Printable View
ok i doubt that 'young' kids are not going to pick up on asterik'ed out. they are not dumb :confused: nowadays world isnt that hard to work out, and cant be blocked out by asterik's.
at the same time, it is difficult to stop swearing completely. but yeah, its a good idea. :thumbs_up
er, why is jakobin banned?
I've been waiting for an answer to this one, and it hasn't come yet. I want to know, too: Why does it say "banned" under Jakobin's name?
emily, You know that Jakobin is um......dead.....
Thats why there is a "banned" under Jacobin thread.
Language is a powerful tool for social control. Orwell knew this when he wrote ‘1984’. In that totalitarian society, it is considered a positive achievement when each successive edition of the ‘Doublespeak’ dictionary has fewer words. The fewer words we have to express ourselves, the easier it is to prevent any thoughts that might challenge the authorities that control us.
It’s interesting to consider this discussion in the context of the debate about British poet Tony Harrison’s ‘V’, which was chosen as a set text for 16-18 year old students in the U.K. a few years ago. The poem can be seen here - http://plagiarist.com/poetry/5618/ Be warned, however, it does contain a very large number of swear words and the above site does not apply censorship to works of Art. The responses to the poem (which can be seen at length in the comments posted on the poem) are pertinent to what is being discussed here. Not surprisingly, the British tabloid newspapers pounced immediately and warned of the destruction of Western Civilisation. Channel 4 added to the controversy when they broadcast a filmed reading of the poem, made by former National Theatre Director, Richard Eyre. 'FOUR-LETTER TV POEM FURY!' was one predictable headline.
Harrison grapples with the problem of the relationship between language and class. The skinhead in the poem is dispossessed and alienated and so easily marginalised. Many of the assumptions above appear to be that swearing is a sign of lack of education. Words that offend middle class respectability are only used by the inarticulate and uneducated, it would seem. Harrison himself met with such snobbery when first published. His name is Tony Harrison but when The Times first printed one of his poems, it called him ‘Anthony’ Harrison. Tony is too working class a name to be that of a poet, apparently. The Times was not being self-consciously snobbish (they simply didn’t realise that he was Tony); that’s the way that hegemony works.
The issue is even more interestingly addressed in one of Harrison’s very moving poems about the death of his mother. I’ll post it but know that asterisks will appear:
Book Ends
I
Baked the day she suddenly dropped dead
we chew it slowly that last apple pie.
Shocked into sleeplessness you're scared of bed.
We never could talk much, and now don't try.
You're like book ends, the pair of you, she'd say,
Hog that grate, say nothing, sit, sleep, stare…
The 'scholar' me, you, worn out on poor pay,
only our silence made us seem a pair.
Not as good for staring in, blue gas,
too regular each bud, each yellow spike.
At night you need my company to pass
and she not here to tell us we're alike!
Your life's all shattered into smithereens.
Back in our silences and sullen looks,
for all the Scotch we drink, what's still between 's
not the thirty or so years, but books, books, books.
II
The stone's too full. The wording must be terse.
There's scarcely room to carve the FLORENCE on it--
Come on, it's not as if we're wanting verse.
It's not as if we're wanting a whole sonnet!
After tumblers of neat Johnny Walker
(I think that both of us we're on our third)
you said you'd always been a clumsy talker
and couldn't find another, shorter word
for 'beloved' or for 'wife' in the inscription,
but not too clumsy that you can't still cut:
You're supposed to be the bright boy at description
and you can't tell them what the **** to put!
I've got to find the right words on my own.
I've got the envelope that he'd been scrawling,
mis-spelt, mawkish, stylistically appalling
but I can't squeeze more love into their stone.
I think that last stanza says what needs to be said here (NOT the ONLY thing that needs to be said, may I add). Although his father uses an expletive and is lacking the ability to express himself with elegance, the love he feels is no less real. I’m not saying that the rules are wrong or that anyone should have the right to break them. However, I do think that we should think about why such rules are made and what it tells us about the way we, as human beings, construct our communities and societies. Personally, I believe it has nothing to do with morality. It’s about power – in this case, commercial power. Shouldn’t we at least consider this possibility, even while recognising that the rules are sacrosanct? That way we can actually have some genuine thought about the issues rather than simply expressing outrage or approval.
PS I did a search on the online ‘Ulysses’ available on this site and found, I’m glad to say, that it has not been censored.
Jakobin is not banned but his account has been closed out of respect and I have opened a new account for his girl friend, Lisa, to use. It would have been upsetting for some members to see his account active all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
The Unnamable> Swearing directed at other members is a form of abuse and will never be welcome in this Forum.
Perhaps you are entirely unaware that you are doing it but I find such terse assumptions of moral superiority both offensive and rude. Why did you need to tell me, patronisingly, that swearing “is a form of abuse” as if I am some naughty schoolboy who doesn’t understand? I once lived with a woman who had been the subject of real abuse, not name-calling on an Internet Forum. Her brutal and bullying husband regularly beat her to a pulp. Your attempt to justify delight in your own moral stance by equating ‘swearing’ at someone with forcibly knocking out his or her teeth is objectionable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Also, is such dismissal all my comments were worth? At no point did I advocate swearing at any member of the forum. I gave a well considered, pertinent and, I hope, thoughtful response to the original topic. Most of us don’t have your privilege of deleting what we don’t like and I, for one, think that you forget that with such privileges comes the responsibility for fairness.
I didn’t send this as a PM partly for the same reason you didn’t with your comment directly addressed to me. I also hope that it’s relevant to the topic and the issues I have raised – making people question why such censorship exists and the true nature of the authority keeping us under surveillance.
Unnamable, Scher's a Moderator--you accepted that fact by registering on the forums. She's not making any assumptions with regards to moral superiority, she's exercising the authority to which you consented and is using it to enforce the rules of the forums, to which you also consented.
Ah, it appears I didn't read entirely what you had said in your post before. I completely take Scheherazade's side in this case after reading the post. It appears that in a way you are saying that swearing isn't bad, therefore Scheherazade is saying otherwise (swearing towards others is indeed offensive).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
The dasterdly Stan's takes the side o the moderator-lass.
But of course, I am like that!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
The Admin especially asked for someone with impeccable morals and attitude when he wrote to the Mother Superior at the Convent to find a Moderator for the site!
On a serious note, the rules of the Forum were there before I joined and I agree with them heartily because we have members as young as 12 on this Forum and it is good to have a set of rules which are applicable to everybody to keep the Forum running smoothly.
Thank you for all your support however this is not a matter of personal preferences. Like Robin pointed out when we become members, we all agree to the terms and rules which are put in place by the Admin.
I suspected Scher had a nunnery in her background all this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
(heh heh)
I agree with Mark Twain: cuss words are some of the best in the English language when used appropriately and in moderation.
But still arent sutible for young people.
I had the shock of my life last year in the corridor at school this tiny angelic lookingh 11 year with a mouth on her that was well, shall we say the air became so blue that visbilty dropped?
((g))
:D
Well, I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. I guess I learn foul language pretty early. By sixth grade, which is roughly 11 years old, I remember swearing around worst than a sailor. Of course never at home. Just with the boys. I've since washed out my vocabulary, at least most of the time.
I agree with starr. Even though it has been said that "Profanity is the product of an unsophisticated mind," geniuses like Quentin Tarantino and Robin Williams can use it occasionally, even profusely, but to powerful effect.