Aaaand, just when you thought liberal white women couldn't be dumber, Sally Field said.....

[Gracie]

a term can only be an insult if both the sending and receiving

Well..since blacks call each other niggah...why can't a white person say it? Your argument does not compute. An insult is only in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Gracie]

What IS funny, though, is Kathy Griffin trying to make the word "feckless" into something speshul. That's another dumb ass twat/cvnt, ol griffin.

I think that was Samantha Bee.

It's just an adjective, in fairly common use. I've used it to describe irresponsible journalism.

I am aware it was SBee that said it. What I am saying is...Griffin is now using it as well (the feckless term). Griffin got her panties in a wad after seeing a pic of Ivanka and her son and Ivanka giving condolences to Kate Spade family. Griffin called her feckless...without the cvnt. In short...Griffin has no imagination and now wants to jump on the "Feckless" bandwagon for exposure since most don't give a rats ass about that ugly twat.

OK, was not aware of that. I have only a vague idea who Kathy Griffin is. Parroting somebody else's adjective could indeed be a sign of lack of creativity.

--- But what's "ugly" got to do with anything?

Whats ugly got to do with it? Bitch is butt ugly...inside and out.

Thanks for that ---- but I'm not asking for an extreme close-up of who we're talking about. I'm asking what her appearance has to do with her utterances.

Cuz she is butt ugly, dude!!!

 

[Pogo]

Actually you just provided yet another example of the same thing.

1. "It's vile"
2. "it's recognized as such"
3. "It's a 'fact of the public domain'"
4. "It's a publicly known fact"

All restatements of the same thing in different words. Circular reasoning. "It is because it is" is not a reason. It's a circle. It's avoiding the question.

When you can't articulate the reasoning that brought the conclusion --- you don't have one.

Let me simplify for you, simpleton.

It's an insult.

It's always an insult.

It's arguably the worst, most unforgivable insult you can use to a woman.

Sally Fields may be trying to "reclaim" it - as though it has ever been anything BUT an insult - but it ain't gonna happen. I am willing to bet money that using it to a woman is always going to be viewed as justifiable cause for slapping you until your eyes switch sockets.

Once again -- I wouldn't purport to speak for Sally Fields' intentions, even though the theory is strong. But that's not my point. My point is to solicit any basis of reasoning --- other than circular --- for the premise "it's an insult" --- let alone "it's always an insult" (which is demonstrably false).

The question was, is now, and ever shall be, **WHY** it is "an insult". That that question cannot be answered is in fact, the answer.

I don't accept premises that cannot show their "why". No one should.

It's a moot point at this point, as the poster I directed that question to above, eventually grokked exactly what I was getting at, in post 109. You should read it.

Did you seriously just ask why an insult is an insult? What part of this concept escapes you?

See what I mean? I just noted (again) that the question has no answer, and you just demonstrated what I said.

Lets make this more interesting, shall we? Why is the term n*gger an insult?

That's the same answer, isn't it. And another example of a word-target adopting a term for the purpose of defusing it (see "gay" above)


Know what else fits into that same category?

"Liberal".

And..why do blacks IMMEDIATELY think they are being compared to an ape??

We did Composition Fallacies at the beginning actually, but that's another stereotype, isn't it.

 

[Pogo]

I think that was Samantha Bee.

It's just an adjective, in fairly common use. I've used it to describe irresponsible journalism.

I am aware it was SBee that said it. What I am saying is...Griffin is now using it as well (the feckless term). Griffin got her panties in a wad after seeing a pic of Ivanka and her son and Ivanka giving condolences to Kate Spade family. Griffin called her feckless...without the cvnt. In short...Griffin has no imagination and now wants to jump on the "Feckless" bandwagon for exposure since most don't give a rats ass about that ugly twat.

OK, was not aware of that. I have only a vague idea who Kathy Griffin is. Parroting somebody else's adjective could indeed be a sign of lack of creativity.

--- But what's "ugly" got to do with anything?

Whats ugly got to do with it? Bitch is butt ugly...inside and out.

Thanks for that ---- but I'm not asking for an extreme close-up of who we're talking about. I'm asking what her appearance has to do with her utterances.

