I should never have downloaded The Guardian app

Every day I open The Guardian on my phone and every day I see more and more opinions from Americans making absurd left wing statements that they know wouldn't fly if they were published in the United States.

See: Jessica Valenti

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...to-be-offended

Quote:

---

Chait’s real problem, it seems, is that he doesn’t understand why his privilege – or anyone else’s – should impact how people perceive what he says. “Under p.c. culture, the same idea can be expressed identically by two people but received differently depending on the race and sex of the individuals doing the expressing,” he writes.Well, yes! Context matters, and it’s no secret that a man using a word like “cunt”, for example, often has a completely different resonance than when a woman uses it.

---

See when a man calls someone cunt, he is degrading someone else. When a woman calls someone a cunt she is...empowering herself at the expense of another!

Quote:

---

Instead of rolling our eyes at the intensity of the feelings people have over these issues, we should be grateful that they care so much, because racism, misogyny and transphobia can and do kill people. If the price we all pay for progress for the less privileged is that someone who is more privileged gets their feelings hurt sometimes – or that they might have to think twice before opening their mouths or putting their fingers to keyboards – that’s a small damn price to pay. That’s not stopping free speech; it’s making our speech better.

---

Am I going crazy when I begin to understand what Fragony is saying about leftists?


Can someone explain to me how this idea came about that identity politics != racism/prejudice as long as you are of the right category.

Sometimes Fragony is absolutely correct, does that surprise you?
He just expresses himself in a way that other people don't rather often, which leads to misunderstandings.
And have you found any leftists who love islamic terrorists and want to import more of them to the West?

Also kinda reminds me of liveleak comments about "mudslimes" with pictures of bombers over the kaaba.

Either way, I also get disgusted when I see these leftist knucklehead rioters who call the police nazis and fascists and then throw stones at them. It's not exactly a message of peace and tolerance there.

Don't black people call eachother the N-Word but when a white guy does it he's a racist? Even for people who say your category shouldn't matter, it does often matter. Like how we shouldn't use animals as food but when animals use other animals as food, it's somehow okay because they are not as clever as we are. And I've never seen any animals speak out against this, they just stand on the sidelines while animal rights activists try to trample all over my rights to eat the animals standing on the sidelines.

Quote:

---

See when a man calls someone cunt, he is degrading someone else. When a woman calls someone a cunt she is...empowering herself at the expense of another!

---

What?

Dude: polysemy.

I expect more credible complaints from you.

Honestly! Anyone else ever hear of the Natural Right to be free from Offence?

It is simply an attempt at controlling the liberties of others.

If you feel a strong need not to be offended, stay home. You do have a right to privacy…except from the government anyway.

There are limitations on Freedom of Speech when it is used to cause harm to others maliciously. This is why you cannot run into airports shouting "bombombomb", or why threatening/harassing/bullying is disallowed.

It is why the 'right to bear arms' is not the right to shoot everyone. Similar principle.

Which is why I specifically used liberties, to imply that they must be exercised responsibly.
:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What?

Dude: polysemy.

I expect more credible complaints from you.

---

Cunt has no multiple meanings. It is solely derogatory. It is a bad example from the author and nevertheless there are symbols which have multiple meanings and yet western countries still shy away from having those symbols expressed, such as various Nazi symbols in Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Sometimes Fragony is absolutely correct, does that surprise you?
He just expresses himself in a way that other people don't rather often, which leads to misunderstandings.
And have you found any leftists who love islamic terrorists and want to import more of them to the West?

Also kinda reminds me of liveleak comments about "mudslimes" with pictures of bombers over the kaaba.

Either way, I also get disgusted when I see these leftist knucklehead rioters who call the police nazis and fascists and then throw stones at them. It's not exactly a message of peace and tolerance there.

