Gustav Temp Banned For Foul Words?

Should foul word use be grounds for a ban?

  • Yes, it should.

    Votes: 9 31.0%
  • No, it should not.

    Votes: 12 41.4%
  • Other. (Please explain)

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Total voters
    29
Status
Not open for further replies.

Anarcho Union

No Gods No Masters
Registered Senior Member
I just wanted to bring this to attention, I am in no way attacking the mod who banned him but I am however questioning it. As far as I have always been concerned, foul language has never been an offense carrying the possiblity of being banned on Sciforums and in my opinion, it shouldnt. I myself have used words such as goddamn and fucking many times in posts and have personally seen members and mods alike shoot off at the mouth. Never before have I seen a member banned for it. I do wish to raise this as a concern and voice my opinion that members should not be banned for the use of language unless it is violating another rule such as threating/attacking a member, trolling, ect. I do believe that Gustav should have his ban lifted ASAP and I hope other members will suport me in the poll. I would of sent a message to the mod but I thought this issue should be brought to public eye and possibly debated/discussed if other members see differently than I do.
 
As far as I have always been concerned, foul language has never been an offense carrying the possiblity of being banned on Sciforums and in my opinion, it shouldnt.
But you don't make the rules here.

I myself have used words such as goddamn and fucking many times in posts and have personally seen members and mods alike shoot off at the mouth.
It depends on where and how they're used.
 
But you don't make the rules here.

I'm not asking to make the rules here, Dyw, but thank you for pointing out the obvious. No, I do not. But as a member of sciforums I believe I have the right to voice my opinion and if foul language is a bannable offense here I may decide to no longer be a member of Sciforums.
 
I witnessed the posts that lead to the ban.

They were a mixture of foul language and a criticism of Fraggle's specific political agenda about linguistics.
I suspect the latter has played a part in Fraggle deciding for a ban, perhaps the major part.


I myself and several others have had struggles with Fraggle over his specific political agenda about linguistics.
 
Yeah, let Gustav come back prematurely, I can wash his pretty little mouth with soap.
 
Also; Ban is 14 days long. 5 days remaining. Fraggle Rocker is mod who banned.

Fraggle didn't just randomly ban Gustav. Gustav has long spent any capital he has on this website. He's alienated himself from almost the entire senior management team. He's abused the rules over and over again. What he did at the end, and the ban he received, was part of an escalating pattern that will--inexorably--see him gone from this website for good.

~String
 
Straws are weighty things when a single one can break a camel's back. ;)
 
superstring said:
He's abused the rules over and over again

Which rules?

What exactly is objectionable about this post?

Captain Kremmen [an Englishman] said:

RP was never traditionally hated. If you watch any English Film from the 1940s you will hear it spoken constantly, and with no overtones of snobbery or privilege. Cockneys (from London) and Brummies (from Birmingham) would have watched whole films with people speaking in this accent, and not remarked upon it.

But according to Fraggle:

I didn't mean to imply that it was hated. Merely that it was an artificial creation, and it's not usually very easy to get people to accept something like that. After all, the whole point was to create an accent that would instantly identify members of the "upper class," as democratization and the attrition of the aristocracy made them more difficult to identify by appearance--no footmen, for example

Which is based on what scholarly consensus?

From what I could locate on the topic:
RP was never formally created or enforced (unlike France or Italy). It grew out of the middle class version of the London/South Eastern dialect, no doubt aided by the increasing social mobility of the C19th which led people to be concerned about talking and writing "correctly". Hence the explosion in the popularity of grammars and dictionaries and the increasing tendency for dialects to be despised and suppressed. Well into the C19th, however, the upper classes were still talking with a variety of regional accents. The catalyst for the creation of a distinct and universal Public School accent seems to have been the 1874 Education Act. Education was to be available to all so the upper/middle classes and new rich needed other cultural badges to distinguish themselves from those pushing up from below. An expensive education had to show itself in the way you talked. In modern times I would say that "correct" standard English pronunciation, such as foreigners learn at school, is rather flatter and more muted than Public School English. Perhaps we need a new colloquial term. Actor English? Newsreader English?

