Trump administration forbids CDC officials from using 7 words and phrases
72 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Dr.C;52981407]They should just misspell the words[/QUOTE]
"According to 5<13|\|<3-|3453|) reports on <l1|\/|473 <|-|4|\|93"
Isn't this basically violating the 1st amendment? Or does this shit not apply to government?
I'm not even sure this has intentions as sinister as they might seem. I think this is just the idiocracy in full retard mode, thinking that banning these words might actually be an effective measure to get what they want out of their time in the White House. It's kind of like a middle aged person thinking that a country becoming more racially diluted is a sign that the country is becoming 'weaker' or 'going mad'... It's not deliberately dangerous, it's just lazy, misinformed and dumb politics. It's what happens when an entire personality cult takes control of the executive.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52982036]"Trump admin bans buzzwords"
You'll note that "science" or "evidence" are not banned. Adding "-based" behind them gives too much leeway. Like when your horror movie of choice starts with a card that says "Based on a true story".
[/QUOTE]
Come on, there's got to be a point where you stop having to act like an apologetic sibling for the administration ran by a 70 year old thieving man who couldn't give two shits about you if you were dying in front of the white house entrance.
Which hill will you not die on just to justify them? Is it because you've got nothing to lose or is it voter's remorse?
If you take control of the words people can say, over time, you can take control of the thoughts people can have. Fight back against this with your last dying breath and every calorie in your body.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52982036]"Trump admin bans buzzwords"
You'll note that "science" or "evidence" are not banned. Adding "-based" behind them gives too much leeway. Like when your horror movie of choice starts with a card that says "Based on a true story".
The only ones that don't belong on the list are "fetus" and "transgender".[/QUOTE]
Buzzword or not it's still thought policing!
Transgender is doubleplusungood
[QUOTE=Jon27;52982609]I'm not even sure this has intentions as sinister as they might seem. I think this is just the idiocracy in full retard mode, thinking that banning these words might actually be an effective measure to get what they want out of their time in the White House. It's kind of like a middle aged person thinking that a country becoming more racially diluted is a sign that the country is becoming 'weaker' or 'going mad'... It's not deliberately dangerous, it's just lazy, misinformed and dumb politics. It's what happens when an entire personality cult takes control of the executive.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no. That's still sinister intent. Stupidity isn't a free pass to get away with being a turd. Besides, that isn't even what this is. They know exactly what they're doing and why they're doing it.
"Free speech" anyone?
Information is a weapon, and Trump is doing what he can to disarm the populace.
Alternatively, Trump could just not get triggered by these words
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52982036]"Trump admin bans buzzwords"
You'll note that "science" or "evidence" are not banned. Adding "-based" behind them gives too much leeway. Like when your horror movie of choice starts with a card that says "Based on a true story".
The only ones that don't belong on the list are "fetus" and "transgender".[/QUOTE]
lmao.
Try again.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52982036]"Trump admin bans buzzwords"
You'll note that "science" or "evidence" are not banned. Adding "-based" behind them gives too much leeway. Like when your horror movie of choice starts with a card that says "Based on a true story".
The only ones that don't belong on the list are "fetus" and "transgender".[/QUOTE]
Science-based and evidence-based medicine have real meanings and usage in medicine. They're pretty important terms.
These words in particular shouldn't be on the list, but really, banning any is silly:
Vulnerable - Epidemiologists and doctors have to talk about vulnerable groups. Banning this is horrible. E.g.
Transgender - This is an actual class of people and it's medically relevant.
Fetus - Do I have to even explain this. I guess they can write Foetus instead :v:
Evidence-based - Defining this and science-based is a little bit difficult. But this might work: Evidence-based medicine is medicine based on past experience. You might say an SSRI has a good NNT (a measure of effectiveness) according to trials and thus it should be prescribed. This side-steps some aspects of science, such as scientific plausibility (WHY might SSRIs work?)
Science-based - There are limits with evidence-based medicine. If you wanted to prove that parachutes worked with a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial you'd be laughed out of the room. And due to costs, and fudging of statistics, it can introduce problems and obscure truth. This is where science-based medicine comes in, it asks us to use existing science to ask questions about plausibility, and whatnot, as a complement to standard medical trials.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52983446]
Transgender - This is an actual class of people and it's medically relevant.
