Speechless

The Trump admin is now in the game of banning words.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.e9e3794e3f02

"Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

America is no longer heading towards a dystopian future, it has arrived.

It truly is like living in a nightmare. It affects both our waking and dreaming states.

I lived through the Nixon years, but this is so much worse. I am hoping it will soon be remembered as the last futile cries of a white supremacist heritage.

stickygirl said:

The Trump admin is now in the game of banning words.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.e9e3794e3f02

"Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

America is no longer heading towards a dystopian future, it has arrived.

Click to expand...

That blew my mind when I first read that!

Imagine them quack doctors and "scientologists" wanting to use all of them fancy smancy anti-Christian words:


“Vulnerable” - Obviously a liberal code word for people who are too damn lazy to buy guns to protect or defend themselves!


“Entitlement” - Entitlements are things that lazy people want given to them like social security, free roads, low cost prisons and them silly Constitutional guarantees.



“Diversity” - Diversity is another one of those liberal code words that people use to hide what they really mean. It is also a word usually used by bitches, faggots, niggers, lezzies, beaners, welfare queens and Muslims so that they can insult this great, white, straight, male Christian nation of ours!



“Transgender” - A totally unnecessary word! Why can't they just say sissy-boy", "tranny", "she-male", "he/she" or "it" like the rest of us?



“Fetus” - Fetuses come from sex and that is a subject we never need our God fearing government to deal with... well, unless it is telling a woman that she needs to carry her rapist's fetus until birth... at which point it is a child and we don't fuckall care about them a bit!


Now the prior ones were bad enough, but I personally agree with our Great President that there is NEVER any grounds for quack medical doctor or "scientologists" to us the words...

“evidence-based” and “science-based”.

Neither of those two words can be found in the Holy Bible so they clearly are #fakenews!

Far be it for me to defend the administration but I'm a stickler for accuracy in all things and on both sides of the political aisle.

In short, the "ban" did not occur and the issue was mischaracterized by the Washington Post. Even the New York Times called them to task over it.

The discussion of the allegedly "banned" terms occurred in the form of a discussion, which resulted in an informal "style guide" for using terms most likely to get grant approvals in budget documents. The words were not "banned" in any way, shape, or form nor were they presented as a "list of banned words".

But, far be it for anyone who wants to reinforce only what they hear from their own echo chamber to look into something which, and rightly so, should sound incredulous.

Did you hear the CDC 'banned' seven words? Here's the full story.

Snopes on the same issue

NYT
"The Times confirmed some details of the report with several officials, although a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans.

Critics were quick to denounce the C.D.C. for its action. Dr. Vivek Murthy, a former Surgeon General, expressed concern.
“Whether this is a directive from above is not clear,’’ he said. “But for C.D.C. or any agency to be censored or passively made to feel they have to self-censor to avoid retribution — that’s dangerous and not acceptable. The purpose of science is to search for truth, and when science is censored the truth is censored.”
Snopes
A new analysis made public on Friday found that an E.P.A. website has been scrubbed of scores of links to materials to help local officials prepare for a world of rising temperatures and more severe storms. […]
Among the now-missing pages are those detailing the risks of climate change and the different approaches states are taking to curb emissions. Also edited out were examples of statewide plans to adapt to weather extremes.

A ban by any other name when it comes to advice on how not to offend creationist, pro-life assholes in the Republican swamp or you don't get your funding. Sounds much like four legs good, two legs better to me.

UnderMyKilt said:

Far be it for me to defend the administration but I'm a stickler for accuracy in all things and on both sides of the political aisle.

In short, the "ban" did not occur

Click to expand...

While presenting yourself as the voice of reason, you are actually making a petty distinction that helps normalize the total absence of Presidential leadership in making vital decisions based upon science rather than political expediency. One of the first things the Trump administration did was strip references to climate change from White House web pages. Now this gross censorship has trickled down to senior departmental directors as self-censorship for the purpose of grubbing for budget dollars

This is not a binary choice between two "sides of the political aisle". That is a cliche used by people who fancy themselves as the Fox News version of "fair and balanced". This is a binary choice between facts and fantasy.

You are not doing future generations any favors by normalizing the rejection of science. This administration is deeply flawed from the top down, and censorship will take many forms as a result of this fatal flaw.

UnderMyKilt said:

The discussion of the allegedly "banned" terms occurred in the form of a discussion, which resulted in an informal "style guide" for using terms most likely to get grant approvals in budget documents. The words were not "banned" in any way, shape, or form nor were they presented as a "list of banned words".

Click to expand...

"If you use these words your project won't get funded" is pretty much a de facto ban.

Bramblethorn said:

"If you use these words your project won't get funded" is pretty much a de facto ban.

Click to expand...

Getting funding from the European Union or from charitable funders in the UK is easier if you use recommended buzz-words - the opposite of banned words.

For EU money 'cross-border' and 'transnational' are good points. Involving three countries at least in the project and one of them from a newer EU member state improves the probability of getting money.

Submitting the bid in several languages is good too.

Advice on the terminology on how to get projects funded is available for bids to most potential funders. They all have specific criteria. Meet those criteria, make the bid in the terms they suggest? You could get money. Ignore the criteria, use terms or projects they would not like? You won't.

Ask a science innovation funder for money for a community arts event? Fail.

Ask a science innovation funder for money for a community science event? Maybe.

oggbashan said:

Getting funding from the European Union or from charitable funders in the UK is easier if you use recommended buzz-words - the opposite of banned words.

Click to expand...

I think that's pretty much universal. One of my bio friends told me that after 9/11, suddenly everybody was looking for a "biosecurity" spin on their project in hopes of getting Department of Defence funding.

Every agency has their priorities (both official and unofficial), and they're going to favour projects that match those priorities. But it's very revealing when terms like "science-based" are considered an anti-priority for a government medical agency.

They're - most likely - talking about the annual "Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committee" which has shockingly little to do with the actual president's politics, but rather the majority in congress. You see this with every majority switch in congress and smart agencies will prep two versions in case the prevailing party loses power in the meantime. (Aside from appointed figureheads a couple layers deep to toe party lines, the "senior leadership" is made up of the same people fighting for funding with machiavellianly expeditious word choices year in and year out regardless of their political affiliations.) For democrats, priorities are HIV/AIDs and obesity. For republicans, it's infectious diseases and type 2 diabetes. The agency will use the funding either way to largely the same purpose.

You really wanna giggle, have a look at how the poor EPA has to sell itself this year. Nearly as sad as Veterans Affairs under democrats.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike Trump (and a few to like him). Hate to dilute them with things that are absolutely standard governmental practice for the past 30+ years and even congressional rather than executive in cause.

LesbianChickLit said:

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike Trump (and a few to like him). Hate to dilute them with things that are absolutely standard governmental practice for the past 30+ years and even congressional rather than executive in cause.

Click to expand...

If you think Trump's level of hostility toward science and facts is standard operating procedure for all administrations and has no impact on Congressional allocations, you are not paying attention.

Just more normalization of insanity under the guise of being "fair and balanced" or, worse yet, the pseudo hip "cynical about politics in general".

Coati...

coati said:

If you think Trump's level of hostility toward science and facts is standard operating procedure for all administrations and has no impact on Congressional allocations, you are not paying attention.

Just more normalization of insanity under the guise of being "fair and balanced" or, worse yet, the pseudo hip "cynical about politics in general".

Click to expand...

Did you actually read the source documents referenced in the article? Or did you read an article designed as a pathos appeal to make money by getting readers hyper and sensitive, take it on face value without evaluating any claim for yourself, and get all hyper and sensitive?

Congressional funding requests by executive agencies are public record and readily available online. Read the actual source documents over the past years for yourself and determine if the language shifts are usual with presidential or congressional power changes. Or potentially neither, so long as you decide for yourself based on actual evidence.

If you take it a step further and check the funds received in the following FYs to determine if anything changed but the language, you'll see the same pattern reflected there as well (with the notable exception of the EPA, BIA, and a couple others). Blind hatred for a single man doesn't invalidate the honest effort of roughly 2M civil servants in the executive branch for four years at a time. You'll find the CDC is funded to perform the exact same functions in FY18 as it was in FY17.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3358
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5926

Certainly I'm not a Trump fan, but I'd encourage you to avoid lashing out reflexively with every article that banks on your emotional response. You undercut your own position when you blame him for any and all government actions or, worse, you distract yourself and others from actual offenses that should garner public attention and concern.

LesbianChickLit said:

Congressional funding requests by executive agencies are public record and readily available online. Read the actual source documents over the past years for yourself and determine if the language shifts are usual with presidential or congressional power changes. Or potentially neither, so long as you decide for yourself based on actual evidence.

Blind hatred for a single man doesn't invalidate the honest effort of roughly 2M civil servants in the executive branch for four years at a time.

Click to expand...

Language shifts and new buzzwords are usual with a new administration. What is taking place right now is not usual. You are making a false equivalency between this administration, which immediately banned certain words and concepts on the White House website within hours of taking office, and prior administrations where policy was developed collaboratively after the appointment of a new cabinet and before instituting far less radical versions of newspeak.

And this is not about blind hatred of a single man. He did not emerge from a vacuum. He emerged from the primary process of the current party in power in Congress, and they are acquiescing to his outright assault on science and facts. My eyes are wide open to what is taking place, and the effects it is having throughout this administration, including on an unusually radical shift in the language used in Congressional funding requests.

The 2M civil servants you cite are the tail of the dog, and the dog itself is indeed changing radically in everything from health priorities to environmental policy. In many cases these radical changes are not based on facts and involve a denial of reality. This is why an unusual proportion of those civil servants have either quit or have been moved out of positions that generate evidence that contradicts the foolish policies of this administration.