Trump administration forbids CDC officials from using 7 words and phrases
72 replies, posted
[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]
Tudd can be correct in saying Trump isn't banning words but incorrect in suggesting that limiting funding to papers including these words is that much better.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52989865]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.[/QUOTE]
I would normally agree entirely if this were coming from the Republicans themselves. If they were saying 'we don't want you to use these words', as the OP suggested, then you can easily read between the lines and see that they're banning certain subjects altogether.
But instead it's senior CDC officials telling their subordinates that this is all they need to do not to get their funding plans thrown out. If senior leaders are saying 'you can do all the same research, just don't use these words in your funding appeal', to their own workforce, then it doesn't sound like a topical ban is really being enforced.
someone should make a speech with all 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]
I really hope this was just a demonstration of how a diehard trump supporter would approach defending this and not an actual defense because I'm having trouble coming to terms with how retarded this post is
[QUOTE=catbarf;52989947]But instead it's senior CDC officials telling their subordinates that this is all they need to do not to get their funding plans thrown out. If senior leaders are saying 'you can do all the same research, just don't use these words in your funding appeal', to their own workforce, then it doesn't sound like a topical ban is really being enforced.[/QUOTE]
And what exactly is the purpose of the ban then?
[QUOTE=_Axel;52991996]And what exactly is the purpose of the ban then?[/QUOTE]
To avoid triggering Republicans who don't really read or care about the contents of funding applications (which are often extremely opaque to anyone not in the relevant field), but will pick up on keywords.
Again, it's coming from senior leadership of a non-partisan agency. A 'read-between-the-lines' message makes no sense in this context. That's just not how Executive Branch agencies work; the heads might get a suggestive directive from Congress but then their job is to translate that into concrete policy for their own agency. There's no reason why they wouldn't be forthright in saying 'Congress won't let us research x y or z, so those are off-limits for this year's budget' [i]especially[/i] in a behind-closed-doors meeting.
The quote from the 'former official' is backing up what I'm saying. It's utterly stupid that this is what they have to do to conduct legitimate research, but they can still conduct legitimate research.
If a scientist can't put "climate change" or "evidence-based" in a funding application without Republicans being triggered and knee-jerk rejecting it, it's time to brand the Republican Party as anti-science and add that to the list of things they need to be punished over in 2018 and 2020.
Of course, it was already on there because Republicans disliking science when it disagrees with them isn't anything new, but with a blue wave potentially in progress, it's good to be reminded that one side only likes experts who let them maintain the status quo.
Conservatives really like to project their sensitivity onto liberals, don't they?
[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]
Its still partisan censorship. Why the fuck are you not concerned about this?
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-targets-certain-words-and-the-bureaucracy-pushes-back/2017/12/20/3c9bc6c4-e42e-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html"]Turns out the CDC is far from the only agency being told to stop using certain words, including words that are considered "sensitive" to Republican agendas,[/URL] like not using the term "substance abuse disorder" because then it's presented as a disease and not criminal scumbaggery, which doesn't play nice with a hard-on-drugs stance.
In other administrations, this would be annoying. Here, it's concerning. Oh hey, chocolate rations have just been increased, fuck yes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.