Printable View
The 7 bad words that may not appear in a CDC document or budget:
It has now banned the top US public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from using seven words or phrases: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
Full article:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...now-forbidden/
Too bad George Carlin is no longer with us:
https://youtu.be/vbZhpf3sQxQ
They (activists) kinda brought this upon themselves, if there is something to complain about I would start there
What a very dumb thing I have read. I hope this is not true and as reliable as Fragony's unnamed sources or things are even worse in America than I thought.
This has been heavily covered here in the USA. This directive was, indeed, issued.
I believe the original rationale behind the decision was to force the CDC to tone down what was perceived as an implicit leftist bias in the promulgations coming out of the CDC.
As seems to be the norm with this administration, this has been handled with the adroitness of a water buffalo jogging through the showroom of a purveyor of fine china. Any attempt at working with the CDC to ensure a more neutral tone has been dispensed with in favor of a backlash effort that is more blatantly rightist in its efforts than was the original "misbehavior" of the CDC.
I mean really, you cannot use the word fetus (foetus)? So as a matter of practicality you have to use "unborn child" instead? I am sure that nobody would see this as a sop to the evangelicals...~:rolleyes:
Time-passed zygote?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Let me put it this way. I can make things look scientific if you want me to, I got the psycholigy-degree to back it up, I can make total :daisy: scientific though. Look at the words, all activist words. You reap what you sow and get pregnant what you :daisy: imoQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I must admit feeling a certain schaudenfreude at this decree; those that so long agitated to police language finding its favoured tactic turned against their interests , it's like a morality tale.
Nevertheless, in the words of voltaire "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Like ceasar marching on rome; the other side may have broken the taboo first but that does not excuse further tresspass; this is crap.
A shortsighted abandonment of the moral high ground that comitts the cardinal sin of being not only immoral but entirely ineffective; policing language only suppresses expression it is an entirely ineffective method to actually change minds and shows to the world a complete lack of confidence in your position.
With all these... things happening, one must wonder how the frack is America still the most powerful country in the world...
...Why? What makes you think a nation's power is in anyway affected by this sort of thing?
My inner libertarian screams against this but these words are often misused and have lost their credibility. You can only go so far crying wolf and I can't disagree with puting a leash on it if these words are to be taken seriously, I can only agree with this even if I really shouldn't and kinda feel dirty doing so, but activists don't play a fair game eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
It's almost as though trying to save people from catastrophes that could kill thousands or millions is too leftist for this administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
If I sound crazy to you, look at the last two words on the list. :wall:
Wait until they begin building military equipment without the use of "evidence-based" or "science-based" technology. Maybe Trump will buy a lot of "invisible tanks" that only intelligent people can see according to the manufacturer...Actually, I think I need to make a business plan... :creep:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I think if america's power can survive turning "torture" into "Enhanced interrogation" and "invasion" into "time-limited, scope-limited military action" america can survive this new round of deliberate euphamism.
Although not great, it is pretty small fry.
Federal court appointments will have much more effect.
~:smoking:
Compound growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
It seems the CDC is walking back the 7 words memo.
“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 CDC does. They’re saying not to use it in your request for money because it will hurt you. It’s not about censoring what CDC can say to the American public. It’s about a budget strategy to get funded.”
The message is: "Play nice, and don't look to "trigger" the people who vote on your funding"
Full article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...re-not-banned/
I guess (?) that's better :clown:
That's actually how the CCP rolls these days: "soft" censorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Rather than directly telling people what they can or cannot do, much easier to let them figure it out for themselves from innuendo and environment, and self-censor.
If so it is simultaniously hillarious and depressing that congress is triggered by the words “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
Concertive Control is always more effective in the long run than simple regulations etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency