Burning-men 2017, Witch hunts and beyond


I had to look it up.

Does anybody with more than half a brain do anything other than either
a: buy razors in Aldi
b: use an electric shaver
c: grow a beard/ leg hair/ armpit hair/ pubic hair?



why were you buying that stuff up to now.
Why get so upset about an advert. It’s just an ad, they’ll have a new one soon!

Getting upset about this is like falling for the Gregg’s vegetarian sausage roll / Piers Morgan controversy (both of whom have the same PR company…)


This story probably belongs here…you are all probably aware of hysteria and faux outrage taking place over the last day or two…

irishtimes.com/culture/film/ … -1.3784533
“He was foolish. He should have known better. He is a public man. He shouldn’t be using language like that. But he said he was ashamed. Nobody seems to have picked up on that. He was ashamed to have the urge to kill somebody at random. Frankly, I have often had the urge to kill somebody at random. We all have. I have no doubts we all have. This new puritanism that is stalking the world I find very frightening.”


Not a fan of some of the public reaction, but also think there are some interesting issues exposed. I don’t think John Banville seems to get them though. I thought this was odd:

To just kill someone at random? I really have never had that urge. It always strikes me as strange when people say “we all have”. I hear it as an attempt to dodge personal responsibility.

Gary Younge’s article was very good:
theguardian.com/commentisfr … tor-racism

Final comment: was the tape leaked/off-record? I’d agree there’s an ethical problem then with the journalist releasing it. I don’t think there’s any public interest in having done so. Of course a judgement failing in Neeson in confiding something like this to a journalist too. Neither gets the other off the hook though.


General ethics Vs. Personal judgement.
Neeson should have realised that “ethics” is just a social construct. :slight_smile:

Straight from the horse’s mouth…

I was the one who interviewed Liam Neeson – and there are some things I need to clarify
independent.co.uk/voices/li … 66836.html

IMHO, this is a non story for the outrage junkies.


I’m sure there is some of that, and at the end of the day Liam Neeson doesn’t matter that much. I don’t think he’s going to murder anybody any day soon, and even though he’s a public figure, the way he has told the story is unlikely to encourage anyone else to do so either.

However, the story is an interesting lens in terms of how different people and groups react to it, and gives a certain view into Neeson’s own (current) biases… which may or may not be typical of a larger group.

I’m not following the story much (though I did read above link), but I haven’t seen any reference to how the woman who was raped got on both then and since. The rape seems to exist in the narrative only as a catalyst for Liam’s initial anger/aggression, and later change of heart.


Meh. He’s an actor. Actors explore various mind states. AFAIK that’s part of the job description.
Anyway in this instance he’s describing to some journo a personal anecdote about experiencing seeing red/the red mist.
(uncontrollable rage, anger sufficient to stop clear thinking.) in the context of this particular movie he’s hawking…
…The brag/life lesson is that Mr. Neeson snapped out of it and came to terms with his biases/failings a a human being.

Basically in 2019 (in the 1st world) most people live pretty boring lives (life is not generally chaotic; it’s technically challenging) and in the movies where Mr. Neeson plays the edgy lead character, he represents a vehicle for the audience to live out vicariously their fantasies of control/decisiveness/assertiveness/action etc…

In the real world, most should know difference between fantasy/reality.
It’s possible this is just a new dimension in popular media/Hollywood/PR/advertising. A type of meta-narrative (A story about a story) that’s used to promote the movie/profile.
This may explain why it’s such a widely covered “story”.


At root it’s not particularly interesting


@Col. Max Pyatnitski
What? Why? Fact/Opinion?

The objective is to create interest.


Eliza, is that you?
I’m not sure I understand you fully.


@Col. Max Pyatnitski
Normally people make a statement of fact/opinion, and then follow up with an explanation (their reasoning).

But you just make a declaration statement. Eg. “At root it’s not particularly interesting”, and…? So what. What does that add to the discussion? So I asked you; What is not interesting? Why is it not interesting? Is this a fact or your opinion?

Here’s the format:
statement/declaration, because…[insert reasoning here]

Without the reasoning being present the statement could come across as being slightly egocentric. [That’s the Eliza bit]


At the moment, the piece I find interesting in this thread is that it is provoking an odd reaction from you


@Col. Max Pyatnitski
okie dokie. :unamused:

I don’t think you are getting it.

…because…[insert reasoning here.]


exactly :smiley:
(edit: alright, I’ll throw a bone. It’s funny in the same way to how you reacted in the “transhumanism” thread… )


@Col. Max Pyatnitski
Instead of throwing imaginary bones around the place, playing imaginary games, for imaginary victories, you could learn to use reason. That would be nice. :wink:


why would it be nice, you’ve not explained why?


It’s funny…most of the Outragerati are white liberal types…
Whoopi Goldberg has come out in his defence and there are pics of him being surrounded and hugged by black people after his Good Morning America appearance.

dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a … iggot.html
I’ve known him a pretty long time, I think I would have recognised, I’ve been around a lot of real bigots. I can say this man is not one.
‘You can’t be surprised that somebody whose loved one is attacked is angry and wants to go out and attack.’


@Col. Max Pyatnitski
It’s a hypothetical scenario at this early stage (& I’m afraid to speak too soon), but, imagine all the time that would be saved if we could respond to your well constructed arguments instead having to deal with your egocentric ramblings.


Is it just me or is there a bit of a sense that people are getting sick of this trend toward Puritanical outrage on the part of the usual suspects.

Any comments I’ve seen or heard have been along the line so of ‘who gives a fuck what Liam Neeson thought for a few days 40 years ago?’


the only thing I can see you adding to the discussion is that you are very focussed on me.

It’s puzzling that you’re latching on in this way. I express opinions, and that prompts these odd assertions of egocentricity.
At the same time you seem afraid/reluctant to express an opinion openly.

Instead we get mush like:

Nothing there but mirages of opinions, and nothing that can really be pinned down