Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Meanings are offensive, not words

Brigade du jour

20:53 / 21.12.02

But which words are they? Should words be banned outright? Surely if enough people find them offensive or weighed down by too many nasty connotations, then they will be consigned to the dustbin of history anyway.

Personally I'd like to be able to use any word I like. Words are a thinker and writer's weapons (and incidentally, everyone on Barbelith is one or both of these things), should anyone have the right to take them away from me?

w1rebaby

22:30 / 21.12.02

Sorry, I must have missed this. Which words are the Government seeking to ban outright? And how?

Brigade du jour

23:02 / 21.12.02

Well a friend of mine just gave me an example a while ago. I'm still not sure I believe him, but it sounded feasible.

The word in question was 'tribe' (and therefore 'tribal' as well).

I find it ironic because being part of a tribe is what characterises pretty much all of humankind, whether this tribalism takes the form of a nation-state, a family, a bunch of people in a chat-room, whatever.

The point I think I'm making is that the word is not inherently offensive, indeed no word is inherently offensive. It's only how you use it.

gornorft

23:25 / 21.12.02

It's not any actual word itself that anyone has a problem with, it's the concept that is tied to it. Given that a word exists, it is clear that someone had a concept they wished to express in 'shorthand' and that others understood that concept and adopted the word for their own useage whenever referring to that same concept. If a government decided to ban a word, which is simply an arbitrary sound with a functional combination of letters attached to it to enable it to be written, then:
A) Nobody who was fond of that particular concept would pay any attention to the ruling anyway, and
B) Even if they did, someone would invent a new word that meant the same thing.

Brigade du jour

23:32 / 21.12.02

Excellent point. It's just that I, as you may have surmised from my militant undertones, am a bit of a, well ... militant about language and the freedom to use it however I want.

There's also the point, though, that if governments are spending money on debating this sort of thing (which words are offensive, why etc.) when, IMHO at least, the government's job is basically to make sure that we have effective hospitals, schools, etc. then that's surely some sort of mismanagement of funds.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:09 / 23.12.02

Well, it certainly would be if the role of government were defined by your humble opinion...

Could you find supporting evidence for your contention that the Government seeks to ban certain words from everyday usage? That is, beyond what your mate has just told you? Even if he did use his special serious news voice?

Brigade du jour

19:43 / 30.12.02

Afraid not Haus, I was just being impulsive. Mind you, it sounded very feasible and I am very gullible.

w1rebaby

19:49 / 30.12.02

There are quite a few words I think the people should ban the government from using. "Democracy". "Dictator". "Evil". "Terrorist". "Weapons of Mass Destruction". "Peace-loving". "We have no quarrel with...".

flicker

05:10 / 01.01.03

^good luck muting word abomination. more words would be hijacked to attack our freedoms and murder innocent vocabularies.

the language might change quicker, but i don't know if that's necessarily good at this point.

dj kali_ma

18:25 / 01.01.03

God help me, I still have a visceral reaction to the word "nigger". I can't perceive it as anything other than a ball of extreme ugliness and a wave of nausea.

I wish there were an easier way to snatch that particular leash back.

::aphonia::

Add Your Reply