# Liam Neeson wants to kill a black man



## possumkiller (Feb 6, 2019)

Anybody else following the story? Apparently a woman Liam Neeson is close to was raped by a black man so he went to where the most black men were hoping to kill any random black guy. 

On the other hand, "a rich white guy is racist" isn't exactly news...


----------



## GatherTheArsenal (Feb 6, 2019)

Blown out of proportion.


----------



## spudmunkey (Feb 6, 2019)

He told the story he hadn't mentioned before in the 40 years since the incident, to point out how horrible it was.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 6, 2019)

So you guys are trying to tell me that you didn't just read the part where he said he wanted to kill any random black guy and completely ignore the rest of the story in order to shout from the rooftops how much of a racist bastard Liam Neeson admitted he is??


----------



## narad (Feb 6, 2019)

Which side are you pushing? The racist white guy one or the one that requires reading comprehension?


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 6, 2019)

I am not pushing any side. I wanted to see what the general idea is here versus the rest of the web. 

I personally think it was a sincere idea he had but I would have changed it to Asian, Indian, Latino, Arab, or Native American. For some reason when he used the word black, the rest of his story completely disappeared and it all centered around him being a racist now (not 40 years ago when the story takes place). The guy was trying to say he can relate to the character he plays. The character's son was murdered. Liam Neeson's friend was raped. He had a deep animal-like instinctive need for revenge. Didn't care how he got it he just needed it. He explains that after a few days of this he realized what he was doing and was horrified and ashamed. He was sharing this story to show it as a dark time of his life that he is ashamed of. He wanted to show that people can have dark moments and get through it and go on to do great things. People want to say he was racist then and label him a racist for life apparently. It seems like another witch has been found in a witch hunt. All of this yelling at Liam Neeson that he is racist seems more racist to me than Liam Neeson admitting he did something racist 40 years ago that he is ashamed of and deeply regrets.


----------



## Miek (Feb 6, 2019)

yeah it's pretty messed up regardless of any backtracking or justification anyone uses


----------



## narad (Feb 6, 2019)

Miek said:


> yeah it's pretty messed up regardless of any backtracking or justification anyone uses



That's the whole point though. He's saying it's messed up, that it was wrong, that there was no justification.


----------



## Miek (Feb 6, 2019)

I get that but it's also weird and bad that it was ever a thought for an adult, especially when taken in the context of his ouvere. I mean honestly why would you ever ever admit this let alone think it


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 6, 2019)

Miek said:


> I get that but it's also weird and bad that it was ever a thought for an adult, especially when taken in the context of his ouvere. I mean honestly why would you ever ever admit this let alone think it


I wonder.

Maybe if you want racist people to stop being racist, you should show them that it is possible to stop being racist and move on with your life. You know, similar to how people go to rehab for addictions or therapy for mental problems? 

The problem is exactly that people do not admit it. Everyone has had thoughts or actions at some point in their lives that were racist. Nobody is willing to admit it exactly because of this kind of reaction. Some governor just resigned over a picture of him in blackface when he was a kid 50 years ago. I have no idea how racist the guy is or isn't now but nobody seems to give a shit one way or the other. Society today seems like the Gestapo or KGB. They keep digging and digging into someone's past until they find that stupid thing they did when they were 22 back in the 60s and use it to destroy them now. Who the hell _didn't_ do stupid shit when they were kids that they regret and aren't proud of? People only want second chances and the benefit of the doubt for themselves. Everyone else can be burned at the stake.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 6, 2019)

Basically, my beef with the whole deal is people are saying he _is_ racist when actually he _was_ racist at a point in time many years ago.


----------



## GatherTheArsenal (Feb 6, 2019)

I think if you look into any person's past you'll find some kind of -ism which you can point to while you sit in your moral ivory tower and say aha this person is guilty of racism, sexism, nepotism, ageism, despotism, etc. While I agree that this is actually a healthy exercise as a start to being more of a reflective person, I just can't stand how it's handled in this tabloid approach that underlines the seemingly scandalous nature of everything and nothing else.

It completely dismisses any hope or chance that this person either doesn't think that way anymore or whether or not they stand against whichever ism they were guilty of. As if to say, how dare you not hold a perfect world view in your 20's, ffs who the hell does or has...? Especially in light of a traumatic event like that? 

If someone raped a person I love then you can guarantee I'm gonna see red and nothing else and think irrationally as a gut reaction. 

I say look for progress not perfection. If progress is there, we should celebrate it rather tear the person down for daring to be an imperfect human. It's not logical, sensible or hell even godly to say hey one strike and you're done for life.

There is a very distinct difference in someone being reflective about something they did vs. someone with no sense of remorse.

If Liam came out and said hey I had these racist thoughts and bollocks to you all if you disagree with my sentiment, then yes have at him.

But in this case Liam Neeson flat out said this is a problem and talking about it is necessary. That's progress, not perfection. That distinction is not being reflected in the media at all and since media molds people's opinions, Liam's put himself in the shit for awhile.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

This makes me think of a reaction I had to a video I saw yesterday - on GMM, they kept just saying "Hulk Hogan is a bad man" over and over without saying why. I tried to google it, and all I found was that he used the 'n' word once? And that makes him the definition of evil? Someone the other day explained to me the idea of "cancelling" someone and my eyes rolled back in my head so far I could see into other dimensions. We've turned every social issue and political stance into a witch hunt. If you have, or have ever had, "the wrong" idea, you are literally evil incarnate. And it's so exhausting.

I know I like to say that, in the short term, in the context of an argument, you usually aren't going to change someone's mind - and I stand by that - but people's worldviews DO change. I can think of topics on which I've dramatically changed my stance since my teens or early 20s. I can recall having some thoughts as a young kid that would, in todays world, be construed as super racist, but I honestly didn't know any better at the time. It wasn't malicious, I was working off of a very incomplete picture of the world - and arguably we all still are.

I think that's a huge part that gets thrown out the window: Intent. I would much rather judge a person on their intent than just the face value of their statements. Someone might say something racist/etc because they don't know the difference - and I'm not saying that's ok - but those worldviews can be changed or updated. It's a far cry from someone who knows better and whose -isms come from a malicious place.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> This makes me think of a reaction I had to a video I saw yesterday - on GMM, they kept just saying "Hulk Hogan is a bad man" over and over without saying why. I tried to google it, and all I found was that he used the 'n' word once? And that makes him the definition of evil? Someone the other day explained to me the idea of "cancelling" someone and my eyes rolled back in my head so far I could see into other dimensions. We've turned every social issue and political stance into a witch hunt. If you have, or have ever had, "the wrong" idea, you are literally evil incarnate. And it's so exhausting.
> 
> I know I like to say that, in the short term, in the context of an argument, you usually aren't going to change someone's mind - and I stand by that - but people's worldviews DO change. I can think of topics on which I've dramatically changed my stance since my teens or early 20s. I can recall having some thoughts as a young kid that would, in todays world, be construed as super racist, but I honestly didn't know any better at the time. It wasn't malicious, I was working off of a very incomplete picture of the world - and arguably we all still are.
> 
> I think that's a huge part that gets thrown out the window: Intent. I would much rather judge a person on their intent than just the face value of their statements. Someone might say something racist/etc because they don't know the difference - and I'm not saying that's ok - but those worldviews can be changed or updated. It's a far cry from someone who knows better and whose -isms come from a malicious place.


I think Hogan was also in trouble about some alleged sexual stuff with his daughter or something as well.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

Ah. Well, maybe he's not the best example. But still.


----------



## Exchanger (Feb 6, 2019)

GatherTheArsenal said:


> I think if you look into any person's past you'll find some kind of -ism which you can point to while you sit in your moral ivory tower and say aha this person is guilty of racism, sexism, nepotism, ageism, despotism, etc. While I agree that this is actually a healthy exercise as a start to being more of a reflective person, I just can't stand how it's handled in this tabloid approach that underlines the seemingly scandalous nature of everything and nothing else.
> 
> It completely dismisses any hope or chance that this person either doesn't think that way anymore or whether or not they stand against whichever ism they were guilty of. As if to say, how dare you not hold a perfect world view in your 20's, ffs who the hell does or has...? Especially in light of a traumatic event like that?
> 
> ...



This 100x
And to stress it out : when you're blinded by rage, you don't think striaght, you think/do stupid shit. And in his situation I think most people would have gone nuts.


----------



## Randy (Feb 6, 2019)

It's Liam Neeson, so he obviously said it in a really charming way, which makes a difference.

Also, all he said was that he went walking around "carrying a baton" and he was looking to "beat that black bastard". For all we know, he just meant he was going to challenge him to a cheer off.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 6, 2019)

Randy said:


> It's Liam Neeson, so he obviously said it in a really charming way, which makes a difference.
> 
> Also, all he said was that he went walking around "carrying a baton" and he was looking to "beat that black bastard". For all we know, he just meant he was going to challenge him to a cheer off.



Wrong.

_“I went up and down areas with a cosh, hoping I’d be approached by somebody. I’m ashamed to say that, and I did it for maybe a week, hoping some black bastard would come out of a pub and have a go at me about something, you know? *So that I could* *kill him*.”_

Anyway, this whole thing is idiotic and the people who are screeching about it are those same puritans who think that if you've EVER done anything bad or EVER had a racist thought you are horrible forever and there is no chance of redemption. This isn't like most cases, where someone is caught and then has to address it and would have covered it up otherwise. This is someone illustrating how they've grown as a person by BRINGING UP something horrible that they did, flat out saying it was a horrible thing, and showing how it was a teaching moment for them. 

I HATE the outrage-o-sphere so much.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

wankerness said:


> *So that I could* *kill him*.


I mean, I hate exaggerated outrage as much as the next guy, but that's clear intent to murder someone. I don't care how mad you are, intent to murder is still telling of a person's character on some level. Adding a racial edge to it really doesn't help.

It's one thing to say you're so mad you could kill, as a figure of speech - it's another to take actual steps towards that end.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 6, 2019)

Idk I took a pistol with me to meet the guy that was fucking my ex-wife while I was deployed with every intention of killing him. The thing that stopped me was her coming out with that expression on her face of how much she was getting off on the drama so instead I shook his hand and gave him my blessing and left.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

^ And I think that says a lot about the difference between our two characters. You would be "righting" a wrong with a much worse wrong, IMO.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I mean, I hate exaggerated outrage as much as the next guy, but that's clear intent to murder someone. I don't care how mad you are, intent to murder is still telling of a person's character on some level. Adding a racial edge to it really doesn't help.
> 
> It's one thing to say you're so mad you could kill, as a figure of speech - it's another to take actual steps towards that end.



Again - he brought it up himself. He said it was terrible. He was growing up during the troubles. I fully believe that if it had been a scot or whatever other groups were fighting at the time he'd have been cruising looking for one of THEM. This is such utter bs. I get say, the Kevin Hart outrage to some degree, since that was other people digging it up, and then he didn't apologize for it until he eventually did one of those "i'm sorry that you're offended" things. I completely get the virginia guy doing something horribly racist and years later (at age 25) still being proud of it enough to put it in his yearbook page, and then DENYING that it's him, but this is absolutely not that. 

How DARE someone do (i mean, THINK - let's not forget no one was even assaulted here, let alone killed) something stupid in their youth that they're still so haunted by that they bring it up themselves, when if they'd remained silent no one would have ever found out and screeched on Twitter?


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> ^ And I think that says a lot about the difference between our two characters. You would be "righting" a wrong with a much worse wrong, IMO.


Yes. I was also 22 years old and just come from a traumatic childhood of right wing extreme christian psychopaths. I knew more about guns and the end of the world than I knew about how to interact with people. I was young and ignorant. I wasn't thinking about and did not care about the future.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 6, 2019)

C'mon, who didn't have moronic thoughts of overly violent reactions towards someone at some point in their youth? Someone swiping your girlfriend purely made you think "well, too bad, I wish the best for them!" instead of you entertaining thoughts of violence?

