I should never have downloaded The Guardian app

[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.

[Montmorency]

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.

[Fisherking]

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.

[Beskar]

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.

[Fisherking]

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Montmorency]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Do you consider yourself a hippie?

I shave, so.....no

[Gilrandir]

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?

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]

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.

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

No way, Chomsky.

[Gilrandir]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.