Liam Neeson involved in race row Watch
Go to first unread
Report
#81
(Original post by DSilva)
Obviously incredible sympathy for her and let's hope the actual perpetrator got what he deserved.
That in no way justifies or excuses wanting to kill a random black person just because he was the same race as the perpetrator.
Obviously incredible sympathy for her and let's hope the actual perpetrator got what he deserved.
That in no way justifies or excuses wanting to kill a random black person just because he was the same race as the perpetrator.
Will you now admit that she is the real victim here, and Leeson's "offence" was utterly trivial in comparison?
0
reply
Report
#82
John Barnes. National treasure. Conversation over for me. Barnsy gives Liam a medal. You made the KOP proud
1
reply
Report
#83
(Original post by Andrew97)
Last time i checked he didn’t kill anyone, so there is no racist murder to speak of.
Last time i checked he didn’t kill anyone, so there is no racist murder to speak of.
I'm not massively concerned about the racial angle in itself, personally. Clearly he now understands that that wasn't rational. It's allowed for people to get over prejudices, and to admit that they used to carry them.
The really worrying thing is that he's apparently the sort of person who will prowl the streets, armed with a blunt object (TIL what a 'cosh' is), looking to take out his anger on no-one in particular. Someone who just happened to share one characteristic with someone who wronged his friend.
He did come out and say he was ashamed of his behaviour, but I can't not be suspicious of someone who has that instinct.
It's a difficult one. I don't think he should be excluded from society, or even the film industry. He hasn't actually killed or harmed anyone, and there are plenty of violent nutjobs in the public sphere.
However, quite what he was thinking in saying this publicly I cannot begin to imagine. It seems that his very particular set of skills does not extend to public relations.
4
reply
Report
#84
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
No, but the implication seems to be that the only reason why there wasn't one is that he wasn't presented with the opportunity.
No, but the implication seems to be that the only reason why there wasn't one is that he wasn't presented with the opportunity.
And if he had really wanted to do it on subconscious level he could have engineered it. The fact he didn't is telling.
0
reply
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
No, but the implication seems to be that the only reason why there wasn't one is that he wasn't presented with the opportunity.
I'm not massively concerned about the racial angle in itself, personally. Clearly he now understands that that wasn't rational. It's allowed for people to get over prejudices, and to admit that they used to carry them.
The really worrying thing is that he's apparently the sort of person who will prowl the streets, armed with a blunt object (TIL what a 'cosh' is), looking to take out his anger on no-one in particular. Someone who just happened to share one characteristic with someone who wronged his friend.
He did come out and say he was ashamed of his behaviour, but I can't not be suspicious of someone who has that instinct.
It's a difficult one. I don't think he should be excluded from society, or even the film industry. He hasn't actually killed or harmed anyone, and there are plenty of violent nutjobs in the public sphere.
However, quite what he was thinking in saying this publicly I cannot begin to imagine. It seems that his very particular set of skills does not extend to public relations.
No, but the implication seems to be that the only reason why there wasn't one is that he wasn't presented with the opportunity.
I'm not massively concerned about the racial angle in itself, personally. Clearly he now understands that that wasn't rational. It's allowed for people to get over prejudices, and to admit that they used to carry them.
The really worrying thing is that he's apparently the sort of person who will prowl the streets, armed with a blunt object (TIL what a 'cosh' is), looking to take out his anger on no-one in particular. Someone who just happened to share one characteristic with someone who wronged his friend.
He did come out and say he was ashamed of his behaviour, but I can't not be suspicious of someone who has that instinct.
It's a difficult one. I don't think he should be excluded from society, or even the film industry. He hasn't actually killed or harmed anyone, and there are plenty of violent nutjobs in the public sphere.
However, quite what he was thinking in saying this publicly I cannot begin to imagine. It seems that his very particular set of skills does not extend to public relations.
To be clear walking round the streets looking for somebody to provoke you so you can bash their brains out is clearly not rational and wrong.
0
reply
Report
#86
I am a bit more concerned that you tried to
"Like you care"
The irony is real here. Yes, please act as if you care about the victim just so you can make a counterpoint against someone on the internet.
(Original post by generallee)
Yeah like you care. You have made a zillion posts on here, and failed to mention her. And have only done so because it was dragged out of you.
Will you now admit that she is the real victim here, and Leeson's "offence" was utterly trivial in comparison?
Yeah like you care. You have made a zillion posts on here, and failed to mention her. And have only done so because it was dragged out of you.
Will you now admit that she is the real victim here, and Leeson's "offence" was utterly trivial in comparison?
