"Cunt" attempts to deride its object through comparing him to a female body part. For it to have any insulting meaning, the speaker is implying that we all (of course) must have a dim view of women or their bodies. I don't care if it hasn't yet gone out of fashion in Great Britain, it is packed with the same snide and biased weight as derisively calling someone "fag" or "retard", which similarly suggest that those who are homosexual or mentally handicapped are subhuman. Brits are known for their diverse command of language, or like to think so, anyway. Surely there is another word you could draw from your deep linguistic quiver to let us know exactly how little you think of Dele Alli. I'm right there with you on Alli, but the word you chose is particularly offensive to women, and makes not a small number of men wince as well.Seconded.
I’ve gotten an important and valuable education around here of late in P&G and V&N. I think this is important discussion to have.
“Cunt” is a role in soccer as surely as “enforcer” or “agitator” is in hockey. I don’t know what else you’d call it that would be so instantly understood by fans of the game. Would we ban “wanker” as well? Fan wank? Maybe the closest here is “cock.” I’ve seen it used in this forum in its “intended” soccer/Queen’s English usage, but if you used it in the Sox forum I think you’d be justifiably an idiot.
There are uncomfortable changes needed in our society. The pendulum often needs to swing past center in order to bring things to a better place. That said... If we start applying different standards of language to established norms, I’m not sure how you can be sure of preventing offense in any arena.
Are you, in fact, sorry? Because, you just did a "i'm sorry you feel that way" / "I'm sorry you were offended" apology. Practically the dictionary definition of a non-apology apology. "I don't actually regret what I did, I wouldn't go back and change a thing, but I'm now supposed to use the word 'sorry' here in a sentence to make you all feel better... you oversensitive pansies."I’ll excuse myself from the soccer discussion on SOSH and apologize to those here.
People can be guilty of inadvertently creating a hostile environment through their language, as I am here. I do feel the environment can be turned hostile by people seeking offense where none was intended. I’m sorry to see that happening.
Just out of curiosity. If someone called Louis Suarez:I'll join the others and also elaborate, in the hopes of illustrating the thinking here rather than just piling on.
"Cunt" attempts to deride its object through comparing him to a female body part. For it to have any insulting meaning, the speaker is implying that we all (of course) must have a dim view of women or their bodies. I don't care if it hasn't yet gone out of fashion in Great Britain, it is packed with the same snide and biased weight as derisively calling someone "fag" or "retard", which similarly suggest that those who are homosexual or mentally handicapped are subhuman. Brits are known for their diverse command of language, or like to think so, anyway. Surely there is another word you could draw from your deep linguistic quiver to let us know exactly how little you think of Dele Alli. I'm right there with you on Alli, but the word you chose is particularly offensive to women, and makes not a small number of men wince as well.
"If certain language is offensive, then how can anyone say anything that's non-offensive?" is one of those fallacies you commonly hear in these conversations. Established norms can be simply wrong. In this case, the way I think of it is, if I'm going to insult something by comparing it to a group, it's OK if the trait linking that group is something they are, rather than something they did. Call Alli a criminal. Say he's just another one of those shitheads. Or maybe, opt to describe his entitled, diving, selfish ass and his pouty, overly-coiffed, punchable face specifically, rather than by comparison to some group.
I used to be one of those "c'mon, context!" people. No longer. It doesn't matter how I meant it, it matters how the listeners / readers hear it. If, once advised of how my words are received, I can't be bothered to adjust my phrasing to accommodate the people I'm speaking to, then they're not the ones with an attitude problem.
Are you, in fact, sorry? Because, you just did a "i'm sorry you feel that way" / "I'm sorry you were offended" apology. Practically the dictionary definition of a non-apology apology. "I don't actually regret what I did, I wouldn't go back and change a thing, but I'm now supposed to use the word 'sorry' here in a sentence to make you all feel better... you oversensitive pansies."
Look, I welcome reading your posts and even your hot gamethread takes. Nobody is saying you're a bad person. They're asking you to stop using one particular word. A word which was a flashpoint for the first extensive soul-searching we had as a community, years ago now, as to how we could stop being so routinely and casually offensive to women. You could have replied with "right, replace that word with 'dipshit' then", and everyone would have moved on. But instead, now you're calling us "people seeking offense". You don't get to claim the moral high ground when you're the one making it personal.