If you're brought up during a time of extensive violence all over the place (the troubles) of course those thoughts are going to be different than those of us that grew up in suburbs with college professors for parents. Yet we still have those thoughts, since that is biologically what humans are at our core.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

wankerness said:


> C'mon, who didn't have moronic thoughts of overly violent reactions towards someone at some point in their youth?


Maybe I'm an exception, but I've never reacted to being wronged by entertaining the idea that someone should die for it. It's one thing to fantasize or recognize that the violence would feel cathartic, but there's a distinction to be made between "man, I wish I could teach that guy a lesson" and actually teaching said guy a lesson.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Maybe I'm an exception, but I've never reacted to being wronged by entertaining the idea that someone should die for it. It's one thing to fantasize or recognize that the violence would feel cathartic, but there's a distinction to be made between "man, I wish I could teach that guy a lesson" and actually teaching said guy a lesson.


Yet no violence actually occurred in either case.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 6, 2019)

It may seem hackneyed, but there's a movie scene that always plays out in my mind whenever I think about this kind of thing, both for myself and for others. While I think it's safe to say I've never done anything anywhere near intending to murder someone, I've still definitely, thought, said and done things that I regret. The pain of that knowledge of the person that we once were is a constant reminder to be better. Sometimes what we've done is unforgivable by its very nature, because it can never be undone. At the end of the day though, we have to find a way to live with ourselves and with each other, because we're human and we're stupid and we make mistakes.

This is the scene I always think about:


----------



## spudmunkey (Feb 6, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> Basically, my beef with the whole deal is people are saying he _is_ racist when actually he _was_ racist at a point in time many years ago.



The article that made me roll my eyes said basically, "Oscars red carpet cancelled because Liam Neeson wanted to kill a black man." Like...racist Liam was going to hide behind a plant at the event, and jump out and kill a black person at the Oscars, so they cancelled it for everyone's safety...and now his plans were foiled.


----------



## Drew (Feb 6, 2019)

wankerness said:


> Again - he brought it up himself. He said it was terrible. He was growing up during the troubles. I fully believe that if it had been a scot or whatever other groups were fighting at the time he'd have been cruising looking for one of THEM. This is such utter bs. I get say, the Kevin Hart outrage to some degree, since that was other people digging it up, and then he didn't apologize for it until he eventually did one of those "i'm sorry that you're offended" things. I completely get the virginia guy doing something horribly racist and years later (at age 25) still being proud of it enough to put it in his yearbook page, and then DENYING that it's him, but this is absolutely not that.
> 
> How DARE someone do (i mean, THINK - let's not forget no one was even assaulted here, let alone killed) something stupid in their youth that they're still so haunted by that they bring it up themselves, when if they'd remained silent no one would have ever found out and screeched on Twitter?


I think, for me, the other important thing here is he REALIZED he was wrong, at the time, and changed. 

It's not like "oh, it's ok to be racist 40 years ago provided you aren't today," or something like that. Nor is it a binary "he's racist" or "he's not racist" and nothing in between. 

Idunno. I feel like racism is badly understood in this country, and in particular I think that last point is worth meditating on. We treat it like being Republican or Democratic, or a Red Sox or Yankees fan, or some sort of identity like that, where it's a thing you either are, or you're not. 

It's not. I hate to go all Avenue Q here, but racism is a spectrum, and it's possible to generally believe in racial equality and fairness and political correctness and all that jazz, and STILL find yourself reacting in a situation in a way that's objectively racist. We all do it - I even catch myself doing it on occasion. And, I think, that's ok - as long as you're aware of how you're reacting, learning from it, controlling from it, and doing everything in your part to not _act_ in a racist manner, I think you're doing all you can be to be a decent person. I think also being honest about the fact that plenty of decent, normal people also occasionally display twinges of racism, and just because they, oh, once mistook a black man in a store for an employee or something, doesn't mean that _everything_ they do is racist, they just kinda messed up there, just as pointing to the fact you have black friends _doesn't_ mean you _can't possibly_ do racist things to other people. 

Idunno. To me his story was a "this was my first, thoughtless reaction - I fucked up, but I realized I was wrong and I learned something from that." And, I think that's a pretty healthy and important story to tell - if racism is a spectrum and our job is to move as far over to the "not racist" side as we possibly can, then none of us are gonna get anywhere unless we can't own it when we fuck up. Denying there is still work to be done is a pretty sure-fire way to assure it'll never happen.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 6, 2019)

spudmunkey said:


> The article that made me roll my eyes said basically, "Oscars red carpet cancelled because Liam Neeson wanted to kill a black man." Like...racist Liam was going to hide behind a plant at the event, and jump out and kill a black person at the Oscars, so they cancelled it for everyone's safety...and now his plans were foiled.


Nah, they cancelled the red carpet event for a movie premiere of something he starred in. It could be more moronic reactionary BS, or it could just be because if they didn't they'd obviously have gotten a bunch of screeching young white people overtaking the event trying to crucify him for his virulent racism.


----------



## spudmunkey (Feb 6, 2019)

wankerness said:


> Nah, they cancelled the red carpet event for a movie premiere of something he starred in. It could be more moronic reactionary BS, or it could just be because if they didn't they'd obviously have gotten a bunch of screeching young white people overtaking the event trying to crucify him for his virulent racism.




Ahh, you'r right. I misremembered. The red carpet for his film's premier, no the Oscars. The headline was still the same, though, just with "oscars" removed.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Maybe I'm an exception, but I've never reacted to being wronged by entertaining the idea that someone should die for it. It's one thing to fantasize or recognize that the violence would feel cathartic, but there's a distinction to be made between "man, I wish I could teach that guy a lesson" and actually teaching said guy a lesson.



My point was that I, as a generally pacifistic dude, have felt huge rage at something FAR, FAR less egregious than a best friend being raped. I have absolutely no doubts that I would entertain thoughts of killing the perpetrator in that situation. Sure, I doubt that I would go out and buy a club and do it, but I don't live in an environment like he did, plus I'm not a huge tough guy. If you are Mr. Zen and never have gotten that mad at anyone even in the face of something that terrible, great.

But regardless, in end results, there's no difference between "man, I wish I could teach that guy a lesson" and what Neeson did!


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

wankerness said:


> there's no difference between "man, I wish I could teach that guy a lesson" and what Neeson did!


I disagree entirely. If circumstances had been different, and he managed to get into some kind of altercation, then the end result would have not been the same at all. It's only by chance/circumstance that these are comparable. It's like saying it's ok to take a swing at someone (or shoot at them), as long as you miss.

I've absolutely been mad enough to think something like "I wish I could just run that guy over". But you don't then get in the car and drive in that direction. That crosses the line from an emotionally charged thought into actually beginning to put the terrible idea into action.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I disagree entirely. If circumstances had been different, and he managed to get into some kind of altercation, then the end result would have not been the same at all. It's only by chance/circumstance that these are comparable. It's like saying it's ok to take a swing at someone (or shoot at them), as long as you miss.
> 
> I've absolutely been mad enough to think something like "I wish I could just run that guy over". But you don't then get in the car and drive in that direction. That crosses the line from an emotionally charged thought into actually beginning to put the terrible idea into action.




Well you don't even like sanctioned combat sports so there's that. If someone did what they did to my best friend, relative or anything, regardless of their color, they've got something coming to them if the justice system doesn't fix it. If that makes me a monster or something, so be it. I'm comfortable with that.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I disagree entirely. If circumstances had been different, and he managed to get into some kind of altercation, then the end result would have not been the same at all. It's only by chance/circumstance that these are comparable. It's like saying it's ok to take a swing at someone (or shoot at them), as long as you miss.
> 
> I've absolutely been mad enough to think something like "I wish I could just run that guy over". But you don't then get in the car and drive in that direction. That crosses the line from an emotionally charged thought into actually beginning to put the terrible idea into action.



You cut off the "in end results" at the start of that sentence. If you cut that off, then yeah, what you posted is applicable!


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> I'm comfortable with that.


I'm not passing any judgement on anyone in the sense of "anyone who responds to something with violence is immediately a terrible person!", simply making a distinction between thinking something and putting it into action.



wankerness said:


> You cut off the "in end results"


I didn't think it was necessary, since I was speaking directly to the end results comment already so I figured it was implied. Pretend I included that part, and then re-read it with that context if you think it changes any of what I said.

I disagree with the idea that nobody getting hurt negates the distinction between having violent thoughts and acting on those thoughts.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 6, 2019)

I mean, personally, I don't think he did anything wrong. The worst part of it all was the racial motivation behind it. If he didn't attempt to do that based on someone's race and only due to the rape alone? Justified.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

Did I interpret something wrong, or did he not go into public looking for a fight in the hopes that it would lead to him killing someone?
I would count that as doing something wrong, even without the race part.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Did I interpret something wrong, or did he not go into public looking for a fight in the hopes that it would lead to him killing someone?
> I would count that as doing something wrong, even without the race part.



Right and I'm disagreeing with you on what I consider right or wrong. You're not going to change my mind in this instance. Someone does that to someone I love, again, REGARDLESS of what they look like, retribution is coming one way or another. In an ideal world, there would be a better justice system and all verified sexual assailants be put in general population with the knowledge of what he/she did made clear to everyone in general population.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

It baffles me that I'm so on board with what you said in the other thread about the whole "America isn't actually the best place ever" thing, but this is probably the point on which I disagree with you the most so far. 

I can't see any scenario where going out with intent to kill someone outside of something like self defense is not wrong. I could even stretch as far as understanding someone wanting to kill the person who wronged them -> it's still wrong, but I get why someone would say it's not. But wanting an entirely innocent/unrelated-to-the-situation person to be dead to make you feel better about whatever you might be mad about, no matter how justified the inciting sense of anger might be -> In what universe is that ok?

It's ok to try to kill people just because you're mad? I cannot comprehend how that can be interpreted as not wrong.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> It baffles me that I'm so on board with what you said in the other thread about the whole "America isn't actually the best place ever" thing, but this is probably the point on which I disagree with you the most so far.
> 
> I can't see any scenario where going out with intent to kill someone outside of something like self defense is not wrong. I could even stretch as far as understanding someone wanting to kill the person who wronged them -> it's still wrong, but I get why someone would say it's not. But wanting an entirely innocent/unrelated-to-the-situation person to be dead to make you feel better about whatever you might be mad about, no matter how justified the inciting sense of anger might be -> In what universe is that ok?
> 
> It's ok to try to kill people just because you're mad BECAUSE THEY RAPED SOMEONE YOU CARE ABOUT? I cannot comprehend how that can be interpreted as not wrong.



Fixed that for you.

Killing someone unrelated to the incident, yes, that is wrong. I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying that killing a rapist is fine. Going after random people, yes, that is wrong. If he were going after the person that raped his best friend, that would be fine.

Also, just because you agree with what I said in another thread about immigrants, that has no bearing on what I think is fine when it comes to killing someone. The two are not related, so I don't know why this baffles you.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

I addressed that part. Random killings because you're mad are wrong. End of story as far as I care.

Revenge against the actual perpetrator? I can maybe stretch for that one, but I similarly cannot be convinced otherwise in any other case.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Killing someone unrelated to the incident, yes, that is wrong.


But that's what we're talking about isn't it? Neeson wasn't looking for the perpetrator, he just wanted to kill someone.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> I don't know why this baffles you


It's more of a "I think I'm starting to understand you better", but then all of the sudden "wait, nevermind, maybe I don't". 
I do think that the two of us tend to land at a less-different-than-it-would-look worldview at the end of the day on most things, but we approach them from such different angles.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> But that's what we're talking about isn't it? Neeson wasn't looking for the perpetrator, he just wanted to kill someone.



While I can understand his emotions and not agree with thought process, I've already said that I consider that to be wrong. My very argument is rooted in that if he were going after the rapist, that is fine. What he actually did was wrong.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

^ A misunderstanding then. I think I thought you said something that you didn't or didn't mean to say.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> It's more of a "I think I'm starting to understand you better", but then all of the sudden "wait, nevermind, maybe I don't".
> I do think that the two of us tend to land at a less-different-than-it-would-look worldview at the end of the day on most things, but we approach them from such different angles.



To be fair, I've not let a whole lot on about myself on this forum. You're going to come across things you agree with and things that you don't. That doesn't mean you understand me as a whole one way or another.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> ^ A misunderstanding then. I think I thought you said something that you didn't or didn't mean to say.



No no. Him going after a random person black or not IS WRONG. I understand his anger, I don't agree with the motivation, but if he actually got the fucker that did that, killed him, and then that were the end of it? Good riddance.

Also, looking back, I didn't make myself clear on that, so that's not your fault there, that's on me.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

I think we've reached an understanding on this one at least. 

Anyway, sorry to derail the thread. Or... is there much of a thread here to derail?


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I think we've reached an understanding on this one at least.
> 
> Anyway, sorry to derail the thread. Or... is there much of a thread here to derail?




Long story short: Liam Neeson behaved like a jackass, admits he was a jackass, acknowledged how terrible it was, decided not to be a jackass anymore. Now if we could just get everyone else on that mindset.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Feb 6, 2019)

He knows what he did was stupid and he's apologetic about it now, but I don't know what the hell he was thinking admitting to this, there was no way this would go unnoticed or not get blown out of proportions with the uber PC liberals, especially in this day and age where everyone is racist/sexist and everything is bad. Had he not mentioned skin color people probably wouldn't have anything to say other than he's encouraging toxic masculinity. 
There's bigger problems in the world than this ffs.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

I'm a bit out of the loop about why/how the conversation came about in the first place. Given the option to either admit that I did something dumb years ago that could lead to being torn a new one, or just saying nothing.... clearly saying nothing seems like the intuitive choice.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 6, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> He knows what he did was stupid and he's apologetic about it now, but I don't know what the hell he was thinking admitting to this, there was no way this would go unnoticed or not get blown out of proportions with the uber PC liberals, especially in this day and age where everyone is racist/sexist and everything is bad. Had he not mentioned skin color people probably wouldn't have anything to say other than he's encouraging toxic masculinity.
> There's bigger problems in the world than this ffs.



I'd rather him do it on his own terms and admit he was being stupid than be found out later only to have him stammering for a response. Not only that, but I think it's rather encouraging when someone at least admits that they were being stupid and explains that it's wrong for them to behave that way.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 6, 2019)

I think he's been on a thing lately about people being so PC until you scratch the surface.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 6, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> He knows what he did was stupid and he's apologetic about it now, but I don't know what the hell he was thinking admitting to this, there was no way this would go unnoticed or not get blown out of proportions with the uber PC liberals, especially in this day and age where everyone is racist/sexist and everything is bad. Had he not mentioned skin color people probably wouldn't have anything to say other than he's encouraging toxic masculinity.
> There's bigger problems in the world than this ffs.


I didn't even think of that. I was originally thinking why didn't he just say Asian or arab or some other race people don't care about. Everyone seems to fixate on the fact that he actually said black. I thought if he would've left out the race bit or changed it to something else it would be no big deal to anyone but you are right, people are completely overlooking the toxic masculinity aspect.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 6, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> He knows what he did was stupid and he's apologetic about it now, but I don't know what the hell he was thinking admitting to this, there was no way this would go unnoticed or not get blown out of proportions with the uber PC liberals, especially in this day and age where everyone is racist/sexist and everything is bad. *Had he not mentioned skin color people probably wouldn't have anything to say other than he's encouraging toxic masculinity. *
> There's bigger problems in the world than this ffs.



Exactly correct. Even that might not have happened. It would have been some footnote news article for one day, like "whoa, Liam Neeson is even crazier than he was in Taken!" End of discussion.

And no one gives a f*** about FAR worse things that actually involved violence instead of THINKING ABOUT VIOLENCE. Like, remember when Mark Wahlberg beat an asian man so bad that he went blind in one eye, while calling him a "gook?" Remember when Sean Penn tied Madonna to a chair and very badly beat her? Nope, doesn't matter, they're still showered in accolades. The only thing that matters is what happens right now. Liam Neeson is SO much worse than them in the eyes of the Twitterverse.

EDIT: Oh, looked up that chair thing, guess that was finally disproven in 2016.


----------



## Demiurge (Feb 6, 2019)

It's healthy to attempt to have a reckoning with some ugly feelings one may have in the past, but it's patently insane to discuss it at a press junket and believe that any nuance is going to survive the gotcha-level soundbite.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 6, 2019)

Demiurge said:


> It's healthy to attempt to have a reckoning with some ugly feelings one may have in the past, but it's patently insane to discuss it at a press junket and believe that any nuance is going to survive the gotcha-level soundbite.



Oh, of course. But, just because the outrage is completely predictable doesn't mean it's not depressing and idiotic.


----------



## GatherTheArsenal (Feb 6, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> I didn't even think of that. I was originally thinking why didn't he just say Asian or arab or some other race people don't care about. Everyone seems to fixate on the fact that he actually said black. I thought if he would've left out the race bit or changed it to something else it would be no big deal to anyone but you are right, people are completely overlooking the toxic masculinity aspect.



Hey... as one of those races mentioned in your post I have to say I disagree with and resent your opinion that no one cares about Asians and Arabs.

Up to you if you personally don't care or think that ppl don't care about those races, but to say _no one_ cares about them... i think approx. *5 billion humans* (combined) today would disagree and have a bone to pick with you on that statement. That's quite dismissive to me and everyone else of those races.

How do you think that somehow there would be less care given if he instead said he went around looking for an innocent Asian or Arab hoping to kill one of them? 

Call me crazy but I think our lives are just as valuable as anyone else's... just my .


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

^ I think you misunderstood the sentiment of possum's statement. He didn't mean to say "nobody cares about those races" so much as making the point that people seem to get particularly up-in-arms about racism against black people, while being mostly willing to turn a blind eye to prejudices in other cases. Your point is still valid, I just think that wasn't the intended message.


----------



## GatherTheArsenal (Feb 6, 2019)

TedEH said:


> ^ He didn't mean to say "nobody cares about those races" so much as making the point that people seem to get particularly up-in-arms about racism against black people, while being mostly willing to turn a blind eye to prejudices in other cases.



Fair enough, I did try to read that over and over to see which angle or context possum said that in before I replied.

Though i would argue that your clarification is a view where its validity is largely limited to within the U.S. due to the history of racism against African Americans and gun violence in recent years. 

But outside of the U.S. in a global world where Liam's statement has a far reach to anyone with access to social media or a TV, that view doesn't exactly hold water in my opinion. Especially today and not in Canada or the UK at least.

Violence and discrimination against any minority is generally not tolerated regardless of which category they belong to.


----------



## Demiurge (Feb 6, 2019)

It also doesn't help that situations nearly identical to the one Neeson describes (allegation with a black suspect, people wanting to enact street justice against anyone who might broadly meet that description) pretty much constitute the archetype of hate crimes in the United States in the the early-mid 20th century.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 6, 2019)

There's an _outside_ of the US? 

I kid, but realistically, when it comes to social issues I don't think Americans (all North Americans, not just the US) spend much time thinking globally, rather than just the "world" within which they live. I'm guilty of it too. I'll admit I know little about what's going on in other parts of the world, but I often have at least a vague idea of what's going on in the US.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 7, 2019)

Yes my point was if he would've replaced black with any other race, it wouldn't be a headline. White on black racism seems to greatly overshadow other forms of racism in the US.


----------



## Siggevaio (Feb 7, 2019)

Liam should be experienced enough to know that you just don't share things like this with the media


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 7, 2019)

Idk he seems like an intelligent person. Maybe he wanted it to become a huge debate?


----------



## Xaios (Feb 7, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> I understand his anger, I don't agree with the motivation, but if he actually got the fucker that did that, killed him, and then that were the end of it? Good riddance.


And then what?

Here's the problem. Him avenging his friend that was raped doesn't suddenly and magically unrape said friend. Victims of a crime don't magically work through whatever issues that crime caused for them just because the perpetrator got their comeuppance. Plus, there's issues of proportionality and escalation, all things that don't tend to cross anyone's mind when they're embroiled in this situation until it's well past too late.

Given how little context we know about the whole situation, there could be any number of socially relevant causes for what happened. Perhaps the man in question was raised in an abusive household and developed into a psychopath as a survival mechanism. Perhaps he was mentally ill. Could he even be criminally liable if that's the case? Again, we've only been told the aftermath, and dispensing punishment only knowing the immediate situation without understanding the root causes creates more problems than it solves.

Even if the man committed this horrible crime in a clear state of mind, what happens after Neeson kills him? Assuming Neeson doesn't suffer legal consequences, someone else may decide to take their own vengeance on Neeson in exactly the same way. Worse still, if Neeson is incarcerated, they may decide to hurt or kill someone he's close to, and so the cycle goes on.

Ultimately, while these kinds of crimes always affect us on a deeply individual level, there is no sustainable method to dispense of justice on that same individual level. It really comes back to what Martin Luther King Jr said, "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." That is why the Justice system, deeply flawed and frustrating as it might be in its current iteration, is the only viable option for society as a whole, because at the end of the day, vigilantism solves nothing except sating immediate bloodlust, and tends to create more problems in the end. What we need to do is to work to improve the justice system as a whole. This means increasing and improving services for victims of crimes so that they can be given some semblance of normality again (something that revenge ultimately doesn't accomplish), and shifting focus from retribution to rehabilitation, and streamlining it to make it more responsive and less susceptible to being taken advantage of as a tool for the wealthy and the powerful. At the end of the day, this is the only way to create fewer criminals and to ensure the ones that do need to be incarcerated on a permanent basis aren't so numerous that they're a massive drain on society. One of the consequences of this is that whatever individual urges we have for revenge must be left unsatisfied.

Of course, I've never had cause to want to kill someone. If that day ever comes, I guess we'll find out if I can walk the walk.

Neeson deserves the criticism he's received for what he did in the first place. He also deserves some commendation as well though, not for ultimately not going through with it after coming to his senses, but for using the experience for self-reflection, identifying his faults and trying to learn from it. Even if a person commits a crime which has terrible consequences and no amount of adequate restitution can be made, that person trying to realize their mistakes and grow is still a good thing, and should not be discarded because they made a mistake, even a horrible one. We as people are way too fond of assuming that certain people are so beyond redemption that they shouldn't even be allowed to try and realize their mistakes and grow past them, because we're so fond of having someone to blame that we just can't handle the thought of a person changing to the point that they're no longer the same person on the inside. We want people who are monsters to stay monsters because it gives us a target to focus our righteous indignation, and we can't handle the notion of forgiveness (note: I'm not saying that forgiveness removes requirement for restitution under the law) if a person who committed a horrible act learns and grows into a different person, one that would never do such a thing.


----------



## Exchanger (Feb 7, 2019)

Xaios said:


> We want people who are monsters to stay monsters because it gives us a target to focus our righteous indignation, and we can't handle the notion of forgiveness (note: I'm not saying that forgiveness removes requirement for restitution under the law) if a person who committed a horrible act learns and grows into a different person, one that would never do such a thing.



Another thing is that, admitting that monsters don't exist, that people are not inherently evil, but do terrible things because of their environment, their upbringing, circumstances, emotions (I want to stress out, explaining doesn't mean excusing)... that criminals are "normal" people who took a wrong turn, forces us to identify with them. And accept that because we're innocent today, we might one day not be, unless we constantly keep ourselves under control. And that's a scary thought. The idea of people being inherently good or bad is such a comfortable position...