The irony is real here. Yes, please act as if you care about the victim just so you can make a counterpoint against someone on the internet.
0
reply
Report
#87
Did he want to murder someone though? From what i gathered he wanted someone to attack him first, at which point that person wouldn't be so "innocent" at all.
If he had wanted to bash someone's head in purely for revenge, he had ample opportunity.
If he had wanted to bash someone's head in purely for revenge, he had ample opportunity.
1
reply
Report
#88
(Original post by DSilva)
No one is saying he carried it out. But he admits he armed himself and went out looking to provoke a black person so he could violently attack them.
If someone went out looking for a kid to touch up, but didn't find one and then went home, would that be fine because they never carried it out?
No one is saying he carried it out. But he admits he armed himself and went out looking to provoke a black person so he could violently attack them.
If someone went out looking for a kid to touch up, but didn't find one and then went home, would that be fine because they never carried it out?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
At this rate I’m going to get one of my threads in the legendary today on TSR widget.
0
reply
Report
#90
(Original post by Moments)
Did he want to murder someone though? From what i gathered he wanted someone to attack him first, at which point that person wouldn't be so "innocent" at all.
If he had wanted to bash someone's head in purely for revenge, he had ample opportunity.
Did he want to murder someone though? From what i gathered he wanted someone to attack him first, at which point that person wouldn't be so "innocent" at all.
If he had wanted to bash someone's head in purely for revenge, he had ample opportunity.
From what I seen, he was trying to search for the rapist himself. I think that if you only know the skin colour of the rapist then the chances of bashing in the wrong person's head is sky high,
0
reply
Report
#92
(Original post by DSilva)
Nice strawman. I haven't said he should be convicted of anything.
I'm saying wanting to kill someone and actually planning to do it, as he admits, simply because they were black is horrifically racist and inexcusable.
Of course it would be equally racist if someone wanted to kill a random Chinese person, simply because an unconnected Chinese person attacked a friend.
Nice strawman. I haven't said he should be convicted of anything.
I'm saying wanting to kill someone and actually planning to do it, as he admits, simply because they were black is horrifically racist and inexcusable.
Of course it would be equally racist if someone wanted to kill a random Chinese person, simply because an unconnected Chinese person attacked a friend.
He felt angry, he didnt attack a random, he went home because he thought better of it and then he was ashamed and went to confession. You are wallowing in a thought crime.
You seem more interested because he mentioned black rather than the fact someone was raped. I dont believe you would be so outraged if it was a chinese person. had he actually attacked someone he would have been convicted. Thinking about doing seomthing and actually doing seomthing are different. Go and read the law on attempt and you will see where the line is drawn.
I dont believe he was a racist, the rapist just happened to be black. If they had been ginger or Irish, then he would have used that criteria, but then you wouldnt be complaining.
reply
Report
#93
(Original post by 999tigger)
You like to twist it or ignroe anything thats inconvenient to you.
He felt angry, he didnt attack a random, he went home because he thought better of it and then he was ashamed and went to confession. You are wallowing in a thought crime.
You seem more interested because he mentioned black rather than the fact someone was raped. I dont believe you would be so outraged if it was a chinese person. had he actually attacked someone he would have been convicted. Thinking about doing seomthing and actually doing seomthing are different. Go and read the law on attempt and you will see where the line is drawn.
I dont believe he was a racist, the rapist just happened to be black. If they had been ginger or Irish, then he would have used that criteria, but then you wouldnt be complaining.
You like to twist it or ignroe anything thats inconvenient to you.
He felt angry, he didnt attack a random, he went home because he thought better of it and then he was ashamed and went to confession. You are wallowing in a thought crime.
You seem more interested because he mentioned black rather than the fact someone was raped. I dont believe you would be so outraged if it was a chinese person. had he actually attacked someone he would have been convicted. Thinking about doing seomthing and actually doing seomthing are different. Go and read the law on attempt and you will see where the line is drawn.
I dont believe he was a racist, the rapist just happened to be black. If they had been ginger or Irish, then he would have used that criteria, but then you wouldnt be complaining.
0
reply
Report
#94
(Original post by Notoriety)
Inchoate offences are new to you?
Inchoate offences are new to you?
reply
Report
#95
(Original post by DSilva)
No one is saying he did kill anyone. Strawman.
People are saying wanting to, and planning on killing someone just because they were black is horrific and there is no excuse or justification for it.
No one is saying he did kill anyone. Strawman.
People are saying wanting to, and planning on killing someone just because they were black is horrific and there is no excuse or justification for it.
