not 'cherry picking one part of his 'story'. It's a pretty damn big part of the story. A much bigger one than his remorse or redemption, as heartwarming as that is.

[Rugeley Villa]

40 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

 

 

 

There's plenty of downplaying of the racial aspect of it, which I would say is a pretty crucial factor. It's not like he just wanted to kill anyone. He had a very specific target in mind.

Racism is racism, but I always find there is a bigger shit storm when it involves black people being racially abused. Obviously they have a deep history of being oppressed, but this story is bigger than it would have been if it had involved another specific group of people. 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Rugeley Villa

[Keyblade]

3 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Racism is racism, but I always find there is a bigger shit storm when it involves black people being racially abused. Obviously they have a deep history of being oppressed, but this story is bigger than it would have been if it had involved another specific group of people. 

I'm not following. Are you saying black people get more sympathy when it comes to the racism they face? So like reverse anti-racism?

That's what you take away from the story? That the victims get preferential treatment? The part where he was trying to kill black people...shit happens right? I mean, it was a long time ago after all.

[Rugeley Villa]

18 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

I'm not following. Are you saying black people get more sympathy when it comes to the racism they face? So like reverse anti-racism?

That's what you take away from the story? That the victims get preferential treatment? The part where he was trying to kill black people...shit happens right? I mean, it was a long time ago after all.

I just think there is more outrage when it happens. As I said if it had been an Hispanic he was gunning for  then I’m sure there wouldn’t be the publicity this is receiving because it was a black man. Racism is racism, but I think it should all be treated equally. 

[Keyblade]

3 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

I just think there is more outrage when it happens. As I said if it had been an Hispanic he was gunning for  then I’m sure there wouldn’t be the publicity this is receiving because it was a black man. Racism is racism, but I think it should all be treated equally. 

I don't agree there will be less outrage, I think there would be just as much, but that's such an odd thing to complain about even if it is true.

The outrage is about racism, which ironically doesn't discriminate. It's not that it's specifically directed towards black people in this instance. I think that's just projection on your part.

[brommy]

57 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

There's plenty of downplaying of the racial aspect of it, which I would say is a pretty crucial factor. It's not like he just wanted to kill anyone. He had a very specific target in mind.

I don’t know of any downplaying that it was racist. Neeson himself knew it was wrong, over 30 years ago. Some people think that still makes him a racist now. Most people I’ve spoken to accept his feeling of shame shortly after the historical event and recognise it’s highly likely his previously conditioned racism is far, far from current.

Assuming the bizarre story is true (and not an invented or embellished revenge linked plug for the film), I think everyone, including Neeson, is glad he didn’t find a confrontational black male during that week, 30 odd years ago. I’m already aware of the societal racism that was widespread in the UK and Ireland in past decades and I’m also aware that it is, typically, reducing. In that respect, the next time I see Neeson on the screen, I won’t be thinking ‘he’s that racist’, I’ll be thinking ‘there’s that prat who chose a very strange confession to plug a film’.

[Keyblade]

34 minutes ago, brommy said:

I don’t know of any downplaying that it was racist. Neeson himself knew it was wrong, over 30 years ago. Some people think that still makes him a racist now. Most people I’ve spoken to accept his feeling of shame shortly after the historical event and recognise it’s highly likely his previously conditioned racism is far, far from current.

Assuming the bizarre story is true (and not an invented or embellished revenge linked plug for the film), I think everyone, including Neeson, is glad he didn’t find a confrontational black male during that week, 30 odd years ago. I’m already aware of the societal racism that was widespread in the UK and Ireland in past decades and I’m also aware that it is, typically, reducing. In that respect, the next time I see Neeson on the screen, I won’t be thinking ‘he’s that racist’, I’ll be thinking ‘there’s that prat who chose a very strange confession to plug a film’.

I don't know that he's not racist now. I do know for sure however that he was in the past. But like John Barnes said, in a sense, thinking like that wasn't entirely his fault.

Which is why I don't really like the term racist. Not because it's not an apt descriptor but because of the connotations attached to it and how people react to that.

People (both those who use the term, and those on the receiving end of it) seem to view it as a fatal character flaw, when a lot of the time it stems from ignorance and social conditioning and can be corrected and moved past.

This is why some people get really defensive when that word gets thrown around. Being called a racist is basically being told you are an awful human being beyond redemption, and that can't be true can it? Everyone is a good person in their own eyes.

Of course outrage and cancel culture only aggravate the situation but that shouldn't make people shy away from the very important conversations under all of that. Yes 'cancelling' Liam Neeson for thinking a certain way 30 years ago seems a little overboard but that should not take away from the conversation to be had about what led a man to even think that way in the first place.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Keyblade