Administration Bans CDC from Using These Words

[accolay]

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=.713cab66ec49

vulnerable
entitlement
diversity
transgender
fetus
evidence-based
science-based

Go America!

[partgypsy]

I saw this. This is really atrocious and censoring researchers and policy makers. I hope there is a way that this can be legally overturned, or 1984 here we come.

[pegleglolita]

What in the actual fuck kind of doublethink newspeak is that.   I'm about 50/50 right now about whether it's time to GTFO of the United States.  If I didn't have kids at a sensitive stage (late high school and early college) I think I would peace the hell out and go live in Costa Rica or something.   This cannot be allowed to stand. 

[ysette9]

Other countries are looking more and more attractive. I have never been more embarrassed to be an American.

[ketchup]

What the fuck?  I love my country as much as the next guy but this makes me rather embarrassed to be an American.

[EricL]

Fuck leaving.  Leaving is for cowards.  I'm staying and fighting.  If nothing else, I'm gonna piss a lot of people off by using these words in context.  I am the sort that says "I told you so."

[ysette9]

It is important that people have that attitude and continue to try to fix this mess. I admit that my kids make me selfish and short-sighted. I just want them to grow up in a decent place where they learn to respect others and don’t need to worry about getting shot at school.

[Kris]

Other countries are looking more and more attractive. I have never been more embarrassed to be an American.

Yeah, and it wasn’t exactly a picnic during the W years... That was nothing compared to this.

[cliffhanger]

Read the responses here, then read the article presented.

The only example given of alternate to these "forbidden words" is as follows, emphasis mine:

In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

Serious question for those here: when you crank the fear dial up to 10 every time a minor negative story from a skeptical source* comes out, why should we take you seriously when an impactful story from a trustworthy source comes out?



*source of story

..according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing.

[Freedomin5]

My first question was, ok,so this is dumb, but why can't you just use a synonym, or just reword it?

Fetus - group of cells that form into/are a developing baby in the uterus
Vulnerable - people/things at risk of being taken advantage by others
Diversity - multi-cultural/gender/insert whatever thing you want to be more diverse
Evidence based - based on scientific evidence

These are just cumbersome examples from an average IQ non-science person, so I'm sure the smart people can come up with more elegant ways to say the same thing. It actually might be kind of fun to come up with a new list.

[gaja]

Read the responses here, then read the article presented.

The only example given of alternate to these "forbidden words" is as follows, emphasis mine:

In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

Serious question for those here: when you crank the fear dial up to 10 every time a minor negative story from a skeptical source* comes out, why should we take you seriously when an impactful story from a trustworthy source comes out?



*source of story

..according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing.

You bolded the wrong part. The rest of the suggested phrase makes all the difference: "in consideration with community standards and wishes". In my world, there is a large leap from "evidence based" to "what the public wants".

[partgypsy]

My first question was, ok,so this is dumb, but why can't you just use a synonym, or just reword it?

Fetus - group of cells that form into/are a developing baby in the uterus
Vulnerable - people/things at risk of being taken advantage by others
Diversity - multi-cultural/gender/insert whatever thing you want to be more diverse
Evidence based - based on scientific evidence

These are just cumbersome examples from an average IQ non-science person, so I'm sure the smart people can come up with more elegant ways to say the same thing. It actually might be kind of fun to come up with a new list.

for your last example, "science-based" is also off limits so I'm guessing that would be struck out. Essentially, when you are banning words like this, it means some political lacky is going to be reviewing science articles, position papers, possibly grants, and crossing stuff out. Not based on science, not based on what is true, but because the government is BANNING WORDS. Scientific concepts. Also the whole idea that motivates a lot of research and policy, because it IS evidence based. It IS based on science.  As someone who works in the sciences and for the government, this is extremely troubling.  Trump Administration has already pretty much scrubbed from EPA, other government websites the links and evidence for climate change. Because he can't change the science, he's banning and suppressing it.

[Sailor Sam]

Fuck leaving.  Leaving is for cowards.  I'm staying and fighting.  If nothing else, I'm gonna piss a lot of people off by using these words in context.  I am the sort that says "I told you so."

Word. My country, my responsibility to help stop this insanity. Never give up the ship.

[accolay]

Serious question for those here: when you crank the fear dial up to 10 every time a minor negative story from a skeptical source* comes out, why should we take you seriously when an impactful story from a trustworthy source comes out?

So if a big story comes out that Trump colluded with Russia...or maybe during Christmas break he fires Mueller you wont give a shit about that because we think this is important too?