Cuz she is butt ugly, dude!!!

We did Circular Reasoning before too. Done been dere, done did dat.

 

[Gracie]

Let me simplify for you, simpleton.

It's an insult.

It's always an insult.

It's arguably the worst, most unforgivable insult you can use to a woman.

Sally Fields may be trying to "reclaim" it - as though it has ever been anything BUT an insult - but it ain't gonna happen. I am willing to bet money that using it to a woman is always going to be viewed as justifiable cause for slapping you until your eyes switch sockets.

Once again -- I wouldn't purport to speak for Sally Fields' intentions, even though the theory is strong. But that's not my point. My point is to solicit any basis of reasoning --- other than circular --- for the premise "it's an insult" --- let alone "it's always an insult" (which is demonstrably false).

The question was, is now, and ever shall be, **WHY** it is "an insult". That that question cannot be answered is in fact, the answer.

I don't accept premises that cannot show their "why". No one should.

It's a moot point at this point, as the poster I directed that question to above, eventually grokked exactly what I was getting at, in post 109. You should read it.

Did you seriously just ask why an insult is an insult? What part of this concept escapes you?

See what I mean? I just noted (again) that the question has no answer, and you just demonstrated what I said.

Lets make this more interesting, shall we? Why is the term n*gger an insult?

That's the same answer, isn't it. And another example of a word-target adopting a term for the purpose of defusing it (see "gay" above)


Know what else fits into that same category?

"Liberal".

And..why do blacks IMMEDIATELY think they are being compared to an ape??

We did Composition Fallacies at the beginning actually, but that's another stereotype, isn't it.

I ain't reading this whole thread. So...ok. Whatever floats yer boat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

“I like Samantha Bee a lot, but she is flat wrong to call Ivanka a c–t,” Field wrote. “C–ts are powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest.” Sally Field


Sigh...

Liberal (left winger) white women.

Nothing dumber.

"Sally Field" is now "Liberal white women"? Uhhmmm.... isn't that a plural?

She must have gained a lot of weight?

Composition Fallacies aside (where they belong) --- what's wrong with what she said?

You think women are powerless, ugly, destructive and deceitful?

You think "women" and "c-ts" are synonyms?

You think "Sally Field" is "all liberal white women"?

Me neither.

Try to address the point I actually made instead of trying to deflect off elsewhere. As for the etymology, I did that last week; if I find time I'll repost it, but for now consider the word "queen" and tell me why it's not an insult.

I don't think the OP said she WAS "all liberal white women". I think YOU are deliberately trying to misinterpret and misunderstand what was said in order to derail the conversation into an utterly meaningless and pointless quibble about nothing.

The OP said "just when you thought liberal white women couldn't get dumber". Sally Fields is a liberal white woman, and she got dumber than I previously believed was possible for someone of that designation. So it's accurate. Move the fuck along.

I have no intention of "considering" another word entirely as though it's somehow relevant to the topic. If you're not capable of using your Internet connection for something other than porn and HuffPo, I'll help you out, because I'm feeling generous.

The etymology of **** is a matter of debate,[6] but most sources consider the word to have derived from a Germanic word (Proto-Germanic *kuntō, stem *kuntōn-), which appeared as kunta in Old Norse. Scholars are uncertain of the origin of the Proto-Germanic form itself.[7] There are cognates in most Germanic languages, such as the Swedish, Faroese and Nynorsk kunta; West Frisian and Middle Low German kunte; Middle Dutch conte; Dutch kut and kont; Middle Low German kutte; Middle High German kotze ("prostitute"); German kott, and perhaps Old English cot. The etymology of the Proto-Germanic term is disputed. It may have arisen by Grimm's law operating on the Proto-Indo-European root *gen/gon"create, become" seen in gonads, genital, gamete, genetics, gene, or the Proto-Indo-European root *gʷneh₂/guneh₂ "woman" (Greek: gunê, seen in gynaecology). Relationships to similar-sounding words such as the Latin cunnus ("vulva"), and its derivatives French con, Spanish coño, and Portuguese cona, or in Persian kun (کون), have not been conclusively demonstrated. Other Latin words related to cunnus are cuneus ("wedge") and its derivative cunēre ("to fasten with a wedge", (figurative) "to squeeze in"), leading to English words such as cuneiform ("wedge-shaped"). In Middle English, **** appeared with many spellings, such as coynte, cunte and queynte, which did not always reflect the actual pronunciationof the word.

