toonotl

A thing of beauty.

Lovely. That was always coming with them insisting on playing it out in these conditions.

Great goal. Murphy deserves that. He's been our best so far. Nice play by Gordon too. Found the right pass.

Brilliant ball by Murphy again. Isak needs to score.

Gordon is one of the worst headers of a ball that you'll ever see.

We've started well. Need to keep it going.

I stand corrected. Get in. Another assist for Murphy. Brilliant start.

Looks offside. Very close. Shame. Great finish from Isak.

Rogers is a great player. What a bargain.

Guten morgen @Zoidberg von der Land runter unter! Willkommen! Welcome to my favourite place on the internet. It's a low bar.

Not another one! Looks like the scousewashed virus has claimed Klopp, Slot and, some time in the 1980s, poor poor Renton.

I feel like the version of Toonpack from last week is underappreciated tbh. *posts chart showing Toonpack as fourth best poster in the category of user with "toon" in his username.* They can't all be blue chip players.

Well by the established metric here his underappreciation would amount to seeing Murphy as a worse option than Almiron. Toonpack arguing with himself from a week ago. His only worthy adversary.

To be fair, if we removed the last 2 games he'd still be 4th for minutes per goal because he's basically only competing with about four and a half other players who's job it is to score goals. But seriously to the general discussion we don't have natural goalscoring 8s (Willock maybe but he's injured more often than not). We don't play a 10. We don't have a backup striker who isn't either a crock or a kid. We need big goal numbers from our wingers. I love Murphy. He offers a lot to the team and squad in terms of effort and attitude. But he has 5 PL goals in the last season and this season combined. His first goals of the season were this last match. As a winger playing in our system he probably needs to produce around minimum 10 goals per season from that position to warrant being the permanent solution. He's nowhere near that, obviously, with 5 goals in a season and a half. I would love for Murphy to stay at the club and be an impact sub in the future behind a player of Gordon's quality (or better) on the RW. I think Murph is comparable to Barnes on the other wing in terms of value to the team. Barnes offers more goals. But Murphy offers more everywhere else. Gordon, by comparison, when on form, can do better than both of them what they do best respectively. That's what we need in a RW to keep progressing.

Knee-jerk reactions. ✅

Highlight of Murphs performance for mine was when he got booked. He stole the mitt from the glove-wearing nonce on Leicester's team and sneakily put it on himself before running away from him and the ref. Incredibly subtle. Not sure how long it took the Leicester player to get his glove back. Hope his fingers didn't freeze off in the meantime. Murph is one of my favourite players in the squad for all the reasons mentioned above. But I have to admit I have been frustrated by his performances at times this season. It's not like he's alone in that but perhaps he suffers unfairly in a relative sense from playing in a position that almost everyone had hoped would be upgraded in the summer. His poor performances are potentially a reminder of the failures of the summer transfer window. That's not fair on him, of course, but it's maybe an explanation.

Yep. He's clearly their best player by the looks of it. Certainly a legitimate goal threat for them at any rate. Great news for us.

This bloke has massive Mike Ashley vibes. I'm looking forward to Rio Ferdinand coming out in full support of Sir Jim.

I knew there was a simpler way to put it.

