Words that we must outlaw

I think getting rid of politicians would be better.

True, true. And we should replace them with psychiatric inpatients and tropers.

edited 17th May '11 5:13:31 AM by Shichibukai

You want to replace me with a politician!??!

Nooo!

Big Noooo!

and then we call Miss and Mrs. Handgun.

No no, you keep your original occupation of space pirate too. There there.

We should outlaw the word "democracy" for being imprecise. We should also outlaw the words "love", "iconoclast", and "ohnopleasestopohnonononoputdowntheknifenononono!".

You sure you don't want to be replaced with Elbridge Gerry or Henry Clay? Not all politicians are bad.

edited 17th May '11 6:48:49 AM by AlirozTheConfused

The death of the universe will come eventually anyway so...

I am so tempted to make a "Words we must make compulsory" snowclone...

"Rambunctious", for example, should definitely be compulsory. It's such a fun word. Everyone should use it in their conversation at least once per day.

edited 17th May '11 7:14:04 AM by Carciofus

"Lay-off" and "laid off". An employee needs to have a positive outlook to find another job, and those two words just make it sound negative.

yes, let's use "fired" instead, which has connotations of energy and drive.

Now THERE'S a word I can "un-work" with! Give me a fire and I'll march out that door with confidence!

Words to Outlaw:

Trope
Troper
Tv
Wut
No
Why
Insane

edited 17th May '11 12:55:25 PM by Parable

PARABLE.

Not sure if you're kidding, considering what site you posted this on.

edited 17th May '11 12:59:13 PM by kyun

...Parable...I love you.

Glenn Magus Harvey style post: GO!

But what is the point of life if everything is dead?

I'm with Clocklepoo on this one

And with Hungry Joe, apparently

No, but you will get a good brofist, does that work for you?

I sort of agree with this. But I prefer if instead of being banned, we raise awareness. that way, debates are easier to win. :D

I'm tired of people asking me if I did things! YES, I DID MURDER THAT BASTARD? WHY ARE YOU CHECKING?

I don't believe any word should be banned, but there are some words out there that people need find synonyms for because of their vague meaning. Often it's not the word itself that is the problem for me, but how it's used.

• Barbarian - Discussers of history, unless you're speaking from a Greco-Roman perspective, let's not use this word. The meaning of the word has corrupted beyond immediate recognition, and it was originally just a Latin word for "foreigner" anyway.
• Dark Ages - Discussers of history, this is a dated term used by Renaissance historians who believed that the Migration Period and Early Middle Ages were an "uncultured" and "uneducated" time in European history. Unless you're discussing historiography, avoid using it.
• Medieval - This is a very general term describing a span of a thousand years, people. When you say that your story is a "medieval" setting, when do you mean? You could be talking about the Migration Period, or the Viking Age, or the rise of the Holy Roman Empire. In fact, the "Middle Ages" are split up into three distinct periods: Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, and Late Middle Ages. Drop the word "medieval" and pick one.

</blah blah nitpick>

edited 17th May '11 1:08:31 PM by annebeeche

Eh. I think there is a good point that can be made for calling everything before the Carolingian Renaissance, before the Crusades, or maybe even before the economical boom of the 13th century "Dark Ages". It's maybe not objective, but... fitting

Also, if you find "medieval" bad, how do you feel about "ancient" then?

Meh, not really. The name's really not that appropriate, now that we know more about the time period, and has negative connotations.

Ancient's even worse in the same context, but I don't see people use the word that way, so I don't mention it.

Again, I have no problem with the words themselves, I just get annoyed when people use "medieval" as if they're referring to a specific time period. It's not all the same era! Which do you mean?

Well, for the vast majority of folks across that span of thousands of years, nothing changed, or if it did, it got worse.

Oh, of course, no development of feudalism or anything. No major developments in fortification technology, either. And no devastating plagues that had lasting negative affects on medicine and hygiene, and no changes in religion and culture, either.

Yeah, not much happened in a thousand years.

For clarification, I'm talking specifically about European history. If there's parts of the world where literally nothing happened for a thousand years, I'm not factoring that in.

edited 17th May '11 1:45:51 PM by annebeeche

Most of which came towards the end.

And I'm talking about life for, let's say a peasant in the Germanies.

The emphasis on having a miserable life in order to have a good afterlife really put a damper on development.

I really recomend picking up this.

fbgfhfdxnfxgnjdfjfx

I despise that word.

Feudalism spread through continental europe about the 9th and 10th centuries, which is in the former half of the 5th century to 15th century span, and came about as an eventual result of the fall of the Western Roman empire, who occupied the land they took over with their systems of society and economy. A family of ceorls in the 6th century would have likely become serfs after the 10th century.

So yeah, the changes you're thinking of came about more in the middle of the period than in the end.

edited 17th May '11 2:06:15 PM by annebeeche

Well, this one I can give to you. Can, and note I did not say will. But if you outlaw the word Conan as well, I'm gonna go and find your end of the wire and do a battle of the Mounds on your ass right there, miss Anne.

Take another look at the post. I'm not banning the word.