Not seeing "queen" in there. And it really doesn't matter if you think they sound similar, or derive from similar sources. Queen means one thing, and c-t means another. And frankly, even if you want to look farther back to when it was considered less vulgar than it is now, there's not a complimentary way to call a woman by ANY word that means "vagina", including "vagina". I don't think you're going to have much luck turning it into a positive term of empowerment to reduce a woman's sum total of existence to her genitals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really loser? Angelina Jolie is fat and unTtractive?

Perhaps you’re confusing normal women with the white trash women you know.

I’ve never been fat, ignoramous. If I were perhaps I’d go for a stupid u educated lowlife like you

Normal women don't call each other cvnts. Look where your world view has taken you. Defending those women who call other women such a vile word.

"Vile"?

Why?

It's recognized as such. Call women that word and watch them be flattered.

Apparently, "insult" is yet another concept that's too complicated for leftists, huh?

Apparently it's almost as too-complicated as "Composition Fallacy".

I couldn't say, since I'M not the one who's acting all bewildered about what an insult is.

 

[Marion Morrison]

[
You voted for a piece of garbage who said he grabs women by the pussy. That is vile. So is bigotry and so is lying. Those are vile. And it is what trumpkins ate and do all day long. That is what is vile.

Comparing black people to apes is vile

Calling a c**t what she is is just truth

And your treumptard “women” use that world all the time.

Now run along

And apparently you're still triggered about it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

What IS funny, though, is Kathy Griffin trying to make the word "feckless" into something speshul. That's another dumb ass twat/cvnt, ol griffin.

I think that was Samantha Bee.

It's just an adjective, in fairly common use. I've used it to describe irresponsible journalism.

I am aware it was SBee that said it. What I am saying is...Griffin is now using it as well (the feckless term). Griffin got her panties in a wad after seeing a pic of Ivanka and her son and Ivanka giving condolences to Kate Spade family. Griffin called her feckless...without the cvnt. In short...Griffin has no imagination and now wants to jump on the "Feckless" bandwagon for exposure since most don't give a rats ass about that ugly twat.

OK, was not aware of that. I have only a vague idea who Kathy Griffin is. Parroting somebody else's adjective could indeed be a sign of lack of creativity.

--- But what's "ugly" got to do with anything?

Whats ugly got to do with it? Bitch is butt ugly...inside and out. (Horrible ugly picture removed)

That is just awful. You should give that a spoiler and a warning!

 

[Pogo]

Normal women don't call each other cvnts. Look where your world view has taken you. Defending those women who call other women such a vile word.

"Vile"?

Why?

It's recognized as such. Call women that word and watch them be flattered.

Apparently, "insult" is yet another concept that's too complicated for leftists, huh?

Apparently it's almost as too-complicated as "Composition Fallacy".

I couldn't say, since I'M not the one who's acting all bewildered about what an insult is.

I'm not in the least "bewildered". I know the whole etymology.

I don't pose these questions because I'm looking for an answer. I ask them so that the askees will ask themselves something they didn't think to ask themselves before.

That too deep?

 

[Gracie]

"Vile"?

Why?

It's recognized as such. Call women that word and watch them be flattered.

Apparently, "insult" is yet another concept that's too complicated for leftists, huh?

Apparently it's almost as too-complicated as "Composition Fallacy".

I couldn't say, since I'M not the one who's acting all bewildered about what an insult is.

I'm not in the least "bewildered". I know the whole etymology.

I don't pose these questions because I'm looking for an answer. I ask them so that the askees will ask themselves something they didn't think to ask themselves before.

That too deep?

Did I ask myself before posting the pic of twat Griffin that her looks had to do with her vile mouth? Nope. Cuz dat bitch is UGLY. lol

 

[Gracie]

Yes, please, you feckless twat.

