I should never have downloaded The Guardian app

**Montmorency** · 03-06-2015, 23:41

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.

**Montmorency** · 03-06-2015, 23:47

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.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 03-07-2015, 00:38

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.

**Montmorency** · 03-07-2015, 01:14

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?

**a completely inoffensive name** · 03-07-2015, 01:47

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Do you consider yourself a hippie?

I shave, so.....no

**Montmorency** · 03-07-2015, 01:56

Then cut the "We are the World" BS.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 03-07-2015, 02:46

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.

**Gilrandir** · 03-07-2015, 15:00

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?

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.

**Montmorency** · 03-07-2015, 16:34

So we ignore the individual?

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

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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

No way, Chomsky.

**Gilrandir** · 03-08-2015, 06:59

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.

**Montmorency** · 03-08-2015, 08:09

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

**Gregoshi** · 03-08-2015, 12:13

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

**a completely inoffensive name** · 03-07-2015, 00:36

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.