Don't black people call eachother the N-Word but when a white guy does it he's a racist? Even for people who say your category shouldn't matter, it does often matter. Like how we shouldn't use animals as food but when animals use other animals as food, it's somehow okay because they are not as clever as we are. And I've never seen any animals speak out against this, they just stand on the sidelines while animal rights activists try to trample all over my rights to eat the animals standing on the sidelines.

---

Honestly, I know Frag is right on some topics. However what I was getting at was his strong sentiment about leftists in general, it was not an insult at his views. Maybe I am spending too much time in university at this point, I used to bash right wingers a lot more when I lived in a conservative area. Years of college liberals have got me more and more annoyed at the left in general.

Quote:

---

Cunt has no multiple meanings. It is solely derogatory.

---

That's the thing - what you say is just not the case.

Here's a simple example:

1. Your best friend says "Watch it, moron!" after you walk into him and almost push him down.

2. A strange man who has 6 inches on you says "Watch it, moron!" after you walk into him and almost push him down.

The notion that these are identical situations with identical meanings in the exchange is a complete delusion.

I'll break it down further: the idea that "meaning" is some discrete thing propelled into and snatched out of some 'semiotic ether' is yet more ridiculous humanist crap. Meaning is uniquely constructive and is actually so:

The signifier and the signified are two sides of the same coin and are expressed through the same medium, which is behavior.

Why? Because meaning is neurobiological, or it is not at all. Dictionaries or your personal statements do not encapsulate meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

That's the thing - what you say is just not the case.

Here's a simple example:

1. Your best friend says "Watch it, moron!" after you walk into him and almost push him down.

2. A strange man who has 6 inches on you says "Watch it, moron!" after you walk into him and almost push him down.

The notion that these are identical situations with identical meanings in the exchange is a complete delusion.

---

That works with moron but not cunt. Obviously you have never watched Curb Your Enthusiasm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-D23qX2iHk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I'll break it down further: the idea that "meaning" is some discrete thing propelled into and snatched out of some 'semiotic ether' is yet more ridiculous humanist crap. Meaning is uniquely constructive and is actually so:

The signifier and the signified are two sides of the same coin and are expressed through the same medium, which is behavior.

Why? Because meaning is neurobiological, or it is not at all. Dictionaries or your personal statements do not encapsulate meaning.

---

Well if meaning depends entirely on how you receive the message and not how the individual intends it, then judging a message based on their sex or on the color of someones skin is exactly the opposite of progress.

Quote:

---

then judging a message based on their sex or on the color of someones skin is exactly the opposite of progress.

---

Do you consider yourself a hippie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Do you consider yourself a hippie?

---

I shave, so.....no

Then cut the "We are the World" BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Then cut the "We are the World" BS.

---

When did I give that impression? I'm just pointing out the problems when you apply the idea of identity politics and the reality is that many people don't like to identify themselves by the categories they didn't choose to be in, many don't like to be categorized by anything at all. If messages are offensive based on the interpretation of the received and not on the interpretation of the sender, then it still makes no sense to argue for a blanket "privilege check" on certain groups since you are presupposing a background and characteristics of an individual based on traits that are not linked to those characteristics. That's the opposite of what the original argument was asking for in the first place.

It's an inherent problem of humanity I guess. Noone likes to be put into a category but everyone uses categories because that is what our brain does. I guess the biggest difference you can find is the number of categories people use.

Quote:

---

it still makes no sense to argue for a blanket "privilege check" on certain groups since you are presupposing a background and characteristics of an individual based on traits that are not linked to those characteristics. That's the opposite of what the original argument was asking for in the first place.

---

You're missing my point, but I'll go ahead and address this different issue.

When SJWs are talking about privilege, they virtually never refer to individual privilege. Their notion of privilege is actually a group-based construct. So what any particular individual thinks makes no difference.

If whites are in power, and whites are the majority, and whites prefer other whites (in a broad sense) to non-whites, then there you have it: privilege. Now, as Subo liked to point out, privilege is contextual and fluctuates quite a lot

-

but that doesn't change the fact that, as an aggregate, whites have more privilege than anyone.

