Leicester Deadline Day Thread

[Guest]

Racism

 

The fact that he is a cvnt has nothing to do with the fact that he is Scottish.

 

black dog.

 

The fact he is a dog has nothing to do with the fact that he is black.

 

Don't confuse quantifiers/adjectives with racism. 

[ROB-THE-BLUE]

Charlie is entitled to his opinion, I think he's right in saying we have an almighty task to stay up. We have had an encouraging start but it's far too early to say anything more than that. Swansea are 2nd in the table but it doesn't mean it'll remain that way. For what it's worth I think we'll stay up but I don't think it's fair call him a c**t for saying it'll be tough??! I also think he may have a point in terms of depth of squad in certain areas and I pray we have luck again with few injuries over the season.

[Stevosevic]

Can't see us not finishing above Palace, WBA and Burnley.

[Alf Bentley]

black dog.

 

The fact he is a dog has nothing to do with the fact that he is black.

 

Don't confuse quantifiers/adjectives with racism. 

 

So he could just as easily have called him a "male ****" or a "white ****" - or, if it had been Garth Crooks a "black ****"?!?

 

If you asked whether someone had a pet and they replied "Yes, it's black", that wouldn't provide adequate information, unless you already knew that it was a dog, whereas "black dog" gives you 2 relevant bits of information.

 

In this context, "Scottish ****" gives you only 1 relevant bit of info - that lestajigs thinks Mr. Nicholas is a "****". The fact that he is Scottish, white and male is surely irrelevant, unless you wish to suggest that there's something wrong with being Scottish, white or male, and this somehow aggravates his crime in being a "****"?

 

Not that I'm bothered. I'm just being a linguistic pedant and need to find something more useful to do with my time - like working. 

[HitchinFox]

So he could just as easily have called him a "male ****" or a "white ****" - or, if it had been Garth Crooks a "black ****"?!?

 

If you asked whether someone had a pet and they replied "Yes, it's black", that wouldn't provide adequate information, unless you already knew that it was a dog, whereas "black dog" gives you 2 relevant bits of information.

 

In this context, "Scottish ****" gives you only 1 relevant bit of info - that lestajigs thinks Mr. Nicholas is a "****". The fact that he is Scottish, white and male is surely irrelevant, unless you wish to suggest that there's something wrong with being Scottish, white or male, and this somehow aggravates his crime in being a "****"?

 

Not that I'm bothered. I'm just being a linguistic pedant and need to find something more useful to do with my time - like working. 

 

 

I too have time on my hands.

So - what if you describe a certain part of him as Scottish, then you can get away with it?

"Charlie Nicholas is a short, ugly **** who talks out of his Scottish arse."

 

That doesn't demean Scottish people or Scottish arses, does it? Just describes him as having one? Would that be racist/xenophobic?

[Alf Bentley]

I too have time on my hands.

So - what if you describe a certain part of him as Scottish, then you can get away with it?

"Charlie Nicholas is a short, ugly **** who talks out of his Scottish arse."

 

That doesn't demean Scottish people or Scottish arses, does it? Just describes him as having one? Would that be racist/xenophobic?

 

 

I'd say that's still technically racist as the use of "Scottish" is intended to be pejorative, as are all the other adjectives.

 

If you said "Charlie Nicholas is a tall, handsome **** who talks out of his Scottish arse", you might get away with it - or at least confuse people into thinking that he had another arse, perhaps an English one that he farted out of.

 

But what do I know? I'm just an argumentative white male British heterosexual **** of Irish descent! 

 

In all seriousness, I think such comments are technically racist, but most of us use them without any ill-intent...and they rather pale into insignificance when set alongside people ceremonially chopping other people's heads off or indulging in the gang rape of children.

[Lestoh]

To refer to his 'Scottish arse' would suggest a difference between Scottish arses and other arses. Since you're using the term in a demeaning context, I'd say that's enough to be considered "racist" - if indeed you're also considering Scottish to be an independent race.

[Steven]

I'd say that's still technically racist as the use of "Scottish" is intended to be pejorative.....

Quite.

[st albans fox]

Really happy about our business yesterday.

Don't know a lot about the American lad, but signing promising development players can never be regarded as a bad thing..

 

Lawrence is a steal....If the rumoured £1m is correct then, judging by the reaction of a lot of United fans, Nigel and his team have pulled off the value signing of the day. Powell, (loan or loan to permanent), would appear one of the better deals of that kind too. Cleverley to Villa, Alvarez, (Sunderland) and Ben Arfa might appear equal or  better deals, but I'm personally happier with Powell than any of them tbh! Alvarez has to adapt to the English game and Ben Arfa, for his talent, is not renowned for his 'team ethic' and has a history of injuries..... 

 

With Cambiasso and Simpson brought on board too, we have a rounded, exciting looking squad, assembled at a sensible financial outlay.

 

Well done LCFC  !!

It wouldn't surprise me if the Lawrence deal has stuff in it that we may not find out about for a couple of years, if he proves to be a good PL performer. We wouldn't have been able to take him and Powell on loan and we clearly didn't want to sign Powell or they didn't want to sell him. I know that Lawrence is highly rated at OT so it's feasible that we paid a million as some kind of extended loan fee whilst he gets plenty of game time here that he wouldn't there. Who knows if there is a guaranteed buy back clause in the contract at a set figure?

They would certainly look like mugs if he turns out to be a brilliant player and we only paid a million for him. They do have form when it comes to being mugged off though. However, they don't need the million quid and I doubt his wages were much so they didn't have to sell him at all. They could have loaned him out somewhere - sure of that. That's why I'm intrigued.

[Raw Dykes]

It wouldn't surprise me if the Lawrence deal has stuff in it that we may not find out about for a couple of years, if he proves to be a good PL performer. We wouldn't have been able to take him and Powell on loan and we clearly didn't want to sign Powell or they didn't want to sell him. I know that Lawrence is highly rated at OT so it's feasible that we paid a million as some kind of extended loan fee whilst he gets plenty of game time here that he wouldn't there. Who knows if there is a guaranteed buy back clause in the contract at a set figure?

They would certainly look like mugs if he turns out to be a brilliant player and we only paid a million for him. They do have form when it comes to being mugged off though. However, they don't need the million quid and I doubt his wages were much so they didn't have to sell him at all. They could have loaned him out somewhere - sure of that. That's why I'm intrigued.

There were rumours that there's an £11m buy-back clause in the Lawrence deal, which is believable. If that's the catch, then we're laughing. If he turns out to be good enough for Man Utd to want him back, then it's £10m profit. If he turns out to be v good, but not quite that good, then it's a bargain. If he turns out to be rubbish, who cares? He cost £1m.

With any luck, (and judging by NP's track record of permanent signings of Man Utd youth, the likelihood is pretty high) Lawrence will turn out to be every bit as good as a James or Drinkwater.