nyblue23

Trio of Gana/Davies/Sigurdsson looks good together. Moving the ball well and always looking to go forward.

Pete0’s hate is so strong he downvotes dunc for posting the link.

One more start than he would have made for us.

Watford 2 - 2 Everton Sigurdsson

Says the guy with the improper grammar. Edit: Also, Louisiana is dope.

The nightclub part is a new wrench. But yeah £50 is a fair bit of money, so you might as well pour it over yourself, get the money and then smash it on his face.

I'd do it for £50.

Gana's good and Joey Barton's a moron.

Baningime in a back three? Do we want to destroy all of our youth?

You're describing our other DM who starts too often alongside him.

Not good enough for this league? Delusional.

Don’t understand this coming from someone who slates Gana week in/week out.

Everton 2 - 2 Palace Walcott

Eat a dick Allardyce.

Arsenal 3 - 1 Everton Walcott

Wasn't gonna play here under Sam, either.

I will say, if I misinterpreted the intention, which I acknowledge is easy to do in a situation like this, I apologize for the downvote. Still, it's pretty hard to interpret the phrase "not worth the trouble" as anything less than condescension, especially when the word EDIT is in all caps.

Try all season long, though. Not just the last 5 or 6.

Sure but they hit some posts and crossbars just as we did. A different set of luck and we lose, and that luck generally goes along with a string of bad performances like ours.

I've got to spend some time responding to this sensibly and that's not something I have much of at this moment (opening a new restaurant/cocktail bar - yes, I am a bartender who thought strongly about entering academia, but decided against the often fraught fight for legitimacy within the academic field [my shoes all have holes in them]). That said, I appreciate the thoughtful responses as much as the next guy and will do my best to carve out a little time soon.

Just watched highlights and not sure how Leicester managed not to score. Missed the game because of work, but elated with three points, and anyone who didn't want Walcott can fuck right off.

We are getting thrashed.

I wasn't objecting to the word groups - I was objecting to the quotation marks around it as they were intended to delegitimize. Unfortunately, I think you're right that it's almost impossible to have this conversation online. Without trying to be pedantic, your basic assumption that groups are ultimately good because they help us identify, differentiate and make sense of the world is one made by structuralist anthropologists like Claude Levi Strauss over half a century ago. Nearly all modern/post-structuralist scholarship in the fields of race, gender, sexuality, etc. (see bell hooks, Judith Butler, Michel Foucault) has occupied itself by showing the ways in which the very creation of these groups (a lot of which, contrary to your assertion otherwise, were defined by white men in power*) has been a means to exert power and control over the people who are identified within them. As nice as it would be to just act as if everyone is equal, unfortunately, in our current societal makeup, they are not. Whether under the eyes of the law, corporations, or implicit biases within social groups and regions, the structures which inform our every waking moment do not treat people equally, and as individuals, our acknowledgment that everyone is equal and treatment of them as such does absolutely nothing to change those structures. Your example is one that is used by people in privilege over and over again. Was it fair that you statistically went to better schools, statistically had a more supportive upbringing due to a myriad of external circumstances, statistically had more time to devote to your career, etc. etc. than many of the candidates who might be slightly less qualified than you? I don't think so (and again, here, I am making statistical generalizations that may or may not be true in your case, but I think you can acknowledge at least that wealth inequality exists in real ways that impact education and career trajectory and that minorities in most of the West are more likely to be subject to that inequality) . So why should it be fair that you get the job and they don't? Life's not fair to anyone all the time, but it's pretty fair to people like us more often than not. *White men in power obviously did not create the use of identifying groups to differentiate between one another; they've been used since people had language to differentiate. That said, a lot of the groups that exist now as identities are a relatively new phenomenon (i.e. homosexuality and other non-procreative sexual inclinations were not really considered identities but merely behaviors until the 19th century).

Sorry, downvoted that out of instant reaction to seeing the word "groups" in quotation marks, as if those groups weren't initially defined by western men in power. It is no service to the survivors of injustice for western men, likely white, to suddenly pretend that the groups they have defined, systemically subjugated, and then benefited from the subjugation thereof, suddenly no longer exist in a meaningful way, and that everyone should just somehow get along, ignoring the privilege inherent in such a statement. At it's core, the concept of feminism is merely the belief that women should be afforded the same opportunities as men across every aspect of life. To achieve that, however, everyone must first acknowledge the history of the subjugation of women, and understand that the roots of those injustices seep into every aspect of an individual woman's being, constantly working against them in often intangible ways. I think it's often forgotten by men in the United States that women weren't allowed to vote until almost half a century after black men (technically speaking). What you just said, tonka, while not explicitly advocating it, resembles too closely for comfort arguments for color-blindness. Unfortunately, while those in privilege get to benefit from the rest of the world typically viewing them as an individual within a group, those within subjugated minorities are lumped together and prejudice remains, conscious or unconscious, and privileges are assigned based on those prejudices. It's one thing to acknowledge the social construction of said "groups" and work to create an understanding that all people are born equal, regardless of our perceptions of their characteristics. It's entirely another, and incredibly detrimental, to pretend that those characteristics have not been justification for centuries of bigotry, enslavement and subjugation of groups imagined and created from those characteristics. The focus on community must first focus on the very success of those groups in order to understand their innate arbitrariness and acknowledge that we are all, indeed, created equal. While we've strayed pretty far from the topic of this thread, the scariest part about these past few responses to my initial post is that they actually seem like statements Trump might agree with.

Honestly, exactly what I expected, and not in a good way.