Is any reason good enough to ban a word?

[garion888]

I just watched this documentary on the word '[censored]'. The documentary was interesting and the women they talked to seemed erudite and coherent all the way up until the end where at least half of them advocated the banning of the word.

They argued that if you're going to ban the 7 "dirty" words then "why not make it 8, or 80, or 800, or 8000?", I guess based on whim?

I can't understand why someone would want to ban a word. Is there a correlation between the prevalence of a word and the prevalence of a behavior or the prevalence of an idea?

Edit: Damn filter. The word is sloot

[MidGe]

uhh!!

How are you going to ban a word. Won't you have to use the word in the legislation banning it???

[Nielsio]

Let's ban the word murder; that should stop all the killing in the world. Especially if we write the law on high quality paper.

[MidGe]

Hi garion,

Reflecting on your post, I think that it is quite an interesting question that may warrant a bit more elaboration than my first, very glib answer.

I guess the point is not whether to ban a word or ban the use of a word, but whether or not government are able to, legitimately or effectively ban the usage of a word. There is not much point in implementing a piece of legislation that cannot be enforced, altough that is done quite often, but then usually because there is a possible gain to the legislator. That gain can be political or financial or even some other worth to the individual legislator. Of course it would not guarantee the absolute or even rigorous, whatever the standard, enforcement of that law.

Now, when it comes to language, I think things are very much out of the governement hands, words, of themselves can, and often do, change meaning over time. The language, the dictionary is not prescriptive of (a very old fashion view), but reflects usage, of the language.

The point that I would make is that it is really an attempt at mind policing. /images/graemlins/smile.gif First the language will evolve, people will coin new words to have the same meaning than those banned by a government. In fact, I think the very banning of a word, will re-inforce the power of the concept behind it. Secondly, mind policing is verging on weirdness, in the sense that you could then be equally as guilty for any dreams you may have. As far as thought processes, it is not that different from dreams.. how can you choose one word over another unless you have thought about both of them. This is closely linked to discussions about free will etc...

Just as a matter of curiosity there is a close etymolgical association with the english word "fook" and the french word unalduterated, as I hope it won't be censored, "foutre". The diffrenece is that in the french language it has lost most of its emotional and semantic value. Most french speaking people would not even associated with the the meaning of its english equivalent. In fact, it would be used very commonly and colloquially without any eyebrows raised, as indeed it would only be associated with its current meaning (of "not caring") Like in "Je m'en fout".. as a french idiom for "I don't care". Note that the english equivalent as in "I don't give a f.." has got a very different usage and meaning.. altough it is even in english loosing its sexual association as time moves on...

[guesswest]

No, there is never any reason good enough to ban a word.

But anyway, even if you did, all that'd happen is that new words with the same meanings would come about. Language is a response to communication needs, not the other way around.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Is any reason good enough to ban a word?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a word is banned, it helps to increase the effect of using it.

[Bork]

If the word is magic and turns people to stone, or shoots fireballs, etc.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
If the word is magic and turns people to stone, or shoots fireballs, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Silencio!

[LadyWrestler]

...or, evidently, if the word is "God" or "Jesus" and school is in session.