In American English, the answer is plainly (b). That's because slurs of any variety - gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc - only gain the power to cause pain and offense because they are associated with a power imbalance that includes exploitation and unfairness.Just out of curiosity. If someone called Louis Suarez:
a) A prick
b) A cunt
Which one would you be more offended by? Both take a vulgar term of both female and male anatomy to describe a conteptible person. For the record, I think both are apt. I don't have a dog in this fight, I just find some posts a distraction from CL discussion.
In American English, the answer is plainly (b). That's because slurs of any variety - gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc - only gain the power to cause pain and offense because they are associated with a power imbalance that includes exploitation and unfairness.
That's why there are no blanket slurs in American English for white men. There are slurs based on class or specific ethnicities (because the poor and certain ethnic groups have faced discrimination), but nothing generic that applies to white men across the board.
The context of the slur and identity of the speaker both matter because offensive words are connected to historical and current realities. That's why it's okay when a black man calls another black man the n-word and it's not okay if I do it.
Because men as a broad group have never faced discrimination in Western society, words like prick just aren't as offensive as words used to diminish the power and status of historically more vulnerable groups like women.
As someone with the same first name as Suarez, the only offense I take to this post is that you misspelled his name.Just out of curiosity. If someone called Louis Suarez:
a) A prick
b) A cunt
Which one would you be more offended by? Both take a vulgar term of both female and male anatomy to describe a conteptible person. For the record, I think both are apt. I don't have a dog in this fight, I just find some posts a distraction from CL discussion.
Two more words on the subject:I'll have to apologize for my lack of knowledge on the history and debate of C word usage on SoSH. <...>
With no snark intended though, can "bitch" be used in here or on SoSH generally? It's certainly less vulgar than the C word. As I understand and use it, the term is used to describe a player that flops, shies away from contact, or is otherwise soft. While some (probably most) would view it as a derogatory allusion to women, does the fact that bitch has other meanings mitigate that at all? What about using bitch as a verb? Any different?
I don't see Calciopoli as the impetus for Italy's down period. Both major clubs implicated in the scandal have appeared in the Champions League final since then and Milan has won it. The biggest reason is likely the failure of the Milan sides to field competitive teams for Europe, which has occurred mostly in this decade. In fact, Italy's two best teams in recent history, Napoli and Juventus, were both promoted from Serie B in 2006 so I don't think those old penalties still carry much weight.IAnd that leads to an interesting point - with 2 teams likely to make it into the UCL QF and 2 other teams likely to make it into the EL QF, is the tide beginning to turn for Serie A after a decade in the wilderness as a result of the Calciopoli? La Liga and the Bundesliga are also likely to have 2 clubs progress to EL QF, but even being able to compare Serie A to these other leagues seems like a big step forward, even if no club other than Juve seems prepared to challenge for Serie A and UCL glory in the same season soon.
I want to see Stevie strike a pose like Macca after the Liverpool-Man United Europa League tie a couple years back.Shame you guys dont have BT Sport, cos RIo Ferdinand and Paul Scholes are on pundit duty, alongside Stevie G...should be a fun post match.
My dad's fuckin beelin.
Sevilla were actually a fairly easy draw. They could have drawn Real Madrid or Juventus or Bayern Munich.Cup competitions can be tough when you don't draw the easiest team remaining every time, huh?
We couldn't have played you guys last round.Cup competitions can be tough when you don't draw the easiest team remaining every time, huh?
A midfield of Fellaini-Matic at home against a mediocre Sevilla side was terrible on one level but the side actually got worse after Pogba came onto the pitch: He was flat out awful and disinterested.I did think Mou's selection of Lingaard was really strange and to a lesser extent, Fellaini too. MANU looked very threatening in the first 10-15 minutes, but looked real bad after that, especially at the beginning of the second half. Sevilla are a pretty solid team though and they've given up on the table in La Liga and are going for it as much as possible in UCL. Montella is doing a pretty good job in the post-Emery era. For whatever reason Sevilla have a ton of Argentines (Banega, Correa, Mercado, Pareja, and Pizzaro) and they are getting plenty of run there, so I'm a [totally biased] fan. Correa in particular looks like he may be able to offer something different and useful to the albiceleste. If that team had a better striker they could really do some damage (I thought Muriel was wasteful yesterday).
Nothing can top Mourinho trashing MANU in his post-match remarks yesterday though. As someone posted on Reddit yesterday (paraphrasing): "Mourinho knows that he's addressing Man United fans, not Jose Mourinho fans, right?"
