Voto:
"The relationship between the Signifier and the Signified is similar to the relationship between the front and the back of a sheet of paper; they are in no way separable, but they are different and distinct. To each Signified corresponds a Signifier and vice versa. Specifically, the Signifier is, we can say, the phonetic or graphic means that conveys the Signified of the word in question." This is to say that the symbol in itself, whether it's a swastika or the hammer and sickle, doesn't affect me one way or the other. I am interested in how it is used, the context, and the purposeâthese are important. In the case of the CCCP, I find the use of the symbol justified by what Ferretti wrote (justifications found in the post made by Kosmo): I wouldn't even talk about bad taste, because bad taste is always unaware. Not to mention flattery: I already mentioned barbed wire, right? The fact that many people perceive the CCCP superficially and incorrectly, cannot be attributed in any way to Ferretti: one cannot put a disclaimer on a record stating "attention difficult concepts: not recommended for people lacking irony and critical sense," a provocation loses its value if you declare upfront that it is a provocation, worse than explaining jokes (any reference to events or persons is purely intentional). I add and repeat, as has already been said, that Nazism and Communism cannot be equated because, while the massacres can certainly be attributed to the people who acted under both ideologies (of course, talking about ideology for Nazism makes me smile; what ideas are there beyond immense egocentrism? I'm really curious), it must be said that Communism originated from very noble purposes, as utopian as you want, but decidedly distant from the gulags where they eventually ended up. I find that facts, actions, and motivations are more important than symbols: that is why I had an issue with certain metal (not with Cannibal Corpse, who make me laugh with gusto and whom I can only accuse of bad taste, or a buffoon like Marilyn Manson who makes chickens laugh): certain metal bands really do engage in a certain type of propaganda, and then we get the utterly foolish "Satan's Beasts" causing mayhem in the name of who knows what. And I still do not feel like censoring Burzum and the like: censorship should come from my own head, not from a censor who, moreover, censors Pasolini or takes Zappa to court only to leave genuinely censorable things lying around. As for the word "negro," just to give my opinion on the subject: I may have the sensitivity of an elephant, but certain politically correct wordings don't really disturb me, but they do make me smile. I ask quite candidly: does a blind person really find it offensive to be called blind rather than visually impaired? Alright, for the word "negro," there's a pejorative connotation, but it hasnât always been this way (continuously used by Argan, one of our greatest art critics, and Polillo, a great jazz historian, for instance), and I would definitely prefer it to "black" and "person of color" (what does "person of color" even mean?), at least I immediately know what I'm talking about, then I would prefer to be called with a word like "negro" rather than "Caucasian" (but speak as you eat) or "white." I threw that in as a joke now to say that the word "negritude" had absolutely nothing discriminatory about it, I'm surprised that you, Caz, and Kosmo didn't get it. Alright, Iâm done. However, I couldn't help but laugh at the idea of Ferretti showing up at your place for dinner and instead of bringing some wine he brings the CCCP record: I wouldnât have let him in either :D."