When you see it in those terms, this should go from objectionable and tendentious to really really obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

When SJWs are talking about privilege, they virtually never refer to individual privilege. Their notion of privilege is actually a group-based construct. So what any particular individual thinks makes no difference.

---

So we ignore the individual? We are not saying you need to be quiet because you are white, but because of whites in general?

Quote:

---

If whites are in power, and whites are the majority, and whites prefer other whites (in a broad sense) to non-whites, then there you have it: privilege. Now, as Subo liked to point out, privilege is contextual and fluctuates quite a lot

---

So who is the arbiter of when and how much privilege has occurred? Is this a list that all need to satisfied, or any one condition? Non-hispanic whites are no longer a majority in the southwest. If the California State Assembly and Senate members reflected the current demographics, are California whites suddenly less privileged than the rest of American whites?

Quote:

---

but that doesn't change the fact that, as an aggregate, whites have more privilege than anyone.
When you see it in those terms, this should go from objectionable and tendentious to really really obvious.

---

It is easy to recognize that whites (in America) are on average better off than the average non-white (with the possible exception of Asian-Americans). But how this necessarily leads to the policies advocated by SJW's make no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

So we ignore the individual? We are not saying you need to be quiet because you are white, but because of whites in general?

So who is the arbiter of when and how much privilege has occurred? Is this a list that all need to satisfied, or any one condition? Non-hispanic whites are no longer a majority in the southwest. If the California State Assembly and Senate members reflected the current demographics, are California whites suddenly less privileged than the rest of American whites?

It is easy to recognize that whites (in America) are on average better off than the average non-white (with the possible exception of Asian-Americans). But how this necessarily leads to the policies advocated by SJW's make no sense.

---

Privilege often comes with massive blinder. If you never felt systematically negatively treated because of race/gender/sexual orientation/class, you're probably having privilege on it. Active positive treatment is more complex, since it can have different sources. The spoiled upper class is different from a woman taking advantage of flirting and courting in a place were women are rare because of general hostility.

I'm not sure were your stand on this really are, because it often end up with the "right to be rude/a jerk/an asshole without anybody complaining" and "since I don't see a problem (and most of the time aren't expected to see the problem either, since you aren't expected to be affected), there is no problem so stop talking about it, because it causes the problem".

While you do have the extreme ones that demands more, it mostly boils down to "don't be rude", "think before you speak" and "not everyone has lived like you, so they might have different experiences and thus some words are more offensive to them than to you". And the cases were some minority group are going to claim that this neutral word is now offensive is quite rare. Half to fully insulting words are way, way more common.

I don't browse the Guardian as much as I used to. I think they are trying to hard to be at the forefront as what they see as being some sort of gender revolution. Its getting a bit silly and they are starting to look like a parody of themselves. I'm sure I read titles along the lines of:

"A Feminist Perspective on the Ukraine Crisis"
"Are Gender-Specific Determinative Pronouns the Burqas of the West?"

I don't take it so seriously as a paper anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Like how we shouldn't use animals as food but when animals use other animals as food, it's somehow okay because they are not as clever as we are. And I've never seen any animals speak out against this

---

Muppet show, anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The signifier and the signified are two sides of the same coin and are expressed through the same medium, which is behavior.

---

The signified is not homogeneous either. It is like a layered cake: at the bottom is the significative element of meaning, common for all speakers, it is overlaid by the denotative element of meaning, unique for each speaker, and on top comes the connotative element of meaning which is related not to the signified, but to the speaker (the time and place in which he lived/lives, the social group he belongs to and, most importantly, his attitude to the signified). Having this in view, it is easy to explain different influence of the same word (or, to be precise, words with identical/similar meanings) on different people.

Quote:

---

So we ignore the individual?

---

Not at all. We're talking about specific concepts here.