Fetus - Do I have to even explain this. I guess they can write Foetus instead :v:[/QUOTE]
You don't have to explain this, because he said they shouldn't have been banned right in the post you quoted.
[QUOTE=Xanadu;52983859]You don't have to explain this, because he said they shouldn't have been banned right in the post you quoted.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I was going over which words in total in that list are very disruptive to ban.
I first saw this on Reddit and I genuinely thought it was an Onion article at first.
Saw [URL="https://twitter.com/shaun_jen/status/942068586658529280"] this tweet right here[/URL] and felt compelled to share it. Really puts things in perspective
Turns out the banning of words was completely incorrect.
[quote]WASHINGTON — The Department of Health and Human Services tried to play down on Saturday a report that officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had been barred from using seven words or phrases, including “science-based,” “fetus,” “transgender” and “vulnerable,” in agency budget documents.
“The assertion that H.H.S. has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,” an agency spokesman, Matt Lloyd, said in an email. “H.H.S. will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. H.H.S. also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”
Mr. Lloyd did not respond to other questions about the news report, which was published late Friday by The Washington Post. The article said that C.D.C. policy analysts were told of the forbidden words and phrases at a meeting on Thursday with senior officials who oversee the agency’s budget. Other words included “entitlement,” “diversity” and “evidence-based.”
In some cases, The Post reported, alternative phrases were suggested. Instead of “science-based,” or “evidence-based,” The Post reported, “the suggested phrase is ‘C.D.C. bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.’’’
The news set off an uproar among advocacy groups and some Democratic officials, who denounced any efforts to muzzle federal agencies or censor their language.
[b]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.[/b]
[/quote]
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-trump-banned-words.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news[/url]
And this is why anonymous sources might be interjecting their own POV on things as fact.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52987642]Turns out the banning of words was completely incorrect.
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-trump-banned-words.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news[/url]
And this is why anonymous sources might be interjecting their own POV on things as fact.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]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.
A former federal official, who asked not to be named, called the move unprecedented.
“It’s absurd and Orwellian, it’s stupid and Orwellian, but they are not saying to not use the words in reports or articles or scientific publications or anything else the C.D.C. does,” the former official said. “They’re saying not to use it in your request for money because it will hurt you. It’s not about censoring what C.D.C. can say to the American public. It’s about a budget strategy to get funded.”[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]“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.”
Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy, based at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said he believed scientists at C.D.C. will need assurance that they can continue their work without political interference.
“I don’t know if it will ever be clear who said what in this particular case,” Mr. Halpern said. “The fact that the agency began controlling what scientists can say to reporters a few months ago doesn’t suggest they want to be open and honest with the public.”[/QUOTE]
What a nothing burger eh
Yeah, Tudd, and Trump was just telling Comey that Flynn was a great guy and that he was just hopeful his case would have a positive outcome.
He didn't clear the room, tell him 'I hope you let this case go' and so on all to imply Comey should abandon his responsibilities to do a partisan and unbiased job to drop a case while demanding loyalty -- any more than this letter effectively means 'hey, abandon your responsibility to tell the truth and be factual while never using these words ever'.
But this is 'what we get from Presidential sources' eh - them interjecting their own sense of reality (or PoV) over fact?
[QUOTE=Tudd;52987642]Turns out the banning of words was completely incorrect.
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-trump-banned-words.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news[/url]
And this is why anonymous sources might be interjecting their own POV on things as fact.[/QUOTE]
yeah, they aren't banning the words, they are just telling them that the administration is going to refuse to fund anything that includes the words "fetus" or "transgender" or "diversity" or "science-based" in it! What an uproar over nothing! You sure showed us
[QUOTE=nox;52981445]Other words considered for a later ban:
-Enlightenment
-Progress
-Equality
-Interracial
-Truth
-Renewable[/QUOTE]
Ban wave three:
African-American (recommended replacement: "negro")
Asian-American (recommended replacement: "chink")
Undocumented Immigrant (recommended replacements: "freeloader" or "wetback")
Gay (recommended replacements: "fag" or "sodomite")
Transgender (recommended replacement: "mentally ill")
Muslim (recommended replacement: "terrorist")
[QUOTE=Tudd;52987642]Turns out the banning of words was completely incorrect.
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-trump-banned-words.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news[/url]
And this is why anonymous sources might be interjecting their own POV on things as fact.[/QUOTE]
Did you hit your head again?
You even bolded the part where they [B]basically[/B] say that "evidence-based and science-based make it harder for republicans to pass their tax bill"
Spinning this makes you genuinely disgusting.
I really would consider it nothing short of trolling.
More along the lines of attempting to willingly propagate bullshit misinformation to attempt to push a specific agenda and narrative /:v:\
[QUOTE=Quark:;52988437]More along the lines of attempting to willingly propagate bullshit misinformation to attempt to push a specific agenda and narrative /:v:\[/QUOTE]
So making 'deliberately offensive or provocative online posts with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response'?
I don't think there's any agenda here - or narrative - just a thin little shield called 'these are my political opinions so you can't call out what it is I'm doing as what I am actually doing' e: and/or 'lol I just find it interesting these aren't my views I don't have any views on anything ever except mundane things that people can't fault me for --- and all of that's entirely by design and untrue at the same time'.
"Liberals are mad that the sky has been proven to actually be green but have their own PoV on that because they've got [I]scary ulterior motives[/I]" while posting a study that backs that the sky is, in fact, blue is not 'a political opinion'. Nor is it 'hard facts' or 'throbbing statistics'!
e: I also won't accept 'lol liberals find everything not-liberal provocative' as a defense of it.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52987642]And this is why anonymous sources might be interjecting their own POV on things as fact.[/QUOTE]
M8, the entire Trump administration, and the people you follow have been doing this like daily now. Do you really not have any self irony or anything like that?
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52987963]Spinning this makes you genuinely disgusting.[/QUOTE]
That's an odd thing to say, considering the OP is spinning 'agency heads provide verbiage recommendations to their subordinates to help secure funding' as 'Trump bans science words'. It's stupid that Republican lawmakers are so triggered by the phrases science-based and evidence-based that they'll be more likely to reject a funding application that contains those, but that's a very different issue from the administration straight up banning the use of certain terms in official reporting.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52989704]That's an odd thing to say, considering the OP is spinning 'agency heads provide verbiage recommendations to their subordinates to help secure funding' as 'Trump bans science words'. It's stupid that Republican lawmakers are so triggered by the phrases science-based and evidence-based that they'll be more likely to reject a funding application that contains those, but that's a very different issue from the administration straight up banning the use of certain terms in official reporting.[/QUOTE]
I think politically capable actors who want to get their way with this situation are using a very clever method and you're falling for it.
They can't ban language because that's just straight up too far. But if they don't actually make it a ban, and just make it appeals for funding, who are entirely controlled by a Republican senate(It is the senate and not the congress, right? I forget atm, need more coffee) then they effectively get the results they wanted without ever having had to go too far.
It's effectively a ban as long as they're in control of funding. Money is the most important thing in our world. It really is, you can't reach any goal without it in a government context.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52989848]I think politically capable actors who want to get their way with this situation are using a very clever method and you're falling for it.[/QUOTE]
I don't think ineffectiveness is very clever. They're outright saying they can still do all the research as needed, so long as they massage the funding solicitations to include the right verbiage. If it's only specific words that are discouraged, with functionally equivalent euphemisms being acceptable, then it sure sounds like it's not having much of an impact on their ability to secure funding for Republican-triggering research.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52989859]I don't think ineffectiveness is very clever. They're outright saying they can still do all the research as needed, so long as they massage the funding solicitations to include the right verbiage. If it's only specific words that are discouraged, with functionally equivalent euphemisms being acceptable, then it sure sounds like it's not having much of an impact on their ability to secure funding for Republican-triggering research.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you're thinking that through.
"Oh yes, you can do all the research you want."
"Great, so about my funding-"
"Oh, yes, about that. Yes, I see here that you're trying to find out which groups are vulnerable to ebola here. I'm afraid we can't allow that."
"Why not?"
"Well, because you might [I]study vulnerable groups[/I]. Wink wink."
"What do you mean 'wink wink'."
"We're just saying we don't think that research is necessary. 'Vulnerable groups' doesn't exist. It's a buzzword."
"Alright fine. How about Hispanic popul-"
"Gonna have to stop you right there. Again - we [I]don't think that research is necessary[/I]."
Also I call an immense pile of bullshit on 'but they're just banning [I]specific words[/I]' as if their functional equivalents wouldn't also get their funding plans hurled out. The intent has been made [I]thoroughly[/I] clear. If you think Republicans are just saying 'these and only these words' will bar you from gaining funding, you're high on your own supply.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.