Words that have been killed by academia:

No.

Sexism, racism, white supremacy, misogyny

lel'd

Queer

Oh forgot about patriarchy

Privilege

Memes

Now that word was killed by Veeky Forums.

nah it was doomed from the moment dawkins thought of misspelling mneme. if he didn't want it to be memed to death, he should have made someone else come up with it.

seconded

Pseudo-

No. Mneme is spelled Μνήμη and meme comes from the word μιμητής which is like mimetic.

hegemony
undermine
liminal
ego
daemonic

empower

you cannot use this word anymore

good luck merely meaning that some circumstance gave a degree of power/authority to a woman, you'll bring down the whole of feminist history and philosophy on yourself and tangle yourself deep in questions of personal agency and so on

funny, I came here to say any phrase that begins with "pseudo-"

>harmful

Contradiction, paradox.

toxic

Pataphysics

Niggardly

hegemony
privilege
prejudice
marginalized
internalized
oppression
heteronormative
implicit bias
ethnocentric

'justice'

Fallacy

myriad
niggardly

nigger

sociology

>Problematic

some of those words are just shit in the first place

hegemony

>niggardly
Stupid how everyone just uses the adjective form of this. You can call people niggards, you know...

Words don't die, they shift meanings and usages. One is always able to use them in their older contexts by specifying this to the reader.

>spook
>diary, my

Or qualify actions as being conducted niggardily, what?

paradigm

didn't get into a good school eh buddy? chin up there are plenty of service jobs that can still lead to fulfilling lives :)

narrative

Came here to say this. Narrative was a term that functionally described part of literature. Now it refers to everything that anybody says. It has lost all meaning

>no mneme not mneme
i'd get it if you were ripping on me for not spelling it mnéme but not knowing how to transliterate makes me think you're just retarded
>it comes from a word derived from mneme
v retarded. especially since dawkins denies either origin, but the most common cognate he gets accused of ripping from is mneme
>arguing with trips
try it again when you can read greek

I believe it's because of a recent interest in/rediscovery of narratology, Bakthin, etc., that's at least how it seems to me when looking at journals and around campus, though narrative remains functional inside of literature when you're actually talking about literature, like when you're trying to distinguish narrative works (usually the novel) from non-narrative, more 'expressive' works (poetry)
It's only when literary scholarship is tainted with politics that you get essay titles to the effect of 'narrating the female body' or 'narrating minorities in literature', but even so 'narrative' and its inflationary use has actually been criticised as a 'modern affection' since at least the 19th century (OED)

ally

I didnt know it had been criticized that long. Do you have any articles, essays, or sources where I could read up on that?

It's not a lot and it's taken from OED's 'narrate' entry, I believe the 'modern affectation' (I misspelt) was commenting on its use in belletristics, though both the Metzler lexicon on literary and cultural theory and the Cambridge introduction to narrative make a point of the word narrative having been qickly adopted by an increasing line of academic fields, but without a consensus on its meaning ever having been reached
I wish I knew of an essay on this myself, I think it could be added to Graham Allen's examples of words too variously defined: Intertextuality, imagination, or postmodernism. He quotes Harold Bloom, too, saying they're undetermined in meaning, overdetermined in figuration,

>good
>evil
>metaphysical
>trope
>canon
>moral
>ethical
>justice

hands down the most overused word in art, academia, politics, and media. its one of those words that is said so often, it doesn't even mean anything anymore.

I think it might be impossible to use the word "trope" any more

Thanks, Ill start by looking through Cambridge. Looking up the OED definition, there are 3 types of "narrative". The first type is the literary form, the one I called "functional". The second has to do with the history of stories, but seems restricted to only the history. The last usage is the one where I start to have problems. Not that narrative isnt used like this, but is narrative the reality of whats going on.

The third definition is "A representation of a particular situation or process in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching set of aims or values". In a philosophical view this is synonymous, or what I call "functionally equivalent"(I use functional too much) to moralizing, or, more generally, purposefully setting values at a certain point in order to steer discussion and later adopters of the current view. The greatest example comes from the media, where the moralizing is obvious, the value that is pushed, especially early on, can take a certain slant. This is called "narrative". I dont deny that it is used like this.

My question is should it be used like this. Should the term narrative that is tied to literature be tied to this idea of pushing specific values, what I keep calling "moralizing".

good and evil are still anchored very solidly in orthodox theology. as a Christian I find it very easy to speak of good and evil with no confusion as to what I mean

Why "spaces"?