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 7, 2019)

Exchanger said:


> Another thing is that, admitting that monsters don't exist, that people are not inherently evil, but do terrible things because of their environment, their upbringing, circumstances, emotions (I want to stress out, explaining doesn't mean excusing)... that criminals are "normal" people who took a wrong turn, forces us to identify with them. And accept that because we're innocent today, we might one day not be, unless we constantly keep ourselves under control. And that's a scary thought. The idea of people being inherently good or bad is such a comfortable position...


This is the biggest load of horseshit since religion and the biggest problem with learning from history. People really want to find any way they can to try and prove that people like Hitler and Stalin were abnormal or defective specimens. That Hitler was some kind of hypnotist that led a nation to commit atrocities against their will. People are desperate to think these criminals and monsters aren't just regular people like everyone else. People are animals. People have animal urges and instincts. When people don't control themselves they become monsters. Things like the Holocaust could happen right now anywhere in the world. People like the official story of the end of WW2 of us heroically nuking Japan into surrendering. They don't want to think that the Japanese had already been trying to surrender and we murdered two cities of civilians for no other reason than to scare the Russians.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 7, 2019)

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywoo...uez-liam-neeson-racist-chainsmokers-movie/amp


----------



## wankerness (Feb 7, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywoo...uez-liam-neeson-racist-chainsmokers-movie/amp



Cool. Ask some random idiot that has nothing to do with the situation (and really shouldn't be looked to for any serious social commentary anyway - reminds me of Dave Chapelle's old joke about Ja Rule being asked about 9-11) what they think about the situation and try to blow that up into clickbait and the same morons writing more thinkpieces about said idiot being an evil racist. Well, they got me to click on it, so mission accomplished.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 7, 2019)

Xaios said:


> And then what?
> 
> Here's the problem. Him avenging his friend that was raped doesn't suddenly and magically unrape said friend. Victims of a crime don't magically work through whatever issues that crime caused for them just because the perpetrator got their comeuppance. Plus, there's issues of proportionality and escalation, all things that don't tend to cross anyone's mind when they're embroiled in this situation until it's well past too late.
> 
> ...




I don't care.

Just kidding. Sorry. It may not unrape someone, but that son of a bitch won't rape anyone else. And sure, it's only one rapist out of millions or so, but that's a few more people that won't be affected by that person and that's good enough for me. Sorry, but I've got a different view of justice than most everyone here and when justice fails, well... yeah. If that makes me a piece of shit or a monster to you, again, I'm comfortable with that.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 7, 2019)

You cared enough to come back and comment on it. And to have our discussion yesterday.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 7, 2019)

TedEH said:


> You cared enough to come back and comment on it. And to have our discussion yesterday.



You didn't read after that did you?


----------



## TedEH (Feb 7, 2019)

That part didn't exist when I posted.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 7, 2019)

TedEH said:


> That part didn't exist when I posted.



Do you have proof? 

Again, I'm kidding. You're right, it didn't.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 7, 2019)

I hope that you also posted that with only the first line and then edited it. If you did, I didn't refresh fast enough to see it.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 7, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I hope that you also posted that with only the first line and then edited it. If you did, I didn't refresh fast enough to see it.



Exactly what happened. Just got up, at first just felt like being dismissive and then I figured it would serve better to let everyone here know that likely what they post regarding killing rapists/sexual assailants isn't going to change my mind. While I appreciate Xaios post, I'm afraid it's done little to sway me. Again, if you see me as a monster or not worthy of living myself, that's fine.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 7, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Again, if you see me as a monster or not worthy of living myself, that's fine.


Chill man, I don't think anyone here thinks that.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 7, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Chill man, I don't think anyone here thinks that.



I don't know man. I was getting some pretty nasty replies back when I was saying that I wasn't going to think of Tim Lambesis' crimes when I said I was going buy anything else that AILD put out.


----------



## spudmunkey (Feb 7, 2019)

This thread is two days old, and still, every time I read the title that says "wants" instead of "wanted", my eyes roll so much I swear my coworker can hear it.


----------



## GatherTheArsenal (Feb 7, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> Yes my point was if he would've replaced black with any other race, it wouldn't be a headline. White on black racism seems to greatly overshadow other forms of racism in the US.



My bad, in this case I read into your post the wrong way. 

Wow this thread went to a whole other level in the 24 hours I was away. There are a lot of good points that were made though.

I agree that Liam does deserve some commendation for what other ppl in Hollywood would feel like they would be unobliged to even bring it up in the first place. 

For what it's worth at this point, I think another angle to this story is that ppl need to separate the character from the human being, which regrettably doesn't happen as much. 

Let's not just assume that if Liam actually got into an altercation that he would go ahead and murder them, Taken style. The character may, but I'd be willing to bet that Liam may not do it regardless of what he convinced himself at the time.

I've never taken a life, but you do hear from those who did that it's one of the hardest thing to do when your finger is on the trigger. I'm talking real life here not movie scripts, and this is barring psychotics or those with an afflicted past which Liam doesn'tseem to be.

So maybe chalk this up to being an unpopular opinion, but unless those (including me) who are commenting on it have taken a life before in revenge or cold blood, then I really think we're just engaging in load of assumptions that we seem so sure of.


----------



## crankyrayhanky (Feb 7, 2019)

Thread Fail. Thought this was a new action flick.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 7, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> I don't care.
> 
> Just kidding. Sorry. It may not unrape someone, but that son of a bitch won't rape anyone else. And sure, it's only one rapist out of millions or so, but that's a few more people that won't be affected by that person and that's good enough for me. Sorry, but I've got a different view of justice than most everyone here and when justice fails, well... yeah. If that makes me a piece of shit or a monster to you, again, I'm comfortable with that.


It doesn't make you a monster or a piece of shit, and I at least appreciate that you're willing to be honest about how you feel and to not interpret what I said as an attack on your values.

I do think that it's a myopic perspective, though. You say that you'd be happy to take out one rapist out of potentially millions. On its face, that's totally reasonable. The problem though, is that it does nothing to stop the problem of rape in the larger sense. First, that one rapist that has been dispensed has already permanently damaged someone by that point. You might have protected more people from being victimized by that specific rapist, but that initial victim is a casualty that can't be undone. Second, without systemic changes, society will keep manufacturing more rapists who will continue to do the same damage by hurting those people you sought to protect. In the end, it doesn't _actually_ reduce the number of rapists or victims, it just changes their names. I don't know about you, but any satisfaction that I might get from hurting or killing a rapist would be pretty fleeting, knowing that it ultimately accomplished nothing significant except getting blood on my own hands. Seems like a pretty futile gesture, kind of like stepping on a single carpenter ant after the swarm has already damaged your house so badly that it's falling apart.

Wouldn't it be more productive and ultimately more satisfying, then, to work towards changing the system so that, instead of stopping one of a million rapists after they've already victimized someone, we stop the grand majority of those people before they've hurt anybody, by making it so they never go down the dark path to becoming rapists in the first place? Not only does it stop way more people from becoming criminals, most importantly, _it stops way more people from becoming victims_. If there is a failure in justice, it's not that society doesn't always punish criminals to the degree that our own personal sense of right and wrong demands. The failure in justice is that our society is a place that produces these kinds of broken people in the first place, who then go on to create victims as a byproduct in their wake.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 7, 2019)

Xaios said:


> It doesn't make you a monster or a piece of shit, and I at least appreciate that you're willing to be honest about how you feel and to not interpret what I said as an attack on your values.
> 
> I do think that it's a myopic perspective, though. You say that you'd be happy to take out one rapist out of potentially millions. On its face, that's totally reasonable. The problem though, is that it does nothing to stop the problem of rape in the larger sense. First, that one rapist that has been dispensed has already permanently damaged someone by that point. You might have protected more people from being victimized by that specific rapist, but that initial victim is a casualty that can't be undone. Second, without systemic changes, society will keep manufacturing more rapists who will continue to do the same damage by hurting those people you sought to protect. In the end, it doesn't _actually_ reduce the number of rapists or victims, it just changes their names. I don't know about you, but any satisfaction that I might get from hurting or killing a rapist would be pretty fleeting, knowing that it ultimately accomplished nothing significant except getting blood on my own hands. Seems like a pretty futile gesture, kind of like stepping on a single carpenter ant after the swarm has already damaged your house so badly that it's falling apart.
> 
> Wouldn't it be more productive and ultimately more satisfying, then, to work towards changing the system so that, instead of stopping one of a million rapists after they've already victimized someone, we stop the grand majority of those people before they've hurt anybody, by making it so they never go down the dark path to becoming rapists in the first place? Not only does it stop way more people from becoming criminals, most importantly, _it stops way more people from becoming victims_. If there is a failure in justice, it's not that society doesn't always punish criminals to the degree that our own personal sense of right and wrong demands. The failure in justice is that our society is a place that produces these kinds of broken people in the first place, who then go on to create victims as a byproduct in their wake.




I would like for justice to get to the point where we can honestly give those pieces of shit what they deserve. In opinion, you start by no longer protecting them in general population. Put them in with general population, make it known what they've done. If the justice system was better, there would never be a need or a want for a vigilante. I'm going to come right out and say it that I'm VERY biased on the issue. I've known people including very close family members who've been affected by people like that so knowing that, it doesn't trouble me at all to see every last one of them wiped out one way or another. As far as blood on my own hands, I guess you see it differently than I do, because thinking about it in depth, whatever blood on my hands would be washed off the minute I hit the bathroom. Now do I expect everyone else to see it like I do? No. I'm not going to tell you I'm in my right mind when it comes to this issue. I might be considered mentally ill for all we know. I just know that while one more will take its place, getting rid of a person like that? It'll do someone a favor in the long run.

I tend to look at this from two perspectives: Yeah on the grand scale, killing one or two, that won't do shit. But on the local down to Earth level? Someone who hates people like that just as much as I do? They might sleep a little better at night and to me, that's worth something.

As far as stopping them from becoming rapists in the first place, I don't know exactly how you plan on doing that. It's going to require a massive culture change on our behalf. If you could make that happen or come up with a way, I'd be more than happy to hear it, especially since people who go after those sick fucks shouldn't be tried for murder, they should be given a "thank you" but they're not. They're tried and then locked up for getting rid of a major detriment. Again, that's just how I feel. On the grand scale? Yes, fix it. To me, I spend more time in my own feelings and the feelings of those around me, which is probably why I feel the way I feel.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 8, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> I'm going to come right out and say it that I'm VERY biased on the issue. I've known people including very close family members who've been affected by people like that so knowing that, it doesn't trouble me at all to see every last one of them wiped out one way or another.


That's fair, I get that you're close to the issue, probably much closer than I. However, imagine asking one of these affected people you know the question, "As a victim of this horrible act, how can I best honor you? By punishing the person who did this to you? Or by committing myself to changing the world into a place where this never would have happened?"

If you asked this question of them, what do you think their answer would be?

There's a reason that the greater part of the activism done by victims of sexual assault is directed towards eliminating "rape culture" as opposed to being limited to ensuring punishment against those who are guilty of rape. On an individual level, targeting rape culture as a whole instead of one specific person lets them prove to themselves and to the world that they aren't defined solely by what that other person did to them, thus allowing them to reclaim their agency. Collectively, it's an acknowledgment _by the victims themselves_, the people who are far more affected than either you or I, that confronting the aspects of our society that allows people to develop to the point where they choose to commit sexual assault is more likely to offer tangible results. Yes, of course they want justice to be done as well and recognize that at times it's definitely not (what happened with Brock Turner is still very much a relevant issue), but even they, the people who are most hurt by such crimes, see that judgment and retribution against one Brock Turner is pointless by itself in a world that's ready and willing to provide a practically unlimited supply of Brock Turners. Instead, they've determined that focusing their efforts on long term change is the more worthy pursuit. If they, arguably the only ones who have any real claim to vengeance, have judged that simply destroying the fruit is an exercise in futility and have instead opted to begin the task of ripping the tree out by the root, a process that likely won't be accomplished in our lifetime, who are we not to follow their lead? To waste our time and energy on getting even, justified or not, would be a slap in the face to those people who, in spite of how they've suffered personally, have chosen the path of progress.