http://www.yaelf.com/rp.shtml

To which Gustav replied:
its hilarious to see an american lecturing an englishman
the bloody cheek!




oxford put out a goddamn dictionary
in said goddamn dictionary, there are goddamn words
for each goddamn word, there is a goddamn pronunciation key

these days we even have... goddamn sound


do you fucking get it?
there was no fucking conspiracy
just scholars scholaring

And he is right. I have word lists from my American PIs telling me how to "correctly" pronounce the words so they could understand it.

What do you think that was? A class system being created or scholars scholaring? If the intention is to declare that opinion should be politely disseminated, I will bet that a five minute search of sci will reveal moderators and admins denoting members as bigots, morons, idiots, sociopaths and what not. So, glass houses et al. Unless religious sentiments have been hurt by the use of the Lords name in vain?

According to Fraggle:

Fraggle Rocker said:
Polite debate is one thing, but when Jon Stewart pokes really well-crafted fun at the establishment, it goes much deeper.

The whole concept of "descration" is just pure crap when it's applied only to abstractions rather than physical artifacts that are the result of physical labor and materials. If you destroy a temple or a statue you are destroying the tangible wealth of a civilization. You are destroying a product of the surplus that is one of the defining measures of civilization... a product of the economy of scale and division of labor that qualitatively elevates civilization above village or nomadic life. That is why you can literally "bomb a society back into the Stone Age."

But you can't mock or insult a society back into the Stone Age. The labor and capital required to create and support a belief system is trivial. Some teaching, some writing, some time off to get together. You can't do substantive damage to a civilization by poking fun at its institutions or inventing clever new profanity.

Disdain is a basic human right. It's the right of refusal. If you keep badgering me to join your church, your fraternity, your political party, or your social movement, and you just won't get the hell out of my face, I have a perfect right to get back in your face.

Or does this only apply to what Fraggle disdains? No one is allowed to disdain him, is that correct?

But yeah, when dissent is categorised as profanity, what we are doing is pandering to little egos, not rational debate.

And it seems, sci is chock full of little egos these days.

One advantage of this to the administration is that expectations of rationality from the admin have reached all time lows, so the bar is set at a level appropriate to their emotional investments in their own superciliousness
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by yaelf.com
Perhaps we need a new colloquial term. Actor English? Newsreader English?
Patrick McGoohan English. Those familiar with McGoohan solely through his work on The Prisoner are apt not to get this; I recommend a thorough review of his entire ouvre, but most especially Danger Man aka Secret Agent Man.

Fraggle's contentions remind me of some comments Penny Rimbaud (Crass) once made, though I can't seem to locate them--youtube isn't terribly well set up for proper research. :p And I certainly agree that it's hardly reflective of scholarly consensus and more a product of some sort of Foucaultian speculation--an assessment of which I have zero doubt that Fraggle won't balk at.

But isn't that kinda the "essence" of this place? I mean seriously: we have those who constantly proffer the "scientific method" as though it were somehow authoritative and finalizing, when in fact there is no such thing, but rather simply a set of disparate (and oft inconsistent) methodologies which are neither more nor less prone to be influenced by, well, political opportunism, the dictates of capital, and sometimes just plain irrational bias and/or bigotry, than anything else.

"Disinterested," my ass.
 
parmalee said:
But isn't that kinda the "essence" of this place? I mean seriously: we have those who constantly proffer the "scientific method" as though it were somehow authoritative and finalizing, when in fact there is no such thing, but rather simply a set of disparate (and oft inconsistent) methodologies which are neither more nor less prone to be influenced by, well, political opportunism, the dictates of capital, and sometimes just plain irrational bias and/or bigotry, than anything else.

"Disinterested," my ass.

