The quote as given does not appear in the Ancient canon, or even the Mediaeval canon. Nor in fact does the phrase βίᾳ ἤρχεσαν “they had ruled with force”.
The phrase is a little odd; it’s very much a tendentious summary of what happened in Athens with the Thirty Tyrants, which would be out of place in an historical account, though maybe not in rhetoric.
My strong suspicion is that this comes from a textbook.
The criterion for a deactivation appearing in Necrologue is that it is accompanied by another action indicating either sanction from Quora, or user dissatisfaction with Quora: Category definitions by Nick Nicholas on Necrologue.
People deactivate all the time, and users did not want Necrologue to be filled up with random reports of other users taking time out for exams; at user request, Argologue was set up separately, for users who are just taking time out of Quora for Real Life-related reasons.
Jordan has not indicated why she’s deactivated, or how long she’s deactivated for; so I have not reported her for either.
Appropriateness is always relative. We might like to think that there are universal norms applicable to all people and all situations. It simply does not work like that.
Profanity signals intimacy, because it presupposes a level of trust that the addressee will not take offence, and it situates the interlocutors as both being rebels against outsider norms of propriety, which signals solidarity. The same reasoning applies to the old taboos on sex and scatology, and the new taboos on race and sexuality.
If a language is agglutinative, or has a halfway decent derivational morphology, you can keep making up words based on other words for as long as you like, and those words will be perfectly acceptable. So there is not much of a limit.
There is a limit in how many building blocks of words (morphemes) someone can retain, and those morphemes will correspond to the vocabulary of someone speaking a purely isolating language. (Spoken Chinese isn’t as pure about this as it likes to think it is. Classical Chinese is, but classical Chinese is clearly heavily stylised.)
So, to turn this question into a question somewhat more clearly related to the limitations of human linguistic processing: how many characters can a Chinese speaker retain? Or, how big is the vocabulary of the average English speaker? (which is somewhat close to this, though English derivational morphology is still productive).
The answer for an individual is in the order of magnitude of 10,000. For a contemporary language with a wide range of specialist vocabularies, you are ranging across the vocabulary of all members of the speech community. That means you add one order of magnitude to the size of the available stock of morphemes; you don’t add two.
Quora, once again, is contradictory about this. Jay Wacker, consider this feedback.
Quora requires that content on English Quora (quora.com) be written in English.
Content includes blogs.
Blogs that have content primarily in a language other than English should not attach English topics to the blog.
This presupposes that blogs can be in languages other than English.
The former answer is newer, so I presume it takes priority; the latter answer hasn’t been updated in three years.
Xianhang Zhang’s answer to What are some of the basic “Community Management 101” mistakes that Quora has made? (written 2010, updated 2013):
- Inadequate information architecture of the existing documented procedures. Dogfooding is all well and good but Quora deciding to put its charter documents in the same Q&A system as everything else means that they’re fragmented and may as well not exist for new users.
And, I’ll add, difficult to keep up to date and consistent. As Elliot Mason can attest (Beware of the Leopard).
Swearwords in general, no. See Nick Nicholas’ answer to Does Quora frown upon cussing in one’s answers?
Swearwords that violate current societal taboos about race, as opposed to older taboos about sex: yes. See for example BNBR violation against myself. by Habib Fanny on Sophokagathia
Swearwords that violate current societal taboos about sexuality: depends, but I would encourage you to err on the side of caution.
Quora’s answer to What is Quora’s “Be Nice, Be Respectful” policy? bans:
- Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor.
It also bans:
content or […] a tone that would be interpreted by a reasonable observer as a form of hate speech, particularly toward a race, gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, political group, sexual orientation or another similar characteristic.
On the other hand, it has a more draconian policy about racial invective:
Using any of the words on Wikipedia’s list of ethnic slurs is not allowed in questions, answers, or comments, unless the purpose is to ask a sincere question about the usage/background of the word.
So saying that a zebra called you a nigger would, per policy, be an automatic benburr. Saying that a zebra called you a faggot may not, and it would be less likely if (a) you are in fact gay, and (b) the moderator is not feeling robotic today. But context is going to matter in such a judgement call, and as Bodnick famously said, Moderation does not do content, let alone context.
Fuck is safe from BNBR sanction. Nigger is unsafe. Faggot from my reading of the policy could be either, but if the context is not clearly pro-gay (reasonable observer), it is likely unsafe.
I’m doubtful by the way that censor-asterisks would make much of a difference, but there’s no explicit policy formulation about that.
Quora users need to live in readiness for the prospect of being banned, and email, forums, and social media allow them to stay in touch after being banned. Myself, I have stayed in occasional touch with Sophie Dockx and Laura Hale (although Laura has left Quora rather than being banned), and I have had a couple of exchanges with Marcia Buckie.
All of them, I think it is fair to say, have had to make an adjustment to being off Quora. And all of them are now getting on with their lives.
This is kind of lame (and TV rather than movie), but I guess I had a sheltered upbringing, and I was just six.
1977 was the heyday of Alice Cooper. As a sophisticated adult, I can now appreciate the antics of Alice for what they were, and even stifle a yawn at them. But as an impressionable six-year-old, not so much.
The scene that scared me was nothing about Satan worship, or fans dismembering chickens. It was, of all things, an award show, at the end of which Alice saw fit to pull a gun. The host (was it Dionne Warwick?) shrieked, the credits rolled, and I was terrified that Mayhem had seemingly intruded on the propriety of Hollywood.
Yes, Michaelis Maus, I was already inhabiting The Matrix.
For a couple of years after, Alice Cooper was at the lead of my personal pantheon of hobgoblins. I was scared that he would break into my home and subject me to some unspeakable horror. (I don’t know what that horror would have been; singing School’s out for summer, I expect.) I went so far as to bow my head while in the toilet, convinced that that would prevent Alice from identifying me, and whisking me away to some sort of un-education camp.
I’m pretty sure you couldn’t pull that kind of stunt these days. It truly was a more innocent time.
In one of his books about the historical Jesus, John Dominic Crossan wrote something like, “it is very difficult for us now to conceive how indifferent and peremptory the Romans were in dealing with Jesus.” There was likely no washing of hands, nor any ecce homo. The most he would have gotten was, “Insurrection? The Cross! Next!”
The trolls and spammers and malcontents that routinely get banned after a couple of posts? Part of the detritus that comes with managing any online forum. They waste as much emotion on them, as King Lear’s gods wasted on flies. The same, for that matter, as the most popular Quorans waste on the people they block.
Things should be different for valuable members of the community, that have a lot to offer, and that the staff have gotten to know personally. I have been assured by former community admins that they debated long and hard before banning prominent users. I have been assured by users that Quora employees have been distraught at some of the bans they were forced to make.
I do not have confidence that the current apparent structure of bots and subcontractors that seem to be handling the bulk of Moderation work have that level of engagement, either emotionally or intellectually, with their tasks.
In theory, a bot or subcontractor should show neither fear nor favour, neither love nor hate, which should give their decisions more fairness at least of a robotic sort (which ignores context and wisdom). In practice, reporting is not fairly targeted, and there’s a few Old Planters who don’t seem to be targeted enough; so that doesn’t work out.