PunkBillCarson said:


> As far as blood on my own hands, I guess you see it differently than I do, because thinking about it in depth, whatever blood on my hands would be washed off the minute I hit the bathroom. Now do I expect everyone else to see it like I do? No. I'm not going to tell you I'm in my right mind when it comes to this issue. I might be considered mentally ill for all we know.


Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Being angry that someone we love was the victim of such a horrible crime is the most natural thing in the world. However, when you say that murdering a rapist wouldn't bother you, I don't really believe that would be the likely outcome in the end, at least if you're an at all normal person.

If you are that kind of person that could remorselessly murder someone even if they deserved it, then, to be honest, your viewpoint on what severity would constitute an appropriate response to such a crime probably shouldn't be used in determining the direction of public policy.



PunkBillCarson said:


> I just know that while one more will take its place, getting rid of a person like that? *It'll do someone a favor in the long run.*


That's not as likely as you might think. There have been _a lot_ of studies on sexual crimes and recidivism in the past few years, and they pretty much all agree that recidivism in such cases is much, *much* lower than previously thought. Even compared to 30 years ago, our understanding of the subject has changed quite drastically.



PunkBillCarson said:


> I tend to look at this from two perspectives: Yeah on the grand scale, killing one or two, that won't do shit. But on the local down to Earth level? Someone who hates people like that just as much as I do? They might sleep a little better at night and to me, that's worth something.


Unfortunately any resultant feeling of security would be based on a false premise. If they're at all the kind of person that recognizes that the ultimate reality remains unchanged, then there won't be any real comfort for them, regardless of whether or not they hate sexual criminals as much as you.

Also, if your goal is to ensure that a person feels secure by in knowing that a specific criminal can't hurt them, that would be accomplished just as well by ensuring that person is suitably sentenced to prison, something that's becomes more likely to happen if we address the larger social issues which allow certain criminals, your Brock Turners and so forth, to escape the consequences of their actions simply because of their gender, skin color and/or bank account balance.



PunkBillCarson said:


> As far as stopping them from becoming rapists in the first place, I don't know exactly how you plan on doing that. It's going to require a massive culture change on our behalf. If you could make that happen or come up with a way, I'd be more than happy to hear it...


That's ultimately the crux of the whole thing, isn't it. Honestly, it's gonna be one of the hardest things society ever has to do, and there is no panacea. It'll probably require several lifetimes of activism against sexism, racism, classism and any attitude in general which allows a person to either be marginalized and devalued or elevated unfairly by society. We'll be long dead by the time it actually happens. However, doing so will ensure that courts consider criminal cases purely on their own merits instead of basing sentencing on a litany a unjust and irrelevant socioeconomic factors. Furthermore, it will ensure that people in general grow and develop with healthier attitudes about the value of other people, instilling in them the moral fiber that will inform them how wrong things like the aforementioned forms or oppression really are. After all, rape is quite often not merely about sex, but also about power, and in order for that power dynamic to exist, a rapist has to lack whatever ethical quality is present in a normal person which keeps them from devaluing other people. If we change the narrative that our children learn both from us and their surroundings, and we completely immerse them in the lesson in all aspects of their life that not only is it wrong to discriminate based on gender, race and class but also that whatever differences may exist as a result are utterly meaningless, they'll be less likely to internalize the notion that the needs and wants of others are irrelevant compared to their own. But again, the only way to accomplish this is literally generations of hard, focused work.



PunkBillCarson said:


> ...especially since people who go after those sick fucks shouldn't be tried for murder, they should be given a "thank you" but they're not. They're tried and then locked up for getting rid of a major detriment.


Eh, me and you just aren't gonna see eye to eye on this one. Vigilantism has never been an effective solution to problems like these, nor one I find personally acceptable, because it allows the actor in question to administer an incredibly flawed form of "justice" according to their own personal beliefs regardless of the larger conversation. It gave us things like the KKK and the New Orleans lynchings. Like torture, the only thing it ultimately accomplishes is degrading and debasing everyone involved. The justice system might be deeply flawed in its current incarnation, but it can at least be directed by public policy and cultural progress. Vigilantism is a loose cannon that blows up in everyone's face.



PunkBillCarson said:


> Again, that's just how I feel. On the grand scale? Yes, fix it. To me, I spend more time in my own feelings and the feelings of those around me, which is probably why I feel the way I feel.


Again, perfectly natural. Everyone in this world does things primarily for the benefit of the people nearest to them, because that's what affects them the most personally. There comes a point though where we have to recognize that the best thing we can do for the people around us is to acknowledge the need to act for the betterment of all people on a larger scale, because the world is getting smaller everyday, and just because we don't immediately recognize how something happening on the other side of the planet will affect those we love doesn't mean it won't have a profound impact on them. Nothing happens in a vacuum anymore, and if we want to do the most good locally, we have to think and act globally.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 8, 2019)

And I have absolutely no problem with that. There are people like yourself who can talk these issues out rationally. I can't because I'm fueled with anger on this particular issue. I'm not saying everyone should go out and hammer every single one with a bullet to the head, but to be perfectly honest, you wouldn't be hurting my feelings. Logically, I know that's not the answer, but there are certain issues where I simply don't have the emotional capacity to get past my own feelings on it. This is one of those.
@Xaios


----------



## Anquished (Feb 8, 2019)

Xaios said:


> That's fair, I get that you're close to the issue, probably much closer than I. However, imagine asking one of these affected people you know the question, "As a victim of this horrible act, how can I best honor you? By punishing the person who did this to you? Or by committing myself to changing the world into a place where this never would have happened?"
> 
> If you asked this question of them, what do you think their answer would be?
> 
> ...



Just to weigh in gently on this, as it is a sensitive issue. I personally feel that for the most part, the activism isn't really tackling "rape culture", it's just creating a divide. I mean for example look at the recent backlash to the Gillette advert with it's "toxic masculinity" message. Whilst the message itself wasn't the problem, I feel where and how it was delivered was. People still preach the message of "teaching people not to rape" as if that's the defacto standard of people exiting the womb. However no one (to my knowledge) seems to be going after the Judicial process itself (atleast in the UK). I haven't seen any kind of major push to make sentences a hell of a lot harsher on convicted sex offenders, nor anything to make the Judicial process for victims less traumatizing. Whilst the cultural shift is needed to more strongly stigmatize sexual assault for sure, I'm surprised the actual deterrent/punishment hasn't had a more public push. Again I might be just living under a rock and that is actually happening, if that is the case I'd be interested to read what is actually being done and eat my words. Feel free to chuck an article at me and laugh.

Whilst I was out in Singapore last year, the underground tube stations had rolling video clips of someone sexually harassing someone and being dragged away in handcuffs with a warning of a jail sentence and/or caning. Whilst I'm not an advocate for physical punishment, I think even just showing this video in a public place is a far stronger deterrent than our current efforts.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 8, 2019)

Here's what I want to know... Why is one of my best friends facing a longer jail sentence for marijuana (10 years) than a pedophile who hurt a member of my family and he only got three years? Take a guess as to which one is the bigger detriment. The guy at home smoking a joint not bothering anyone or the sick son of a bitch who made sure my mother and her sisters were never going to have a normal life?


----------



## Anquished (Feb 8, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Here's what I want to know... Why is one of my best friends facing a longer jail sentence for marijuana (10 years) than a pedophile who hurt a member of my family and he only got three years? Take a guess as to which one is the bigger detriment. The guy at home smoking a joint not bothering anyone or the sick son of a bitch who made sure my mother and her sisters were never going to have a normal life?



And this is exactly my point. Sorry to hear about your friend man.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 8, 2019)

I mean if we want to put people like this in prison? Fine. But stop separating them from general population and DON'T keep what they did from the other prisoners. The problem will take care of itself. As a young boy I used to think that all people in prison were bad. I used to think that the good people were on the outside. That's not always true, I found out. There are better people in prison right now than there are out of it and that includes people that should still be there.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Feb 8, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Here's what I want to know... Why is one of my best friends facing a longer jail sentence for marijuana (10 years) than a pedophile who hurt a member of my family and he only got three years? Take a guess as to which one is the bigger detriment. The guy at home smoking a joint not bothering anyone or the sick son of a bitch who made sure my mother and her sisters were never going to have a normal life?



Because the "War on Drugs" is far more profitable and helps keep the poor and disenfranchised "in thier place" better.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 8, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because the "War on Drugs" is far more profitable and helps keep the poor and disenfranchised "in thier place" better.



Exactly. And I take issue with it. I take issue with it and that's why this country will never fucking turn around because they'd rather lock someone up instead of treating them. If I seem overly emotional in my posts the last couple of days, I'm sorry, but it's a slap of reality right to the fact when you realize just how fucked this country truly is. Make America Great Again? How about make it great FOR ONCE? Sorry for derailing by the way.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Feb 8, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Exactly. And I take issue with it. I take issue with it and that's why this country will never fucking turn around because they'd rather lock someone up instead of treating them. If I seem overly emotional in my posts the last couple of days, I'm sorry, but it's a slap of reality right to the fact when you realize just how fucked this country truly is. Make America Great Again? How about make it great FOR ONCE? Sorry for derailing by the way.



It's getting better, but we have to keep at it. 

Right now, 10 states have legal pot, with 13 more decriminalizing it. Many of those states are vacating convictions for past offenders and clearing the records of those who have already served thier sentences. 

This is why the little elections matter almost as much, if not more than the big ones. Even if you want to protest vote/not vote for President or Congress, you should really look at Governors, Judges and especially Attorney Generals, not to mention any ballot measures.

We have a long way to go, but if we keep pushing progressive ideas at the local level we'll see continuous change.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 8, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's getting better, but we have to keep at it.
> 
> Right now, 10 states have legal pot, with 13 more decriminalizing it. Many of those states are vacating convictions for past offenders and clearing the records of those who have already served thier sentences.
> 
> ...




Maybe it's just me but I feel like we should have already been there a long time ago. I can't help it, when I hear about other countries, sure they have their problems, but goddamn it, socially they're doing SO MUCH FUCKING better and am I the only one this is pissing off?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Feb 8, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Maybe it's just me but I feel like we should have already been there a long time ago. I can't help it, when I hear about other countries, sure they have their problems, but goddamn it, socially they're doing SO MUCH FUCKING better and am I the only one this is pissing off?



You're not wrong, and you're certainly not the only one that's mad.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 8, 2019)

Americans have been conditioned by our system (run by people we think should be qualified since they have tons and tons of money) to be lazy, ignorant, fearful, hateful and complacent.


----------



## Exchanger (Feb 8, 2019)

Xaios said:


> That's ultimately the crux of the whole thing, isn't it. Honestly, it's gonna be one of the hardest things society ever has to do, and there is no panacea. It'll probably require several lifetimes of activism against sexism, racism, classism and any attitude in general which allows a person to either be marginalized and devalued or elevated unfairly by society. We'll be long dead by the time it actually happens. However, doing so will ensure that courts consider criminal cases purely on their own merits instead of basing sentencing on a litany a unjust and irrelevant socioeconomic factors. Furthermore, it will ensure that people in general grow and develop with healthier attitudes about the value of other people, instilling in them the moral fiber that will inform them how wrong things like the aforementioned forms or oppression really are. After all, rape is quite often not merely about sex, but also about power, and in order for that power dynamic to exist, a rapist has to lack whatever ethical quality is present in a normal person which keeps them from devaluing other people. If we change the narrative that our children learn both from us and their surroundings, and we completely immerse them in the lesson in all aspects of their life that not only is it wrong to discriminate based on gender, race and class but also that whatever differences may exist as a result are utterly meaningless, they'll be less likely to internalize the notion that the needs and wants of others are irrelevant compared to their own. But again, the only way to accomplish this is literally generations of hard, focused work.