Indeed I have long felt that peer review at sciforums especially in matters of contention could be appropriately labelled as "pass the buck" alongwith "no comment" or "what me cite proof of my speculations?"
 
The one's he was banned for. Repeatedly. As to his most recent suspension, you can refer to Fraggle for the details.

~String

Foul words? Is this a new rule?

Seems to me the rule which he has broken is

cartmanmotivator.jpg


Which is not a rule at all but misuse of moderator powers for petty vindictiveness. Bowing and scraping went out with slavery
 
Which is not a rule at all but misuse of moderator powers for petty vindictiveness. Bowing and scraping went out with slavery

You've been here long enough to know this is not a a democracy. This thread, pleas and outcry isn't going to get anyone anywhere. The culture here changes as its members change and the expectations change, there are always complaints but complaining doesn't change anything.

Just ask WeiWei
 
I'm not asking to make the rules here, Dyw, but thank you for pointing out the obvious. No, I do not. But as a member of sciforums I believe I have the right to voice my opinion and if foul language is a bannable offense here I may decide to no longer be a member of Sciforums.

And it seems that the point Dwyddyr was making was exactly that SciForums is not a democracy, but rather an authoritarian dictatorship. In the sense that the powers that be aren't interested in your input, and aren't interested in being subjected to any sort of democratic restraints on their behavior.

Which goes a long way towards explaining many fo the disfunctions here. It's this community that supposedly believes in liberal ideals and so on, but rejects outright the prospect of democratic legitimacy for itself, instead pursuing a closed political clique with unchecked power.
 
They were a mixture of foul language and a criticism of Fraggle's specific political agenda about linguistics.
I suspect the latter has played a part in Fraggle deciding for a ban, perhaps the major part.

Fraggle is both petty and vindicative towards disagreement with his pet positions. He should not have the power to ban anybody here.

And I suspect that this is an expression of the way in which the antidemocratic system here both infantilizes regular posters, and turns moderators into petty tyrants. Doesn't seem like his underlying personality, but here we are.
 
Fraggle didn't just randomly ban Gustav. Gustav has long spent any capital he has on this website. He's alienated himself from almost the entire senior management team.

Given the illegitimate nature of the management here, alienating one's self from it is exactly an expression of capital. I've said before that Gustav is the very best poster SciForums has, and I will repeat that now. You would do well to recognize and value that - this inability to deal with Gustav is shaping up to be the death knell of any pretension of serious good-faith governance here.

He's abused the rules over and over again.

"Abused" in what sense?

I've never seen Gustav violate any rules here in anything other than a principled way. Political activism is not trolling or abuse or whatever - and emphatically should not be treated as such.

As far as I can determine, Gustav's various punishments have been for nothing more than challenging the legitimacy of the powers that be here. It doesn't make you look secure and righteous to respond to that with a crack-down - rather the opposite. You're living down to his Colonel Qadaffi comparisons.

What he did at the end, and the ban he received, was part of an escalating pattern that will--inexorably--see him gone from this website for good.

What you need to understand is that such an end will be an indictment of this website, and not of Gustav.
 
But yeah, when dissent is categorised as profanity, what we are doing is pandering to little egos, not rational debate.

And it seems, sci is chock full of little egos these days.

One advantage of this to the administration is that expectations of rationality from the admin have reached all time lows, so the bar is set at a level appropriate to their emotional investments in their own superciliousness

QFT

Foul words? Is this a new rule?

I've been banned for it repeatedly, starting about 6 months back (IIRC). Typically it's when I've included profanity in an insult - actually called someone something foul - as opposed to simply popped off a profane expression. But I can't say I've ever had any confidence that those bannings were not politicized, with the profanity/insult thing simply a pretext. How can anyone have any confidence that actions aren't politicized, given the state of things?
 
I curse, I just generally don't flame.
Gustav curses and flames, he gets banned.

So it's not so much cursing, it's the cursing and flaming...also egregrious cursing...the occasional use of cursing as emphasis is tolerated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top