I may regret this post. But, everyone, I'm not trying to stir up shit here. This is mostly about my position on these matters. I think these types of public statements quickly lose their impetus because they come to be viewed as a mandatory gesture. They become performative and perfunctory occasions that have very little bearing on the core issue: morality and freedom. And that's my central problem with these sorts of initiatives is that they become less about caring for the freedoms of everyone, i.e., the basis of morality, and more about the potential to use a worthy cause, i.e., anti-homophobia campaigns, as a prop to express one's own sense of moral superiority over others. But, which others? Idiots? Octogenarians? Morons from another age? Big whoop. Personally, I have a problem with the sense of tokenism associated with these sorts of initiatives where an individual is reduced or at least diminished toward a simple association with the minority group to which they happen to belong. And then support for their freedom is apparently offered, at least in part, on that basis. I don't support the freedoms of gay people or black people or women or whoever. I support the freedoms of everyone with whom I interact on a daily basis. And this isn't a right-wing "all lives matter" piece of bullshit either. That is a nonsensical dogwhistle masquerading as a moral position. It is a simple fact for me that a gay person is a person, first and foremost. I think wearing an armband to express support for what should be the default position is kinda stupid and unnecessary. I don't need to know a person is gay to respect their freedoms as a person. And I don't need people in a crowd who I don't know to know what I think about issue x, y, or z. This isn't because I am aloof or otherwise "don't want that type of person around me" or whatever nonsense. I'm perfectly happy with everyone in my company so long as they're an interesting and well-intentioned person. I find the notion that I should support a person because of x to be potentially demeaning for both of us. Really. What do gay people give a shit if I support them? Who the fuck am I? I'm just some idiot. I view taking a public stance on anything as really just an expression of my vanity. And I cringe at even making this post because I try to keep out of this stuff for that exact reason. But I can hopefully justify making this post in the hopes of being corrected. But, for me, my opinion doesn't validate anybody except (maybe) the people I know and love. Anyway, on everyone's sharing of an opinion, it seems that that's the way of the world has gone when most are oriented massively towards individuality and materialism. A default moral position has become just another trinket to attach to your person and carry around like it's a token of your "personality". A lot of people seem to think that everyone else thinks about them all day and that a failure to acknowledge a person whom you don't know anything about has become comparable to bigotry. I support people's right to not wear an armband or kneel or any other compelled perfunctory action because, in accordance with Kant (you may laugh but I happen to deal with his work quite a lot), a moral stance is not possible without freedom. If I'm compelled to be a "moral person" then my capacity to actually be a moral person is stolen from me and my freedom is gifted to those attempting to enforce "moral actions" upon me through compulsion. That doesn't mean I don't support the impetus behind wearing an armband or anything else. However, I don't believe wearing one can represent the essence of its original purpose in the setting of a public ritual that people did not choose to take part in. Not to get all philosophical but philosophy is something I deal with on a day-to-day basis. For me, one's moral actions, if they are to be deemed to be good moral actions, must be separated from motivations situated in expediency or social or bodily self-preservation. For me, everyone ought to allow other people's freedom to motivate their own behavior and a refusal to entertain other people's right to self-expression is a violation of that principle even if those other people happen to be wrong-headed idiots. Of course, we could compare wearing an armband to a ritual in which actions are compelled. And that is perfectly acceptable. Rituals have an important place for us so why not accept wearing an armband as a ritual? For me, the fundamental point with a ritual is that they ought to be done in a private setting so as to avoid the problem of social compulsion intruding (as much as possible) on people's moral agency in choosing to take part. I mean "private" here in the sense that everyone is there by choice to engage in the ritual and not there for some other reason with the ritual tacked on as an ancillary act. Put simply with a private ritual everyone is there to take part. So, we can see that the public event of wearing an armband, is not offered as an invitation to a private ritual. It is not the purpose of people attending a football match to be a part of a public ritual foisted upon them by people who want to pronounce loudly "I'm a good person" then scowl around the crowd in hopes of finding an outlier to direct their sense of superiority against. This is why things like Mardi Gras and any other cultural event celebrating our diverse landscape of individuals are so wonderful. We need them. They are fun. There should be more of them, especially for young people, to educate and broadening out people's perspectives. But coopting another event for the task is not something that I particularly like because I don't want to be complicit in tokenizing the lives of real people for the benefit of narcissists. I also don't want to celebrate something at the expense of someone's else freedom. Even if I think that other person is a twit. All that said, fuck homophobes. Geuhi seems like a complete plonker. He hasn't expressed the position above. He has seemingly expressed that he's a bigot who doesn't like gay people. That's truly sad. In any case, I was never convinced about his signing in the first place. So further vindication for the "No" votes in the poll thread. P.S. I'm not accusing anyone here of engaging with this cause to tokenize others or make themselves look like a good person for its own sake or whatever. I think the vast vast majority of people on here are great people. Genuinely. My main concern is my own hangup. I want to be a good person and in order to have some control over that I need to do my best to make sure my "good" actions are motivated by good moral causes which turns "moral" actions into moral actions, if that makes any sense. At least I hope so.

There's zero chance the figure leaked to the press by ManU is accurate. They had massive motivation to try and save face after Ratcliffe went off like an unhinged loon complaining about having to pay for Ashworth at all. Ashworth has gone from looking unloyal, to idiotic, to incompetent in the space of a year. And all from a starting position where it seemed many were willing to accept that the glint of incoming silverware shone directly out of his arsehole. What a catastrophically delicious fall from grace. This rivals that Kone 2012 cunt. And he had a masturbate at an intersection in broad daylight to achieve his downfall. Having this kind of sense for self-destruction without a penchant for sexual depravity is virtually unheard of. Bravo!

Money well spent!

I've been called worse. And described less accurately.

For me, I thought Jordan was a narcissistic blow hard before this interview. And even more so after it. He looks to lure people in then wind them up and work amongst the reckage to salvage sound bites and clickbait nonsense. He seems a very negative, very self-obsessed and very shallow person. The number of questions that were variations on, "Eddie, how are you perceived by others?", told me more about Jordan's continued obsession with other people's perceptions, like any narcissistic person, and nothing about Eddie because Eddie gave his typical flatbat and honest answer to each question. Jordan is harmless really. He's just a two dimensional clown pretending to be a serious person. All that said, the rarity of longer form interviews with Howe made it a good watch. Plus, there was some really interesting stuff. I do think Jordan is a useful voice for us against PSR. He's maybe the most influential public voice against it. And his position (mostly) outside of vested interest adds credibility to his criticisms. I assume that would've been amongst the club's reason for getting Howe to speak to him. Apart from that, Jordan remains a bellend.

It's like the scouse mindset is some sort of virus. A paradox of coexistent superiority and victim complexes. It infects every manager without the will to resist it.