 

[Wry Catcher]

“I like Samantha Bee a lot, but she is flat wrong to call Ivanka a c–t,” Field wrote. “C–ts are powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest.” Sally Field


Sigh...

Liberal (left winger) white women.

Nothing dumber.

"Sally Field" is now "Liberal white women"? Uhhmmm.... isn't that a plural?

She must have gained a lot of weight?

Composition Fallacies aside (where they belong) --- what's wrong with what she said?

You think women are powerless, ugly, destructive and deceitful?

I think ALL liberal white women (American left wingers) are stupid as hell.

Sally Field is a liberal white American woman.

Well you're wrong. There is no evidence in any of you posts that you think. You emote: you express hate, fear monger and bloviate.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Yes, please, you feckless twat.

That's one helluva makeup transformation.

 

[Pogo]

“I like Samantha Bee a lot, but she is flat wrong to call Ivanka a c–t,” Field wrote. “C–ts are powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest.” Sally Field


Sigh...

Liberal (left winger) white women.

Nothing dumber.

"Sally Field" is now "Liberal white women"? Uhhmmm.... isn't that a plural?

She must have gained a lot of weight?

Composition Fallacies aside (where they belong) --- what's wrong with what she said?

You think women are powerless, ugly, destructive and deceitful?

You think "women" and "c-ts" are synonyms?

You think "Sally Field" is "all liberal white women"?

Me neither.

Try to address the point I actually made instead of trying to deflect off elsewhere. As for the etymology, I did that last week; if I find time I'll repost it, but for now consider the word "queen" and tell me why it's not an insult.

I don't think the OP said she WAS "all liberal white women". I think YOU are deliberately trying to misinterpret and misunderstand what was said in order to derail the conversation into an utterly meaningless and pointless quibble about nothing.

The OP said "just when you thought liberal white women couldn't get dumber". Sally Fields is a liberal white woman, and she got dumber than I previously believed was possible for someone of that designation. So it's accurate. Move the fuck along.

NOPE. I'm afraid the fuck not. Had the OP said "just when you thought Sally Field couldn't get any dumber" THEN he'd be free of his Composition Fallacy.

But that's not what he said, is it.

C'mon don't let me down here --- I already know for a fact that you're intelligent enough to figure this out. Is that impression inaccurate?

I have no intention of "considering" another word entirely as though it's somehow relevant to the topic. If you're not capable of using your Internet connection for something other than porn and HuffPo, I'll help you out, because I'm feeling generous.

The etymology of **** is a matter of debate,[6] but most sources consider the word to have derived from a Germanic word (Proto-Germanic *kuntō, stem *kuntōn-), which appeared as kunta in Old Norse. Scholars are uncertain of the origin of the Proto-Germanic form itself.[7] There are cognates in most Germanic languages, such as the Swedish, Faroese and Nynorsk kunta; West Frisian and Middle Low German kunte; Middle Dutch conte; Dutch kut and kont; Middle Low German kutte; Middle High German kotze ("prostitute"); German kott, and perhaps Old English cot. The etymology of the Proto-Germanic term is disputed. It may have arisen by Grimm's law operating on the Proto-Indo-European root *gen/gon"create, become" seen in gonads, genital, gamete, genetics, gene, or the Proto-Indo-European root *gʷneh₂/guneh₂ "woman" (Greek: gunê, seen in gynaecology). Relationships to similar-sounding words such as the Latin cunnus ("vulva"), and its derivatives French con, Spanish coño, and Portuguese cona, or in Persian kun (کون), have not been conclusively demonstrated. Other Latin words related to cunnus are cuneus ("wedge") and its derivative cunēre ("to fasten with a wedge", (figurative) "to squeeze in"), leading to English words such as cuneiform ("wedge-shaped"). In Middle English, **** appeared with many spellings, such as coynte, cunte and queynte, which did not always reflect the actual pronunciationof the word.

Not seeing "queen" in there. And it really doesn't matter if you think they sound similar, or derive from similar sources. Queen means one thing, and c-t means another. And frankly, even if you want to look farther back to when it was considered less vulgar than it is now, there's not a complimentary way to call a woman by ANY word that means "vagina", including "vagina". I don't think you're going to have much luck turning it into a positive term of empowerment to reduce a woman's sum total of existence to her genitals.