This is all true, but I'll add that they aren't that good without the ball either. Their defending has been very mediocre by Mourinho standards all year, and they've relied way too much on De Gea bailing them out. There's a case that their attack has been better than their defending this year.A midfield of Fellaini-Matic at home against a mediocre Sevilla side was terrible on one level but the side actually got worse after Pogba came onto the pitch: He was flat out awful and disinterested.
Mourinho has built a side that has no idea how to play in possession. I'm not sure whether its due to his training approach or the set of players that he has assembled (without any possession-oriented midfielders, center backs that aren't particularly good passers, and weak fullbacks) or both, but this club cannot boss matches against anybody good. They are hard to beat because he sets themselves up that way and because De Gea is playing on God Mode but they are fucking terrible with the ball. Sometimes it works out, like in the Liverpool match, where they score twice off route 1 long balls from the keeper and otherwise do very little in possession, and people call it a Mourinho masterclass. Sometimes it doesn't, like in this Sevilla tie, and you look end up getting dominated over two legs by a pretty average side. Either way, this approach has a low ceiling that is unbefitting one of the richest and most storied clubs in the world. Mourinho's past teams have always been defensive and oriented toward being hard to break down but they haven't been so utterly clueless when possessing the ball.
We've played once ever in Europe. 2 years ago.We couldn't have played you guys last round.
I never used to buy into this line of thinking, but as I've gotten older I've done a complete 180. The biggest richest clubs do have an "obligation" to play attacking-minded and innovative ball. However, I do think Mourinho was a good choice for MANU as they tried to reestablish some basic level of competency after their romp in the wilderness led by Moyes and LVG. That approach only makes sense if they ditch Mou at the end of the season or perhaps at the end of next season though.[snip]. Either way, this approach has a low ceiling that is unbefitting one of the richest and most storied clubs in the world. [/snip].
I agree about Mourinho. They were in a tough spot where they really needed to be relevant again. My strong suspicion, however, is that he will leave there this summer or next, having never really come close to winning either the league or the UCL. For a club of United's history and ambition, that has to be seen as a failure.I never used to buy into this line of thinking, but as I've gotten older I've done a complete 180. The biggest richest clubs do have an "obligation" to play attacking-minded and innovative ball. However, I do think Mourinho was a good choice for MANU as they tried to reestablish some basic level of competency after their romp in the wilderness led by Moyes and LVG. That approach only makes sense if they ditch Mou at the end of the season or perhaps at the end of next season though.
On another note, EV and Conte are bringing the THUNDER in Barca-Chelsea today. EV selected Iniesta and Dembele and will likely have Barca resembling more of a 4-3-3 (although I think Dembele will be tracking back to help in MF, so a 4-4-2 of sorts), while Conte selected Giroud to pair with Willian and Hazard up front. This should be a fun tactical battle.
Just wondering if there's any stats to back this up. they said last night that in the two legs against Sevilla, Man U had 4 shots on target. That's borderline criminal. Without De Gea, Man U's goal difference in the prem would be much worse than it is, we all know that, but I'd like to know how many shots on target they've allowed, and how many shots on target they've taken, and how that compares with the other more attack minded teams, and Chelsea.This is all true, but I'll add that they aren't that good without the ball either. Their defending has been very mediocre by Mourinho standards all year, and they've relied way too much on De Gea bailing them out. There's a case that their attack has been better than their defending this year.
You can find a lot of this data here: https://theshortfuse.sbnation.com/2017/11/21/16687422/arsenal-premier-league-advanced-statistics-xg-expected-goals-league-wide. It's mostly not good for United.Just wondering if there's any stats to back this up. they said last night that in the two legs against Sevilla, Man U had 4 shots on target. That's borderline criminal. Without De Gea, Man U's goal difference in the prem would be much worse than it is, we all know that, but I'd like to know how many shots on target they've allowed, and how many shots on target they've taken, and how that compares with the other more attack minded teams, and Chelsea.
I wonder if Jose will see out his contract. I've never been a Man U fan, or much liked rooting for them ever, but I can see that there is a tradition of playing exciting attack minded football. And, a tradition of a strong nucleus of home grown talent bolstered by some fine ROW players who fit into the squad and buy into the ethos of the club. The fans and several ex player pundits seem to be missing the Fergie style of play; the intensity of performance as much as the attacking flair.
Love em or hate em, there was always something intoxicating and enjoyable about the inevitable Man U all hands to the pump attack, attack with everything, when they were down a goal or needed a goal in the last ten to fifteen minutes of a match. The number of times we'd watch them and say, you knew they'd score, or, you saw it coming. It was always with a bang not a whimper.