> Words have more meanings than ever

Right, that's the problem

> but last century produced wittgenstein;

I don't think a philosopher who died 80 years ago is driving the change in how words are used in the last 20 years. It has more to do with the Internet and the cultural forces driving people to use hyperbole or make things up to make money in the attention market. This article wouldn't be on HN if it was just about Dua Lipa starting a bookstore, they added "banned" so it would catch peoples attention even if that's basically a lie.

> perfectly clear communication was always a polite fiction.

The comment I replied to is trying to argue that it's ok to call books "banned" even if they're not banned, because it's like the term "cancelled" which at one point meant someone whose content was actually cancelled but I guess they're suggesting it doesn't mean that anymore either.

I'm not arguing that words should have perfect meanings, that is obviously a strawman, but this article and comment thread are using words to mean the complete opposite of their common meaning.

> I don't think a philosopher who died 80 years ago is driving the change in how words are used in the last 20 years.

The phenomenon is not restricted to this century. Orwell's book published in 1949 includes many prescient examples. Witgenstein's contribution, at a minimum, is that he named the paradigm, thus raising awareness, and perhaps leading to an increase in intentional engagement with these practices.

> Right, that's the problem

Is it a problem? I think it allows greater flexibility for humor and subtext than ever. It's the people who insist on contextualess interpretation that rain on the parade.

> it's ok to call books "banned" even if they're not

First of all, of course it's ok. Nobody is getting hurt. Second, the books are banned—just not where the bookstore is. I'm not sure how anyone could struggle to understand this. Anyway, what book is banned everywhere? Has any book in history really been banned to such an extent? Or do you really think Dua Lipa would be investing in a bookstore that would immediately be shut down? Being upset at this just seems like a waste of energy.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that for the most part it's the people who do believe in canonical definitions that get hurt by thinking they communicate clearly, by allowing others who do have a more flexible understanding of semantics undermine and fool them. We should teach words as polysemous by default so as to ensure they're able to function in the modern world. Hell, a great deal of wordplay can only be enjoyed if you're able to hold multiple definitions in your head at once.

For instance, "literally" notoriously connotes "figuratively".... sometimes. This is actually quite an old phenomenon that well predates the internet. But it allows ironic commentary on the speaker's perspectives that forces the audience to interpret the phrase in a broader context.

There is certainly a role for formal, unambiguous speech—in technical communication, in legal briefs, in analysis more generally—but it's not hard to see why people enjoy straying far beyond that in service of fluid, natural, and concise communication.