0
reply
Report
#96
Minorities are a hivemind and all we think the same and act the same am i right :^)
0
reply
Report
#97
(Original post by Andrew97)
I understand that, however personally I think there’s still a huge step between planning on doing something and actually going ahead given the opportunity. He could have easily backed out when presented Thebes opportunity, I don’t know.
To be clear walking round the streets looking for somebody to provoke you so you can bash their brains out is clearly not rational and wrong.
I understand that, however personally I think there’s still a huge step between planning on doing something and actually going ahead given the opportunity. He could have easily backed out when presented Thebes opportunity, I don’t know.
To be clear walking round the streets looking for somebody to provoke you so you can bash their brains out is clearly not rational and wrong.
0
reply
Report
#98
(Original post by stoyfan)
It doesn't really make it better at all.
From what I seen, he was trying to search for the rapist himself. I think that if you only know the skin colour of the rapist then the chances of bashing in the wrong person's head is sky high,
It doesn't really make it better at all.
From what I seen, he was trying to search for the rapist himself. I think that if you only know the skin colour of the rapist then the chances of bashing in the wrong person's head is sky high,
I think if he was a truly an unhinged person, he would have done it; like Darren Osborne. The fact that he checked himself and searched for a clear justification for a fight (i.e someone starting on him first), should be taken into account imho.
0
reply
Report
#99
(Original post by generallee)
This so typifies the lefty thought process.
1. Neeson is rich. That's bad because lots of people are poor.
2. Neeson is successful and famous. That's bad because I'm not and it makes me jealous.
3. Neeson is white. That's bad because white privilege.
4. Neeson is a guy. That's bad because in seeking to avenge a friend's "honour" who had been raped he represents oppressive, antediluvian male patriachy.
5. Neeson has committed a thoughtcrime. That's bad because we judge putative intentions not outcomes. Thoughts not deeds.
6. Neeson has thought about harming a black person years and years ago and is now ashamed. That's bad because racism and because no-one can ever be given redemption for a past sin they have repented for. We judge everyone for past actions by the standards of the present. Even if dead for centuries.
7. Neeson hasn't actually done anything. That's bad because we really want to publicly defenestrate him and ruin his life, so we will do it anyway to signal our virtue and show how morally superior and "woke", WE are. Also pour encourager les autres. We don't want anyone else to think unacceptable thoughts and then voice them.
I am encouraged by the push back to the lefties on this thread. The silent majority are starting to get less silent. A few years ago this thread would have been full of SJW's desperate to be publicly outraged. Now they actually seem to be in a minority.
This so typifies the lefty thought process.
1. Neeson is rich. That's bad because lots of people are poor.
2. Neeson is successful and famous. That's bad because I'm not and it makes me jealous.
3. Neeson is white. That's bad because white privilege.
4. Neeson is a guy. That's bad because in seeking to avenge a friend's "honour" who had been raped he represents oppressive, antediluvian male patriachy.
5. Neeson has committed a thoughtcrime. That's bad because we judge putative intentions not outcomes. Thoughts not deeds.
6. Neeson has thought about harming a black person years and years ago and is now ashamed. That's bad because racism and because no-one can ever be given redemption for a past sin they have repented for. We judge everyone for past actions by the standards of the present. Even if dead for centuries.
7. Neeson hasn't actually done anything. That's bad because we really want to publicly defenestrate him and ruin his life, so we will do it anyway to signal our virtue and show how morally superior and "woke", WE are. Also pour encourager les autres. We don't want anyone else to think unacceptable thoughts and then voice them.
I am encouraged by the push back to the lefties on this thread. The silent majority are starting to get less silent. A few years ago this thread would have been full of SJW's desperate to be publicly outraged. Now they actually seem to be in a minority.
0
reply
Report
#100
(Original post by Moments)
Well, i'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the "racial" aspect because I do believe he'd have done the same thing if knew the rapist was a white person from XYZ area. The only thing remaining is whether or not he intended to harm someone completely innocent out of pure anger.
I think if he was a truly an unhinged person, he would have done it; like Darren Osborne. The fact that he checked himself and searched for a clear justification for a fight (i.e someone starting on him first), should be taken into account imho.
Well, i'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the "racial" aspect because I do believe he'd have done the same thing if knew the rapist was a white person from XYZ area. The only thing remaining is whether or not he intended to harm someone completely innocent out of pure anger.
I think if he was a truly an unhinged person, he would have done it; like Darren Osborne. The fact that he checked himself and searched for a clear justification for a fight (i.e someone starting on him first), should be taken into account imho.
0
reply
X