I can only speak for myself, but I think that banning these words is fucking stupid. There can only be one reason why, as partgypsy pointed out. It surprises me that some people might not think that.

[I'm a red panda]

My first question was, ok,so this is dumb, but why can't you just use a synonym, or just reword it?

Fetus - group of cells that form into/are a developing baby in the uterus
Vulnerable - people/things at risk of being taken advantage by others
Diversity - multi-cultural/gender/insert whatever thing you want to be more diverse
Evidence based - based on scientific evidence

These are just cumbersome examples from an average IQ non-science person, so I'm sure the smart people can come up with more elegant ways to say the same thing. It actually might be kind of fun to come up with a new list.

Your fetal example is what they want. The more "baby" is used, the more the requirement of personhood becomes. Fetus is the correct word.

Personally, I'm for post embronic cell mass.

I'm terrified of the descent into fascism. This is one of the most horrifying displays of censorship I've seen.

Bush was a disaster, but I don't believe he was actively trying to destroy the US. He didn't have aspirations of being the supreme dictator.

[partgypsy]

Trump is definitely shaping up worse. But Bush (W) was particularly bad at trying to erode women's general and reproductive rights
Here is a link to a book detailing a list of what he did. In particular I remember his administration insisted on changes to HS textbooks, deleting information about reproductive methods, also spreading unproven information via government websites that abortion was dangerous and unhealthy for women (with no mention of risks of pregnancy and childbirth). The changes were not based on science but on his personal ideological beliefs.

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/G/bo20849623.html

[scottish]

Our last PM did stuff like that.   Government scientists going to a conference had to travel with a political handler to ensure that they didn't say anything on the verboten list.

Fortunately, we booted his control freak ass out.    The new government is just as fiscally irresponsible (maybe even more so), but at least they aren't a bunch of anti-democratic jerks.

[MasterStache]

Read the responses here, then read the article presented.

The only example given of alternate to these "forbidden words" is as follows, emphasis mine:

In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

Serious question for those here: when you crank the fear dial up to 10 every time a minor negative story from a skeptical source* comes out, why should we take you seriously when an impactful story from a trustworthy source comes out?



*source of story

..according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing.

You bolded the wrong part. The rest of the suggested phrase makes all the difference: "in consideration with community standards and wishes". In my world, there is a large leap from "evidence based" to "what the public wants".

+1. You caught that too eh? Made me laugh. I sure as hell hope I don't ever cross a bridge the community has "wished" to be safe.

[wenchsenior]

Next, the administration will direct Sessions to start prosecuting "thought crimes".

[scottish]

and crimes against the collective.

[pegleglolita]

My first question was, ok,so this is dumb, but why can't you just use a synonym, or just reword it?

Fetus - group of cells that form into/are a developing baby in the uterus
Vulnerable - people/things at risk of being taken advantage by others
Diversity - multi-cultural/gender/insert whatever thing you want to be more diverse
Evidence based - based on scientific evidence

These are just cumbersome examples from an average IQ non-science person, so I'm sure the smart people can come up with more elegant ways to say the same thing. It actually might be kind of fun to come up with a new list.

Your fetal example is what they want. The more "baby" is used, the more the requirement of personhood becomes. Fetus is the correct word.

Personally, I'm for post embronic cell mass.

I'm terrified of the descent into fascism. This is one of the most horrifying displays of censorship I've seen.

Bush was a disaster, but I don't believe he was actively trying to destroy the US. He didn't have aspirations of being the supreme dictator.

Yes, this is the one that made me go to DEFCON 1.  They want them to say "unborn child" I'm sure.  Coupled with Paul Ryan's troglodyte comment about American women needing to have more babies aaaaaaand... they're setting the stage for some full-on Handmaid's Tale shit.  I like "post-embryonic cell mass", but I personally favor "unformed thing I can evict from my uterus-apartment at any time for my own personal reasons that are none of your concern, nor the State's, fuckyouverymuch".  It's somewhat cumbersome in conversation though.     

[Sailor Sam]

My first question was, ok,so this is dumb, but why can't you just use a synonym, or just reword it?

Fetus - group of cells that form into/are a developing baby in the uterus
Vulnerable - people/things at risk of being taken advantage by others
Diversity - multi-cultural/gender/insert whatever thing you want to be more diverse
Evidence based - based on scientific evidence

These are just cumbersome examples from an average IQ non-science person, so I'm sure the smart people can come up with more elegant ways to say the same thing. It actually might be kind of fun to come up with a new list.

Your fetal example is what they want. The more "baby" is used, the more the requirement of personhood becomes. Fetus is the correct word.