They do indeed derive from common roots, and it you can't be bothered to find my previous treatise I'll get to it eventually (thank me later) I have no need for "help" --- I already laid out a more comprehensive examination a week ago. Until we get to that, the question was why "****" is an insult, yet "queen" is not.

Also noted along the way was that the Swedish word for "woman" is kvinna.
Then there's the name "Gwen"....

As far as equating one's being to one's genitals, another side road we already went down while you were away, again without sufficient answer, was why it's at the same time OK to call a man a "dick". Feel free to try your hand at that, because nobody else could. But since you can't answer the fist question I don't hold a lot of expectoration for the second.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A fact of the public domain is not circular logic, idiot.

Actually you just provided yet another example of the same thing.

1. "It's vile"
2. "it's recognized as such"
3. "It's a 'fact of the public domain'"
4. "It's a publicly known fact"

All restatements of the same thing in different words. Circular reasoning. "It is because it is" is not a reason. It's a circle. It's avoiding the question.

When you can't articulate the reasoning that brought the conclusion --- you don't have one.

Let me simplify for you, simpleton.

It's an insult.

It's always an insult.

It's arguably the worst, most unforgivable insult you can use to a woman.

Sally Fields may be trying to "reclaim" it - as though it has ever been anything BUT an insult - but it ain't gonna happen. I am willing to bet money that using it to a woman is always going to be viewed as justifiable cause for slapping you until your eyes switch sockets.

Once again -- I wouldn't purport to speak for Sally Fields' intentions, even though the theory is strong. But that's not my point. My point is to solicit any basis of reasoning --- other than circular --- for the premise "it's an insult" --- let alone "it's always an insult" (which is demonstrably false).

The question was, is now, and ever shall be, **WHY** it is "an insult". That that question cannot be answered is in fact, the answer.

I don't accept premises that cannot show their "why". No one should.

It's a moot point at this point, as the poster I directed that question to above, eventually grokked exactly what I was getting at, in post 109. You should read it.

Did you seriously just ask why an insult is an insult? What part of this concept escapes you?

See what I mean? I just noted (again) that the question has no answer, and you just demonstrated what I said.

No, I demonstrated that you're a frigging moron if you have to actually have the answer explained, and that sane people are flabbergasted when leftists try this whole "nothing has any real meaning" bullshit.

Look, Spanky, words have meanings. That's their entire purpose for existing. They have denotations and connotations (and if you don't know what THOSE are, look them the eff up). They are created specifically for the purpose of verbally symbolizing both of them.

The word "c-t" was created to mean "vagina" (its denotation) and to be used in rather crude circumstances (its connotation). The connotation of it as a vulgar, low-class word has been strengthened and reinforced greatly since the 19th century or so, in large part because most modern-day societies tend to view discussion of genitals to be impolite to start with. But there's also the fact that THAT particular word now very much DENOTES the lowest and most vulgar reference to a vagina that one can make. That usage is the word's purpose for existence in our society.

And again, I don't think you're ever going to successfully convince women at large that being referred to as their genital organ - by ANY name - is a compliment.

 

[Aba Incieni]

“I like Samantha Bee a lot, but she is flat wrong to call Ivanka a c–t,” Field wrote. “C–ts are powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest.” Sally Field


Sigh...

Liberal (left winger) white women.

Nothing dumber.

"Sally Field" is now "Liberal white women"? Uhhmmm.... isn't that a plural?

She must have gained a lot of weight?

Composition Fallacies aside (where they belong) --- what's wrong with what she said?

You think women are powerless, ugly, destructive and deceitful?

You think "women" and "c-ts" are synonyms?

You think "Sally Field" is "all liberal white women"?

Me neither.

Try to address the point I actually made instead of trying to deflect off elsewhere. As for the etymology, I did that last week; if I find time I'll repost it, but for now consider the word "queen" and tell me why it's not an insult.

Words change meanings, cvnt.

Gay once meant happy, then it meant homo, now it means embarrassing. No matter it's origin, my cvnt.

Nope, you're conflating gay and ghey there, but you do bring up a salient example.

"Gay" used to be a slur lobbed against homosexuals. Then they adopted it, per your own 109 post. And that disarmed it. Perfect example.

Had they not done that, it may have retained slur power.

As I keep hammering into the denser crania among us, a term can only be an insult if both the sending and receiving party agree that it is. Once that agreement is broken, so is its power.


Words do change meanings, of course. Arguably that's what Sally Field is doing here. To some degree it's also what Sam Bee was doing and in fact what all these threads about it are doing, by simple exposure to the sunshine.

And that's a good thing.

It's no secret that I pepper my posts here with what's considered salty terminology. I do that because the more they're used, the less power they fucking retain. Lexicographical disarmament.

Then call women cvnts and get your eyes scratched out.

Fine by me, you silly cvnt.

 

[Marion Morrison]

dingding! Cecilie1200 wins!

 

[Pogo]

Actually you just provided yet another example of the same thing.

1. "It's vile"
2. "it's recognized as such"
3. "It's a 'fact of the public domain'"
4. "It's a publicly known fact"

All restatements of the same thing in different words. Circular reasoning. "It is because it is" is not a reason. It's a circle. It's avoiding the question.

When you can't articulate the reasoning that brought the conclusion --- you don't have one.

Let me simplify for you, simpleton.

It's an insult.

It's always an insult.

It's arguably the worst, most unforgivable insult you can use to a woman.

Sally Fields may be trying to "reclaim" it - as though it has ever been anything BUT an insult - but it ain't gonna happen. I am willing to bet money that using it to a woman is always going to be viewed as justifiable cause for slapping you until your eyes switch sockets.

Once again -- I wouldn't purport to speak for Sally Fields' intentions, even though the theory is strong. But that's not my point. My point is to solicit any basis of reasoning --- other than circular --- for the premise "it's an insult" --- let alone "it's always an insult" (which is demonstrably false).

The question was, is now, and ever shall be, **WHY** it is "an insult". That that question cannot be answered is in fact, the answer.

I don't accept premises that cannot show their "why". No one should.

It's a moot point at this point, as the poster I directed that question to above, eventually grokked exactly what I was getting at, in post 109. You should read it.

Did you seriously just ask why an insult is an insult? What part of this concept escapes you?

See what I mean? I just noted (again) that the question has no answer, and you just demonstrated what I said.

No, I demonstrated that you're a frigging moron if you have to actually have the answer explained, and that sane people are flabbergasted when leftists try this whole "nothing has any real meaning" bullshit.

Look, Spanky, words have meanings. That's their entire purpose for existing. They have denotations and connotations (and if you don't know what THOSE are, look them the eff up). They are created specifically for the purpose of verbally symbolizing both of them.

The word "c-t" was created to mean "vagina" (its denotation) and to be used in rather crude circumstances (its connotation). The connotation of it as a vulgar, low-class word has been strengthened and reinforced greatly since the 19th century or so, in large part because most modern-day societies tend to view discussion of genitals to be impolite to start with. But there's also the fact that THAT particular word now very much DENOTES the lowest and most vulgar reference to a vagina that one can make. That usage is the word's purpose for existence in our society.

And again, I don't think you're ever going to successfully convince women at large that being referred to as their genital organ - by ANY name - is a compliment.

AGAIN Circular Reasoning. You can't answer the question.
I already know that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Vile"?

Why?

It's recognized as such. Call women that word and watch them be flattered.

Apparently, "insult" is yet another concept that's too complicated for leftists, huh?

Apparently it's almost as too-complicated as "Composition Fallacy".

I couldn't say, since I'M not the one who's acting all bewildered about what an insult is.

I'm not in the least "bewildered". I know the whole etymology.

I don't pose these questions because I'm looking for an answer. I ask them so that the askees will ask themselves something they didn't think to ask themselves before.

That too deep?

From what I can tell, you know what you THINK the etymology is. You're pretty well-known for "knowing" a lot of things that are incorrect.

You pose these questions to imply that the question IS the answer. Don't bullshit me.