You obviously thought about this a lot. It makes me wonder where you're coming from in terms of education or activism or even job ? (out of pure curiosity). I agree with you on a lot of aspects. But I do think no matter how fair and ethical you make society as a whole, I think there will always be, at the end of the bell curve, people who will screw others, try to dominate them, in one way or another, including sexually, and you said it, it's all about power. And while I'm firmly against death penalty, lynching, and "eye for an eye" and all that jazz, there will always be a need to put these fuckers on trial and lock them up. Because not everyone comes out remorseful and chooses redemption. Social determinism is a thing, but at some point, we need to be accountable for the choices we make. You could even argue that the fairer the society, the less forgiveable it is to step over the line.
Again, I agree with you on the whole picture, we should favor rehabilitation over retribution, and at least aim towards an ideal society eventhough I think we will never fully attain it, even in centuries.



Xaios said:


> Again, perfectly natural. Everyone in this world does things primarily for the benefit of the people nearest to them, because that's what affects them the most personally. There comes a point though where we have to recognize that the best thing we can do for the people around us is to acknowledge the need to act for the betterment of all people on a larger scale, because the world is getting smaller everyday, and just because we don't immediately recognize how something happening on the other side of the planet will affect those we love doesn't mean it won't have a profound impact on them. Nothing happens in a vacuum anymore, and if we want to do the most good locally, we have to think and act globally.



Some people actually define the difference between left and right through this idea. A core definition would be to say that right-wing people thing more about themselves first, then about their direct circles (friends and family, sometimes a justification for nepotism) then their social group, country, religion, etc... and conversely, left-wing poeple would see the world as a whole first, and then into it's subdivisions. Of course, what is considered left and right depends a lot on the place we're talking about and it's history, and in reality it's not absolute, but more of a spectrum thing, and there are different ways to rank the circles (nation before social class or the opposite). I don't think there is that many truly altruistic or truly selfish poeple (sadly the latter tend to be over-represented in powerful positions).


----------



## TedEH (Feb 8, 2019)

Anquished said:


> I personally feel that for the most part, the activism isn't really tackling "rape culture", it's just creating a divide. I mean for example look at the recent backlash to the Gillette advert with it's "toxic masculinity" message. Whilst the message itself wasn't the problem, I feel where and how it was delivered was. People still preach the message of "teaching people not to rape" as if that's the defacto standard of people exiting the womb. However no one (to my knowledge) seems to be going after the Judicial process itself (atleast in the UK).


I feel like this sort of misses the point though -
I used to be of a different mindset on this, but as I get older, and I've been watching/observing as my nephews, and the kids of coworkers, etc., are being raised and I'm seeing such huge divides and differences in the attitudes being conveyed down from parents to kids. It's not a "they are toxic right from the womb" scenario, it's that parents are basically doing a shitty job and imparting values into their kids that lead to less-than-great behavior. Teaching kids that not every life is equally valuable. Teaching kids that the world is shitty so you should respond to that by just saying screw everyone and doing whatever you want. Like it or not, we lead by example, and without the opportunity to provide context to those observing our actions.

I hate to use PunkBill as an example, but if you took the same attitude you have here, and imagine putting that on display while raising a kid- they learn so many things by observation without context. I would be very concerned that you would raise a kid who who find a lot of ways to justify murder to themselves, whereas I would probably produce a kid with the opposite flaw of being unable to defend themselves against the unfair reality that violence is out there even if I don't like it.

It's an uncomfortable truth that the valuation system that allows a person to rape or murder has to have come from somewhere -> It's picked up from parents and teachers and other kids and TV shows etc etc etc etc. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the fact that we have raised people to become monsters - people are not monsters by default. IMO it's a societal cause, and therefor needs a societal solution.

Edit: And that comes back around to the Gillette thing. I'm very often on the side of "lets not define masculinity as toxic by default", but the message that we're responsible for shaping the behaviors of the people we bring into the world is IMO absolutely the right message. Marketing BS and political/activism/political correctness aside.


----------



## Anquished (Feb 8, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I feel like this sort of misses the point though -
> I used to be of a different mindset on this, but as I get older, and I've been watching/observing as my nephews, and the kids of coworkers, etc., are being raised and I'm seeing such huge divides and differences in the attitudes being conveyed down from parents to kids. It's not a "they are toxic right from the womb" scenario, it's that parents are basically doing a shitty job and imparting values into their kids that lead to less-than-great behavior. Teaching kids that not every life is equally valuable. Teaching kids that the world is shitty so you should respond to that by just saying screw everyone and doing whatever you want. Like it or not, we lead by example, and without the opportunity to provide context to those observing our actions.
> 
> I hate to use PunkBill as an example, but if you took the same attitude you have here, and imagine putting that on display while raising a kid- they learn so many things by observation without context. I would be very concerned that you would raise a kid who who find a lot of ways to justify murder to themselves, whereas I would probably produce a kid with the opposite flaw of being unable to defend themselves against the unfair reality that violence is out there even if I don't like it.
> ...



Absolutely, I agree that it is environmental and parental guidance which impacts how someone is going to turn out, for the most part. 

Which is why I said I don't take issue with the message presented. The point I am trying to make is the aggressive activism which can easily be interpreted as misandry by a majority of people, as you can see with the Gillette ad.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 8, 2019)

I'd have to watch the Gillette ad again, but I don't remember taking it as misandry.  I can see why some would though.

Edit: I even remember going into it thinking "oh man, this is gonna be an eye-roll situation isn't it?" and then being relieved that it wasn't nearly as such as I expected. To me that's a very mountains from molehills kind of interpretation.


----------



## Anquished (Feb 8, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I'd have to watch the Gillette ad again, but I don't remember taking it as misandry.  I can see why some would though.


 And this is my point, you can see why people are taking it as misandry. "Some" is a large amount of people who have voiced boycotting the company over embracing the message.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 8, 2019)

Realistically, I think the misandry thing is a stretch. If anything about that ad bothers me, it's the giant company jumping on the social justice bandwagon as a marketing tactic.


----------



## Anquished (Feb 8, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Realistically, I think the misandry thing is a stretch. If anything about that ad bothers me, it's the giant company jumping on the social justice bandwagon as a marketing tactic.



Realistically, maybe you're right. 

But we could go back and forth on that all day.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 8, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Here's what I want to know... Why is one of my best friends facing a longer jail sentence for marijuana (10 years) than a pedophile who hurt a member of my family and he only got three years? Take a guess as to which one is the bigger detriment. The guy at home smoking a joint not bothering anyone or the sick son of a bitch who made sure my mother and her sisters were never going to have a normal life?


I'm sorry to hear about your friend. You've gotta realize though, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Just as Max said, the war on drugs in the US (full disclosure, I'm Canadian, and to be honest, I think our judicial policy is a lot more in-tune with the public good on this issue, not perfect but better) has fuck all to do with protecting the whole of society. It's a tool to keep racial and socioeconomic minorities locked in the legal system for the benefit of rich white dudes. It's not just a money thing either, the justice system in the US treats those people as having more intrinsic value than visible minorities, and while drug convictions are far more excessive than they ought to be for _everyone_ there, minorities get hit harder. The _exact same issue_ is what causes certain people not to face accountability for some utterly heinous crimes like rape and molestation. That's intersectionality in a nutshell for you.


Anquished said:


> Again I might be just living under a rock and that is actually happening, if that is the case I'd be interested to read what is actually being done and eat my words. Feel free to chuck an article at me and laugh.


There's probably a cultural aspect to it. I live in Canada and this is what I see here. I also wouldn't be able to throw an article at you because this is all stuff I've learned having in-person conversations about the issue with people who know _a lot_ more about this topic than I do, and have far more invested.

Not that I think we do everything perfectly here though. In Ontario's last provincial election, they elected Doug Ford, crack-mayor Rob Ford's brother and a mini-Trump in his own right, and the PC party. One of the first things they did was say "we're ditching comprehensive sex-ed because MORALS and it takes away parents' rights to instill their values in their children on this issue." Teachers, knowing full well that this move was absolute horseshit, made it publicly known that they were going to continue to teach the modern sex-ed program. So what did the PC party do? _They set up a website for parents to report on teachers_. It was some seriously heinous shit. Thankfully the backlash was actually quite strong, and my understanding is they've backed off on the whole thing. For now.



Exchanger said:


> You obviously thought about this a lot. It makes me wonder where you're coming from in terms of education or activism or even job? (out of pure curiosity).


I'd say it stems from a confluence of things that happened in my life as well as just observations I made around the time those things were happening.

As far as demographics go, generally speaking I'm your typical WASP. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not destitute. I have a college diploma (engineering) which I only graduated with last year (I went back to school comparatively late in life, as I was 31 when I graduated from college) and am currently paying off debt and saving so that I can go back and get my degree in Computer Engineering, but I'm definitely not in what some might refer to as the intellectual elite.

In the past, I was a center-right conservative. In retrospect I was a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I voted for the federal Conservative party in Canada in 3 elections (2006, 2008 and 2011). The Conservative party won all those elections, but the first two times they were minority victories, which meant that all bills passed through legislature meant bipartisan approval. At the time, I remember thinking that the Conservatives had done a reasonable job taking a measured approach to governance, and was frustrated by what I perceived to be baseless stonewalling on the part of the center-left Liberal party and fully-left NDP. In the 2011 election, the Conservatives won a majority government, which gave them the seats necessary to pass legislation without bipartisan approval. I remember thinking to myself, "okay, this is now the point where the Conservatives can either prove that they can govern with integrity without the specter of a no-confidence vote, or they'll go full Republican (even as a Canadian conservative, I didn't like the American Republican party) and turn governance into an ideological shitshow." Unfortunately they did the latter. This put me on the path to start rethinking my views on certain things.

In early 2015, pretty much 4 years ago exactly, I became extremely sick and nearly died. I had to be hospitalized for a full month during which I had to have major surgery. While it took about 6 months until I was basically considered "recovered," I'm really still dealing with the fallout today (although, while I'm still working at it, I'm _much_ healthier now than I was then). As someone who went from being pretty independent to having to rely quite heavily on the healthcare and social security mechanisms that exist in Canada, I definitely came to appreciate them more than I had prior (not that I was against them before, I was always a proponent of universal healthcare although my position on other social security mechanisms was ultimately somewhat more dubious). I also faced down the fact quite quickly that, if I was American, I would have been utterly and completely fucked. Assuming I survived the ordeal, I would have been left completely destitute and would have been forced to declare bankruptcy at very least. Realizing all of this, I made the decision that I needed to become an advocate for these services, to make sure that everyone had the same access to them as I did, because without them, I wouldn't be here today. I had literally been given a second chance at life, and I needed to make the best of it, and that meant confronting the social views that I'd previously held that were ideologically driven but ultimately impractical.

As I was going through this, I had to come to grips with the fact that part of the reason why I benefited so much from this was because I was a white man. I live in a place with a significant First Nations population and I've come to understand that if one of them had been in that situation, they might not have received the same level of care. When I realized this, I decided that a part of my advocacy needed to be dedicated to ensuring equal access to these services for all racial groups of all socioeconomic classes.

As I was pondering the racial component of the whole thing, the Black Lives Matter move was in full swing. I remember hearing opponents of the movement saying "all lives matter, not just black lives!" I realized that this argument was pure absolute horseshit, meant to do nothing but obfuscate and pull focus away from the fact that the reason black people were saying this was because they were actively being repressed, not because they were at all trying to say that _only_ black lives matter, as some would have us believe. Then it dawned on me that I was guilty about holding similar views and making similar arguments about feminism. I was one of those people who was a total reactionary about the word "feminism," assuming that it implied that women wanted dominance as opposed to equality. I was also guilty of rationalizing the causes of rape. _On this very forum_, I remember making the argument that, if a woman didn't want to be raped, then she shouldn't put herself in compromising situations while dressed provocatively. Man, was I ever wrong.