Quote:

---

Non-hispanic whites are no longer a majority in the southwest. If the California State Assembly and Senate members reflected the current demographics, are California whites suddenly less privileged than the rest of American whites?

---

Possibly. It depends on the socialization of the Hispanic population in the area, as well as that of other groups or subgroups, communities... Countervailingly, less whites might mean that the remaining whites there - as well as 'visiting' whites - accord more privilege to those whites they do encounter. And so on...

Stop approaching a complex and nested situation like a 15-year-old, though I understand many SJWs encourage that sort of thinking. But that's not surprising; it is, in fact, the norm for all ideologies, obviously.*

*Except for certain ones with only a single individual endorsing them. :smug: :tongue:

Quote:

---

We are not saying you need to be quiet because you are white, but because of whites in general?

---

This is a strawman unless you're attacking a specific commentator. SJWs typically want the privileged group to come to terms with that privilege and take it into account when developing their ideologies or policy stances - or even day-to-day conduct.

Quote:

---

But how this necessarily leads to [particular]policies advocated by SJW's make no sense.

---

In many cases, I would agree. At its core though, the social justice movement is really like most others, even as a heavily-libertarian one: it's about transferring power from some groups to others, even if they deny that power in the current world-system is a zero-sum game. This is why I abrogate justice, as it is basically analogous to morality. In other words: conflicts between moral systems are boring at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

at the bottom is the significative element of meaning, common for all speakers

---

No way, Chomsky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I don't browse the Guardian as much as I used to. I think they are trying to hard to be at the forefront as what they see as being some sort of gender revolution. Its getting a bit silly and they are starting to look like a parody of themselves. I'm sure I read titles along the lines of:

"A Feminist Perspective on the Ukraine Crisis"
"Are Gender-Specific Determinative Pronouns the Burqas of the West?"

I don't take it so seriously as a paper anymore.

---

Not from the author of the original article. Which are why I'm sort of wondering. Sure some of the rhetoric needs you to know and understand things like privilege, but I'm not seeing anything extreme with the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

No way, Chomsky.

---

The significative element of meaning is the "core" meaning without which it would be impossibble for speakers to understand each other thus it underlies all other components of meaning. We may agrue, though, on the "place" of the said element within the whole structure. One may imagine meaning not as a cake but as as a field with a nucleus and periphery. However, it doesn't change the sense of what I said.

That's a fundamental point of disagreement. Such a stipulation doesn't take epigenetics into account.

acin, you should never have told us you downloaded The Guardian app.:gah2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

acin, you should never have told us you downloaded The Guardian app.:gah2:

---

Why, is my privacy at risk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

When you see it in those terms, this should go from objectionable and tendentious to really really obvious.

---

One problem is that technical correctness is just one part of the equation. When talking about humans, the statement "[remember] you are dealing with a human here" is technically always correct, but that doesn't mean it is neither relevant nor meaningful to bring up for a topic.

Another problem is that in actual application, 'privilege' tends to be applied on an individual level. If you take a random individual x from a statistically privileged group X (not defined by its privilege, but by some other characteristic), there is no guarantee that the privilege this group statistically has meaningfully applies to x. Yet this exactly how 'privilege' is very often applied: group X is privileged statistically, therefore x is privileged. This is a fallacy.

Conversely, not every member y of a statistically disprivileged group Y is disprivileged, and quite a few y might even become more privileged than the average x if members of Y are given benefits that are meant to counter their disprivilege.

There are, of course, certain groups that are defined by a privilege, such the rich. But even then, as per my first paragraph, this privilege is not always relevant; and it's not hard to see how it can be used dishonestly in rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Yet this exactly how 'privilege' is very often applied: group X is privileged statistically, therefore x is privileged. This is a fallacy.

---

No. There is an assumption that you're missing, that you would have to confront in order to challenge the point.

The assumption is that group identity is judged towards an individual by other individuals, not by the individual itself.

If this assumption holds, then it is tautological to say that "group X is privileged statistically, therefore x is privileged".