You can ban any word in the English language... Which is it?

[Quazimofo]

"The."

Let mayhem begin. >

Was going to say this.

But I think I want to get rid of "Female", because that would also invalidates feminism/feminist/woman/girl due to he fact female is used in their dictionary description.

And not being able to reference females as a group will really throw a wrench into all the equality moaning.

And subsequently clean up these forums a whole bunch.

CAPTCHA: ladies, first

See even the Captcha is feminist.

Biologists/zoologists would probably hate you though. Yeah male/female differences are annoying when people use them as a means of discrimination (either positive or negative), but since there are very tangible and significant differences, the word is kind of necessary if for no other reason than classification.

 

[Whispering Cynic]

I wouldn't ban any word in english language, because that would be censorship and censorship is fucking bad. I would however ban the word "impactful", since it isn't a real word and only marketing zombies use it.

 

[Billy D Williams]

Ironically, it would be censorship. I mean ya, I know censoring censorship is a form of censorship but its worth it to make it harder to censor shit which would be amazing.

 

[cdemares]

You guys know these are just arbitrary signifiers, right? Languages grow and change organically. There are reasons that words exist, even if those reasons are dumb. Getting rid of a word doesn't make the problem it represents go away. Offensive, hurtful, and annoying words are still around because we sort of want them to be.

That said, how about ignorance/ignorant and apathy/apathetic. Here's why. If you say somebody is ignorant or apathetic, you're not allowing the possibility of that changing. The connotation is that an ignorant or apathetic person is a type of person. It's just what they are. If you say they don't know or don't care, you have the possibility that that can change as opposed to classifying them as categorically uncaring or unknowing.

 

[ToxicPiranah]

Mine would either be ******

But then how will I be able to describe my bundle of sticks? Or my lovely balls of meaty goodness smothered in gravy?

OT:
I would ban: Terrorism/Terrorist, the word is over used by the media. It is used to easily and freely. Hell it allows the US to illegally hold men in Guantanamo, it give British police the right to hold you with out suspicion. All because of one word.

 

[Nomadiac]

'Sir'. When I hear or see it it's usually in some phrase like 'You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar' or 'good sir'. It just puts in mind some self-satisfied tool wearing a monocle and top hat trying their utmost hardest to be a 'gentleman'. Sure, they'll find some other word to mangle - but at least I'll have eradicated these phrases from the English language.

 

[Bertylicious]

I would ban "basically". I listened to my co-worker on the phone yesterday and he used it no fewer than 11 times in a 3 minute conversation.

Actually I think we'd all be better off living under the "Just a Minute" rules; no repetition, hesitation or deviation otherwise we have to stop talking and let someone else have a go. The entire population would need to be issued with gongs, naturally.

 

[ShipofFools]

I'd ban the word "shoe".

Horrible misuse of the alphabet, abomination of words.

 

[chinangel]

Swag and/or Fag/******, for obvious reasons. But just so i don't get dinged for a low-content post I'll go onto say that I hate both for simple reasons.

Swag because i feel it's a very silly word that nobody can agree on the definition of and fag/****** because it's about time that word got put to rest.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

"lol" That word, I hate it so much with the passion of a thousand suns!!

 

[icythepenguin]

I wouldn't ban any words honestly. I have read 1984 and while I'm not sure if I support that view completely it makes a fair point. Some words are offensive, some words are simply overused, misused or annoying. Still I think freedom of speech is worth getting offended by every now and then. Banning a word because we are offended with it is a little like wanting a dictator because we share the same views with him at the time.

That said I can't say I would hate it if lol, rofl, lmao and all that line of things was considered a crime to write or say out loud.

I agree with this guy. Banning or removing words will only hamper us and create a vocabulary where you can only express things a certain way. We might end up removing our own ability to dissent as was the intent in 1984.

That being said I would ban the use of internet/texting lingo in daily conversation. If you think something someone said to you is funny then actually laugh. Don't say lol, we're not emotionless robots.

As for the word literally, I understand the hate of people who say that people are using it incorrectly when they should be using figuratively but check the dictionary. Literally can mean "in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually." Its considered a contranym or auto-antonym. A word that can mean both its intended and opposite meaning.

 

[eggy32]

I'd ban the word cuss.
I really dislike how it sounds and it doesn't seem to do as good a job of describing harsh words as "curse" does.