Personally, I'm for post embronic cell mass.

I'm terrified of the descent into fascism. This is one of the most horrifying displays of censorship I've seen.

Bush was a disaster, but I don't believe he was actively trying to destroy the US. He didn't have aspirations of being the supreme dictator.

Yes, this is the one that made me go to DEFCON 1.  They want them to say "unborn child" I'm sure.  Coupled with Paul Ryan's troglodyte comment about American women needing to have more babies aaaaaaand... they're setting the stage for some full-on Handmaid's Tale shit.  I like "post-embryonic cell mass", but I personally favor "unformed thing I can evict from my uterus-apartment at any time for my own personal reasons that are none of your concern, nor the State's, fuckyouverymuch".  It's somewhat cumbersome in conversation though.   

Hey, imma remember that one. It's got a ring to it, even if it is a little cumbersome.

[Freedom2016]

I am still looking for the article where I read this, but I definitely read today that this language was related to budget requests. Not a verboten list of words for the actual research & reporting. In the article I read (either in NYT or WashPost) an insider source says it was advice given to the CDC by HHS in order to increase their chances of getting their work funded.

To be clear, I'm not condoning this. But I do think it's a somewhat different story if it's somebody giving advice on how to best position their work in order to get funding approval from the people with the money. In other contexts, that's what grant writers do all the time, and it's also more generally a "speak your audience's language" approach.

However, even as I write this I'm thinking that in this particular context, that's a line that's going to be easy to blur/cross/eliminate. Because any work you generate with the money you got has to reflect the language of your proposal/request.

So... nevermind. This sucks.

[GuitarStv]

Seeing how little credit Trump and his supporters give to science and scientific reports, I'm surprised that they care what language is used in them.

[zoltani]

Scary times indeed. Both the left and the right are on marches towards censorship and changing language.

We are certainly in a time when crimestop is rampant. I think for me it is still a conscious thing, but over time it will become more subconscious.

[accolay]

Scary times indeed. Both the left and the right are on marches towards censorship and changing language.

We are certainly in a time when crimestop is rampant. I think for me it is still a conscious thing, but over time it will become more subconscious.

How is the left marching on towards censorship? If you mean banning Nazis from having twitter accounts, I think that's something I'm ok about.

[zoltani]

As Jose Cabrenes put it:
"Certainly, today’s critics of academic freedom rarely deny that professors should be able to write and teach freely. But they nonetheless insist that professors should exercise such liberty in the shadow of other values, such as civility, sex equality and social justice. While these are worthy ideals, they can become tools for suppressing free expression — just as anti-communism once was.

No one can doubt that we should strive for civility. But problems arise when we are told that “uncivil” speech has made a campus “unsafe” — and that university officials should make a campus safe again by punishing uncivil speakers.

To combat these threats to “safety,” campus administrators have morphed into civility police. On some campuses, “bias response teams” investigate professors’ online comments. Several universities, including Yale, may soon introduce a smartphone app that lets users anonymously report offensive remarks. These anonymous reports will allow university bureaucrats — and perhaps even the public — to compile a directory of “subversive” professors in the spirit of dictatorial regimes."

For a really good examples of the above research the events at Evergreen State last year, or at Wilfred Laurier this year.

Censorship on the right aims to restore an idealized version of the past, censorship on the left aims to create an idealized version of the future. Do you really deny that it happens on both sides? Censorship is still censorship even when you claim that you have virtue on your side.

[partgypsy]

I haven't been in college in over 20+ years so I don't really know how campuses are now. I went to a really left leaning college, where there was a higher value placed on free speech than being politically correct. Conservatives were in the minority, but I remember lively conversations with one of them, and it was civil. The CIA was allowed to recruit at the campus. However the students were allowed to protest by lying down on the steps in front of the building. Conservative speakers and entertainers were invited to campus. But they were booed when they said unpopular remarks. I didn't see any censorship.

Personally while colleges are hotbeds of politics (at least they were when I attended) in general I don't think professors should be making personal statements either way. It may be unavoidable in some classes I am thinking (political science, history), but the main thing is to make students think and present multiple sides, not push one's own personal views.
What is going on today, I guess I would have to view each incident case by case. 

I looked up for my alma mater, and they celebrate "banned book week". They do have this regulation prohibiting: "an expression of hostility against a person, group, or property thereof because of such person’s (or group’s) identifying or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, gender identity or expression, and/or sexual orientation."  Do you consider that censorship, or the ability of a private institution to provide a non-hostile learning environment to students from all over the US and many many countries?