That was a huge slap in the face, one that I really needed. If I had to peg the moment where I really changed on the inside, that was it. I now advocate entirely for feminism, racial equality and an the end of economic inequality. I am _by no means_ an expert on any of these topics, but I'm slowly learning. The rest is history.

While I'm at it, it would be dishonest of me not to bring up the fact that I am a also Christian. Being a conservative Christian, you can imagine what my views on a lot of things were. Let's face it, it's a well known fact that most Christians don't exactly walk the walk or carry their cross, and the history of the church is filled to the brim with hypocrisy and use of scripture as a means of control. Coming to the other social revelations that I did, I knew that it would be distinctly un-Christ-like of me if I didn't also dedicate myself to fighting for these things within the church as well. My main focus is for full acceptance of the LGBTQ within the church, because I see the homophobic, anti-trans stance of many in the church as being one of the greatest sins being currently committed by the church. This one is a little closer to home for me, because I have LGBTQ friends whose experiences with the church have been extremely negative. I fight for them, to change the attitudes within the church so that they're no longer based on judgment of a person's sexuality, something that I believe is _not_ a choice unlike many of the church's more intransigent numbers.

So yeah, how's that for a personal history lesson.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 8, 2019)

(I actually had to split my whole post into two parts because I hit the character limit. )



Exchanger said:


> I do think no matter how fair and ethical you make society as a whole, I think there will always be, at the end of the bell curve, people who will screw others, try to dominate them, in one way or another, including sexually, and you said it, it's all about power. And while I'm firmly against death penalty, lynching, and "eye for an eye" and all that jazz, there will always be a need to put these fuckers on trial and lock them up. Because not everyone comes out remorseful and chooses redemption. Social determinism is a thing, but at some point, we need to be accountable for the choices we make. You could even argue that the fairer the society, the less forgiveable it is to step over the line.



I don't disagree on any particular point. But if we focus on changing broader societal attitudes and can get to the point where we're not jailing everyone under the sun who every smoked a joint while giving a slap on the wrist to affluent people who commit actually horrible crimes, we'll not only be better equipped to pass fair judgment for such crimes, we'll also have the resources to do so, as we won't be draining the system needlessly with useless things like the war on drugs. Plus, if we focus on rehabilitation, then the number of repeat offenders will also drop accordingly.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 8, 2019)

I feel like I am, and others also are, slowly going down a similar path of rethinking our positions on things and landing in a more tolerant place. I can't picture myself ever very seriously diving into actual activism, for reasons that aren't relevant here - like I can't bring myself to say "I am a feminist" or something like that given that I can never say that my worldview is consistent with a large group like that and the way that they apply that worldview (I still kind of roll my eyes at a lot of what comes of of that camp) - but as time goes on I'm more and more falling on the left side of arguments, for lack of a better way to put it.

A lot of it is, I think, how there's a settling down of both the "all men are the worst" views being thrown around and the equivalent reactionary "why are you blaming everything on me? I'm a nice guy, I swear."


----------



## Anquished (Feb 8, 2019)

Xaios said:


> I'm sorry to hear about your friend. You've gotta realize though, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Just as Max said, the war on drugs in the US (full disclosure, I'm Canadian, and to be honest, I think our judicial policy is a lot more in-tune with the public good on this issue, not perfect but better) has fuck all to do with protecting the whole of society. It's a tool to keep racial and socioeconomic minorities locked in the legal system for the benefit of rich white dudes. It's not just a money thing either, the justice system in the US treats those people as having more intrinsic value than visible minorities, and while drug convictions are far more excessive than they ought to be for _everyone_ there, minorities get hit harder. The _exact same issue_ is what causes certain people not to face accountability for some utterly heinous crimes like rape and molestation. That's intersectionality in a nutshell for you.
> 
> There's probably a cultural aspect to it. I live in Canada and this is what I see here. I also wouldn't be able to throw an article at you because this is all stuff I've learned having in-person conversations about the issue with people who know _a lot_ more about this topic than I do, and have far more invested.
> 
> ...



Wow, thanks for sharing man - sorry to hear about your illness. 



TedEH said:


> I feel like I am, and others also are, slowly going down a similar path of rethinking our positions on things and landing in a more tolerant place. I can't picture myself ever very seriously diving into actual activism, for reasons that aren't relevant here - like I can't bring myself to say "I am a feminist" or something like that given that I can never say that my worldview is consistent with a large group like that and the way that they apply that worldview (I still kind of roll my eyes at a lot of what comes of of that camp) - but as time goes on I'm more and more falling on the left side of arguments, for lack of a better way to put it.
> 
> A lot of it is, I think, how there's a settling down of both the "all men are the worst" views being thrown around and the equivalent reactionary "why are you blaming everything on me? I'm a nice guy, I swear."



That's pretty much exactly how I feel. I've definitely gone more "left" on topics such as this, although I try and look at it from a neutral perspective.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 8, 2019)

I used to be a hardcore right winger... then I became more center... now I'm far more in the left than I ever thought I would be.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 8, 2019)

PunkBillCarson said:


> I used to be a hardcore right winger... then I became more center... now I'm far more in the left than I ever thought I would be.


I was brainwashed from birth to be hardcore right. Three years in Iraq and traveling abroad cured it. America is a fantasy inside a bubble.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 8, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I feel like this sort of misses the point though -
> I used to be of a different mindset on this, but as I get older, and I've been watching/observing as my nephews, and the kids of coworkers, etc., are being raised and I'm seeing such huge divides and differences in the attitudes being conveyed down from parents to kids. It's not a "they are toxic right from the womb" scenario, it's that parents are basically doing a shitty job and imparting values into their kids that lead to less-than-great behavior. Teaching kids that not every life is equally valuable. Teaching kids that the world is shitty so you should respond to that by just saying screw everyone and doing whatever you want. Like it or not, we lead by example, and without the opportunity to provide context to those observing our actions.
> 
> I hate to use PunkBill as an example, but if you took the same attitude you have here, and imagine putting that on display while raising a kid- they learn so many things by observation without context. I would be very concerned that you would raise a kid who who find a lot of ways to justify murder to themselves, whereas I would probably produce a kid with the opposite flaw of being unable to defend themselves against the unfair reality that violence is out there even if I don't like it.
> ...




Here's the thing though, there's a difference between what you believe yourself and what you raise your children to believe or how you choose to vocalize a belief. If I were to have a child I wouldn't just outright say "kill that motherfucker." I certainly wouldn't show any love towards someone like that, but I think that regardless of what you believe, you have to take into consideration what your children hear you say. If you're like me and you use the word "fuck" like it's your job, fine, but you can't expose children to that shit. They'll get the idea that pedophiles and rapists are not good people from me, yes, but at the same time, I'm also going to do my absolute damndest to put them on a better path than I was. As stated before, it's hard for me to think rationally on a personal level about rapists and such. However, with me having nieces and nephews, my views about those things and other people I consider to be a detriment don't come out. I try and put out as much positivity as I can when they're around and then you fuckers get to deal with everything else. 

P.S. Before you question the legitimacy of the whole nieces and nephews anecdote, it should be pointed out that I'm around them more than their own father is, so there's that. I don't say anything around them that I don't want them to say, I don't do anything around them that I don't want them to do. I would raise my own the exact same way.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 8, 2019)

It's very possible that you're not a good example for my point because you do seem to understand that your take on things aren't necessarily something you'd want to put on display in front of kids. I can respect that.

BUT the point still stands than many either don't have that filter or are oblivious to the fact that it matters. I hear my own nephews say things that reflect particular attitudes that they've inherited from their father that, if they go unchallenged, could lead to some less-than-savory character traits down the road. I try to serve as a better example in the odd case that I can, and I know they have other role models in their life, but the fact of the matter is that their most immediate and relevant role model is entirely oblivious to the kinds of attitudes he's embedding into the core of his kids upbringing.

I legitimately worry that it's going to get those kids into trouble when they're older. And as poorly as I've framed them, they're certainly not the worst off - I've seen MUCH worse parenting than that too.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 8, 2019)

TedEH said:


> It's very possible that you're not a good example for my point because you do seem to understand that your take on things aren't necessarily something you'd want to put on display in front of kids. I can respect that.
> 
> BUT the point still stands than many either don't have that filter or are oblivious to the fact that it matters. I hear my own nephews say things that reflect particular attitudes that they've inherited from their father that, if they go unchallenged, could lead to some less-than-savory character traits down the road. I try to serve as a better example in the odd case that I can, and I know they have other role models in their life, but the fact of the matter is that their most immediate and relevant role model is entirely oblivious to the kinds of attitudes he's embedding into the core of his kids upbringing.
> 
> I legitimately worry that it's going to get those kids into trouble when they're older. And as poorly as I've framed them, they're certainly not the worst off - I've seen MUCH worse parenting than that too.



Oh no your worry is completely legitimate. I'm not doubting that one damn bit. And the fucked up thing? I feel like media plays a lot into the mindsets of people who raise their children less than desirably so what you get is: "Black people are thugs and bad." How do you know that, Dad? "Fox news said so." Well it's on the news, so it must be true. There are people like where I live, it's fucking frightening how gullible some people can be in terms of that shit. There are people around here who would have you believe that across the river in Memphis, Tennessee there are blacks killing blacks and white people right out in plain site. My wife and I went there just last year to Beale Street and EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE was getting along like they were brothers and sisters and family. That right there my friend was one of the most beautiful goddamn sights I've ever seen because it completely negates what the media would have you believe about other people. There were people from all walks of life talking like they knew each other from birth. I think if more people traveled and saw that, the world would be a better place.

Now does that mean that crime doesn't happen? No. But it means to me that the world in terms of race relations isn't nearly as fucked up as they would have you believe. There are racist people from all walks of life, yes, but it's not like the US is mid-war with itself or at least I don't think so.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 8, 2019)

Yeh it's definitely a problem with news as well. The particular examples I was thinking of would be like having parents who will just blurt out blatantly racist things in clear earshot of the kids. Or maybe you'll be talking in the kitchen and say I mention any random lady I know, work with, etc. -> he immediately jumps to "tell me you're hitting that", to which I say "no, she's not single", and he'd respond with "you could take him, just f*ck him up", or "so what? they're all just holes to fill anyway" or something like that. With all of the kids in the room. He says it with a big grin, thinking he's the funniest person in the world, but a 12 year old doesn't know how to process that information.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 9, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Yeh it's definitely a problem with news as well. The particular examples I was thinking of would be like having parents who will just blurt out blatantly racist things in clear earshot of the kids. Or maybe you'll be talking in the kitchen and say I mention any random lady I know, work with, etc. -> he immediately jumps to "tell me you're hitting that", to which I say "no, she's not single", and he'd respond with "you could take him, just f*ck him up", or "so what? they're all just holes to fill anyway" or something like that. With all of the kids in the room. He says it with a big grin, thinking he's the funniest person in the world, but a 12 year old doesn't know how to process that information.


Yes this so freaking much. When I was a kid I took shit adults said very seriously. It turns out that I definitely should not have. It could have saved me so much fear, stress, and anxiety growing up. 

I remember my first day of school. It was the first time I had been around a lot of other kids that weren't family (white) or church (again all white) kids. I seriously walked up to this black boy and asked him if he was a n**ger. I had no idea what the word meant. All I knew is that when a black person came on the TV that is what my family called them. Needless to say I got an elbow to the diaphragm and the kid did not like me after that. I honestly had no idea why.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 9, 2019)

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some suuuuuuuper racist views when I was a kid -> but it was because I was never told any differently. I can remember at one point (I'm talking like age 13-14 or something) thinking that each race was literally a different animal. Like you had dogs, cats, horses, white people, black people, asian people, etc. Because I was literally never told at any point that this wasn't the case, and that's the way people acted around eachother.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 9, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some suuuuuuuper racist views when I was a kid -> but it was because I was never told any differently. I can remember at one point (I'm talking like age 13-14 or something) thinking that each race was literally a different animal. Like you had dogs, cats, horses, white people, black people, asian people, etc. Because I was literally never told at any point that this wasn't the case, and that's the way people acted around eachother.




So you had Lovecraftian racism then.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 9, 2019)

Not even trippin over here...


----------



## Exchanger (Feb 11, 2019)

Xaios said:


> While I'm at it, it would be dishonest of me not to bring up the fact that I am a also Christian. Being a conservative Christian, you can imagine what my views on a lot of things were. Let's face it, it's a well known fact that most Christians don't exactly walk the walk or carry their cross, and the history of the church is filled to the brim with hypocrisy and use of scripture as a means of control. Coming to the other social revelations that I did, I knew that it would be distinctly un-Christ-like of me if I didn't also dedicate myself to fighting for these things within the church as well. My main focus is for full acceptance of the LGBTQ within the church, because I see the homophobic, anti-trans stance of many in the church as being one of the greatest sins being currently committed by the church. This one is a little closer to home for me, because I have LGBTQ friends whose experiences with the church have been extremely negative. I fight for them, to change the attitudes within the church so that they're no longer based on judgment of a person's sexuality, something that I believe is _not_ a choice unlike many of the church's more intransigent numbers.



Well, thanks for sharing so much detail with a perfect stranger  My parents are liberal kinda hippie-like so for me this kind of thinking was always a natural thing (of course I had to adjust some of my ideas when growing up, and things are always evovling anyway). But I find it really interesting when people come to draw these conclusion about humanity, acceptance, tolerance by themselves eventhough they come from a radically different background (oh and I'm also an engineer). What you say about the church rings very true, but I think you'll find that there were also throughout history progressive figures and movements or order within christianity, contesting the unfair decisions of popes or the accumulation of wealth by the higher clergy, very much like political parties. Or supporting workers' movements in the early 20th century. I'm not an expert on the subject, but it seems to me that a dude like Jesus was quite progressive for his time. Too bad a lot of his followers today are stuck in this time's spirit.
I'm currently reading The Name of the Rose, which is precisely about these kind of things, I definitely recommand this book and I'm not even done reading it.



Xaios said:


> As I was pondering the racial component of the whole thing, the Black Lives Matter move was in full swing. I remember hearing opponents of the movement saying "all lives matter, not just black lives!"



I remember also having a bit of a knee jerk reaction to that slogan, eventhough (and even here in Europe) it was quite clear that discrimination is a serious issue in the US. I think calling it Black Lives Matter Too would have prevented some stupid reactions, or least made it a little harder for biggots to come back at it. But it's easy to say in hindsight.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 11, 2019)

While maybe it would have flattened a few knee-jerk reactions (or might not have), it also would have flattened the impact of the statement. Saying "too" still concedes the point to being secondary to something that mattered before it, so to speak.


----------



## 777timesgod (Feb 11, 2019)

I feel a bit sad for Neeson's manager. He wakes up in the morning, thinks "new movie debuts today, red carpet and media time". Opens his laptop, sees the storm created by his client and passes out immediately.
I think that Liam has reached that age where one will say anything. Difficult to think that they their entourage doesn't school these celebrities on what to say and what not to.


----------



## Exchanger (Feb 11, 2019)

TedEH said:


> While maybe it would have flattened a few knee-jerk reactions (or might not have), it also would have flattened the impact of the statement. Saying "too" still concedes the point to being secondary to something that mattered before it, so to speak.


I'll settle for Black Lives Matter Just As Well, then . Less impactful though. Hah just woudda coudda's anyway.



777timesgod said:


> I feel a bit sad for Neeson's manager. He wakes up in the morning, thinks "new movie debuts today, red carpet and media time". Opens his laptop, sees the storm created by his client and passes out immediately.
> I think that Liam has reached that age where one will say anything. Difficult to think that they their entourage doesn't school these celebrities on what to say and what not to.


On the other hand, at some point, fuck it, people should be able to say what's on their mind, celebrity or not. Especially if in this case, the only image he's damaging is his own. Sure, there might be some PR guy being dragged down in the shitstorm, but for all we know, maybe he was in on it or compensated afterwards. If anything, the timing is pretty bad. Or is it ? Maybe it was an attempt at sort-of-bad buzz. Actually didn't hear of the movie until on this thread.


----------



## 777timesgod (Feb 11, 2019)

Exchanger said:


> On the other hand, at some point, fuck it, people should be able to say what's on their mind, celebrity or not. Especially if in this case, the only image he's damaging is his own. Sure, there might be some PR guy being dragged down in the shitstorm, but for all we know, maybe he was in on it or compensated afterwards. If anything, the timing is pretty bad. Or is it ? Maybe it was an attempt at sort-of-bad buzz. Actually didn't hear of the movie until on this thread.



I think the premiere got cancelled or something, after the interview went viral. I can definitely appreciate the honesty as you say, too many people (full time racist ones included) pretending to be the town's virgin Mary when under the surface they are someone else entirely. I do not think that the PC climate helped racial matters over the years, it just put a rag over them and who knows what is brewing beneath.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 12, 2019)

So Michelle Rodriguez was defending him but changed her mind I guess? They are saying that she is publicly apologizing for defending him.


----------



## Edika (Feb 12, 2019)

I must be living under a rock as I heard about this from SSO. So let me get this straight, Liam Neeson in an interview trying to promote a movie opens up about shameful and stupid part of his past, by his own admittance, to elaborate how he understands the character he's playing is looking for blind revenge and the interwebs say he's a racist and a bigot? Is this the gist of the whole situation? Then I'm left speechless in how many people are considering themselves liberal and progressives but lack reading comprehension and reasoning skills.

I saw the Gillette ad and I didn't see any misandry. Regardless if they're capitalising on the whole climate of the time (I bet 30 years ago advertisements of Gillette showed a guy saving and myriads of women falling to his feet) I must say they have nailed a lot of the criticism on toxic masculinity. I was never aggressive as a child and always found the behaviour of other boys quite irrational and barbaric in a lot of ways. But you could see the parents had a really big role in shaping their attitudes. Being tough, not showing emotion and being physical and violent with other boys was considered the norm. Plus instilling a sense of unhealthy competition and entitlement (that was Mom's role) was all it required to see how most men have evolved in most countries.


----------



## Drew (Feb 13, 2019)

Edika said:


> I must be living under a rock as I heard about this from SSO. So let me get this straight, Liam Neeson in an interview trying to promote a movie opens up about shameful and stupid part of his past, by his own admittance, to elaborate how he understands the character he's playing is looking for blind revenge and the interwebs say he's a racist and a bigot? Is this the gist of the whole situation? Then I'm left speechless in how many people are considering themselves liberal and progressives but lack reading comprehension and reasoning skills.
> 
> I saw the Gillette ad and I didn't see any misandry. Regardless if they're capitalising on the whole climate of the time (I bet 30 years ago advertisements of Gillette showed a guy saving and myriads of women falling to his feet) I must say they have nailed a lot of the criticism on toxic masculinity. I was never aggressive as a child and always found the behaviour of other boys quite irrational and barbaric in a lot of ways. But you could see the parents had a really big role in shaping their attitudes. Being tough, not showing emotion and being physical and violent with other boys was considered the norm. Plus instilling a sense of unhealthy competition and entitlement (that was Mom's role) was all it required to see how most men have evolved in most countries.


Basically, yes.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 13, 2019)

What's startling to me is the fact that he admitted his wrong-doing, his shamefulness for having ever felt that way and he still gets ripped apart. We live in a world where some people believe that sexual offenders can be reformed but not racists? Where's the limits of open-mindedness exactly? That's my question. We've actually gotten to the point where if a person is found to have even held (that is the operative word, HELD) a certain form of bigotry and now realizes how wrong that they were, they are essentially thrown to the lions, but a child molester "just needs help."


----------



## Drew (Feb 13, 2019)

Yeah, the thing that rubs me the wrong way about this story is that Neeson himself sees this as a story where he was a fucking idiot and he learned some important lessons from his mistakes. It's not like he doesn't think what he did was wrong - he's telling this story now precisely because he DOES think it was wrong. 

Idunno. The reaction surprised me a little.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 13, 2019)

Drew said:


> Yeah, the thing that rubs me the wrong way about this story is that Neeson himself sees this as a story where he was a fucking idiot and he learned some important lessons from his mistakes. It's not like he doesn't think what he did was wrong - he's telling this story now precisely because he DOES think it was wrong.
> 
> Idunno. The reaction surprised me a little.



Exactly, but it doesn't seem to matter. We live in a world where you can fuck up, say the wrong thing, and you are essentially fucked from that point on. Isn't the whole point of Progressivism to learn from the past? Does that mean that that can only happen after a person dies and someone else learns from their mistakes or can it be a learning experience in one person's journey? That's a big problem that I have with the world today is that there's no opportunity to give a sincere apology. You apologize, people think you're just being disingenuous and trying to save face. So you better never get detention in school for throwing a piece of paper and hitting someone with it or there goes your career. Obviously, that's quite a bit of hyperbole. It seems like everything is taken at face value these days where no one bothers reading the fine print and even if they did? Fuck him, he made a bad choice 40 years ago, realizes he's an idiot, even still throw him in the fire.


----------



## Edika (Feb 14, 2019)

What people seem to not be able to understand is the background of someone and the circumstances he was raised. I've been living in N.Ireland for the last 5 years and I even if I just gotten an idea of an idea of how things where during the troubles, I can see how it has affected people and how things have been back then. Violence was just a turn away and bombs going off, army patrolling the street and army checkpoints where a normal occurrence. Tempers were running high and everyone was on the edge. Nobody seems to take that into account or even be aware of that which would certainly affect the behaviour of any rational being. Which as stated he's shown remorse and understanding how wrong that was.

@PunkBillCarson these people are not progressives, they're carricatures of progressives.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 14, 2019)

Has anyone actually said he is a racist apart from the media? Like what do normal non-famous black people think about this? I get the feeling the US media is intentionally trying to stir up racial conflict.


----------



## Anquished (Feb 14, 2019)

Drew said:


> Yeah, the thing that rubs me the wrong way about this story is that Neeson himself sees this as a story where he was a fucking idiot and he learned some important lessons from his mistakes. It's not like he doesn't think what he did was wrong - he's telling this story now precisely because he DOES think it was wrong.
> 
> Idunno. The reaction surprised me a little.



Personally I wasn't surprised, I'm more surprised with the current climate that he didn't see it coming. Unfortunately now, people won't open up about similar experiences which they've learned from for fear of this exact reaction. How badly has this damaged his career? I haven't really been following that well. 



Edika said:


> I saw the Gillette ad and I didn't see any misandry. Regardless if they're capitalising on the whole climate of the time (I bet 30 years ago advertisements of Gillette showed a guy saving and myriads of women falling to his feet) I must say they have nailed a lot of the criticism on toxic masculinity. I was never aggressive as a child and always found the behaviour of other boys quite irrational and barbaric in a lot of ways. But you could see the parents had a really big role in shaping their attitudes. Being tough, not showing emotion and being physical and violent with other boys was considered the norm. Plus instilling a sense of unhealthy competition and entitlement (that was Mom's role) was all it required to see how most men have evolved in most countries.



Maybe bringing up that Ad was a bad example as my point on activism seems to have been missed.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Feb 14, 2019)

Anquished said:


> How badly has this damaged his career?



Probably zero in the long term. About 90% of folks will forget by next week. 

I mean, Roman Polanski fucks kids and hasn't been completely blacklisted from the entertainment industry.


----------



## Anquished (Feb 14, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Probably zero in the long term. About 90% of folks will forget by next week.
> 
> I mean, Roman Polanski fucks kids and hasn't been completely blacklisted from the entertainment industry.



True, something new will pop up and bury this one in it's place. 

Christ, I had to google Roman Polanski - didn't recognize the name, now I wish I didn't.


----------