 

[GuitarStv]

As Jose Cabrenes put it:
"Certainly, today’s critics of academic freedom rarely deny that professors should be able to write and teach freely. But they nonetheless insist that professors should exercise such liberty in the shadow of other values, such as civility, sex equality and social justice. While these are worthy ideals, they can become tools for suppressing free expression — just as anti-communism once was.

No one can doubt that we should strive for civility. But problems arise when we are told that “uncivil” speech has made a campus “unsafe” — and that university officials should make a campus safe again by punishing uncivil speakers.

To combat these threats to “safety,” campus administrators have morphed into civility police. On some campuses, “bias response teams” investigate professors’ online comments. Several universities, including Yale, may soon introduce a smartphone app that lets users anonymously report offensive remarks. These anonymous reports will allow university bureaucrats — and perhaps even the public — to compile a directory of “subversive” professors in the spirit of dictatorial regimes."

For a really good examples of the above research the events at Evergreen State last year, or at Wilfred Laurier this year.

Censorship on the right aims to restore an idealized version of the past, censorship on the left aims to create an idealized version of the future. Do you really deny that it happens on both sides? Censorship is still censorship even when you claim that you have virtue on your side.

I don't know anything about Evergreen State, but I am well aware of what happened here in Canada at Wilfred Laurier . . . and there was no censorship.  A teaching assistant used materials in a class that some people found controversial, two professors of the university over-reacted and mis-applied the “Gendered and Sexual Violence” university policy and disciplined her for it.  The administration of the university then hired an independent person to investigate the matter, and Sheppard (the TA) was cleared of all wrong-doing and completely exonerated (including a written apology from the University) after the investigation had completed.

It's actually a pretty good example of how the system works to protect the right of educators to say things that some may deem offensive for teaching things in universities . . . so kinda the opposite of what's being claimed.

[trollwithamustache]

Orwell named this technique a long time ago.  I'd be curious what words Obama, Bush and Clinton   banned....

[GuitarStv]

Orwell named this technique a long time ago.  I'd be curious what words Obama, Bush and Clinton   banned....

Seems to be new.

The longtime CDC analyst, whose job includes writing descriptions of the CDC’s work for the administration’s annual spending blueprint, could not recall a previous time when words were banned from budget documents because they were considered controversial.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

I am still looking for the article where I read this, but I definitely read today that this language was related to budget requests. Not a verboten list of words for the actual research & reporting. In the article I read (either in NYT or WashPost) an insider source says it was advice given to the CDC by HHS in order to increase their chances of getting their work funded.

To be clear, I'm not condoning this. But I do think it's a somewhat different story if it's somebody giving advice on how to best position their work in order to get funding approval from the people with the money. In other contexts, that's what grant writers do all the time, and it's also more generally a "speak your audience's language" approach.

However, even as I write this I'm thinking that in this particular context, that's a line that's going to be easy to blur/cross/eliminate. Because any work you generate with the money you got has to reflect the language of your proposal/request.

So... nevermind. This sucks.

Apparently, according to this the "ban" is a revision to the budget request style guide that was made at the request of career CDC personnel not politically connected to Republicans in general or Trump in particular:

This suggests two significant caveats to the Post story and the firestorm that has followed it. First, the question of these terms (both those in the style guide and those that came up in last week’s CDC meeting) relates only to a distinct subset of budget documents and not to the general work of the CDC or other agencies. No one is saying people can’t use these terms at HHS, though some people clearly think they shouldn’t be used in budget requests sent to Congress. And second, the most peculiar and alarming of the reported prohibitions on terms were not prohibitions at all and did not come from higher-ups in the department but emerged in the course of an internal conversation at CDC about how to avoid setting off congressional Republicans and so how to maximize the agency’s chances of getting its budget-request approved.

[Kris]

I am still looking for the article where I read this, but I definitely read today that this language was related to budget requests. Not a verboten list of words for the actual research & reporting. In the article I read (either in NYT or WashPost) an insider source says it was advice given to the CDC by HHS in order to increase their chances of getting their work funded.

To be clear, I'm not condoning this. But I do think it's a somewhat different story if it's somebody giving advice on how to best position their work in order to get funding approval from the people with the money. In other contexts, that's what grant writers do all the time, and it's also more generally a "speak your audience's language" approach.

However, even as I write this I'm thinking that in this particular context, that's a line that's going to be easy to blur/cross/eliminate. Because any work you generate with the money you got has to reflect the language of your proposal/request.

So... nevermind. This sucks.

Apparently, according to this the "ban" is a revision to the budget request style guide that was made at the request of career CDC personnel not politically connected to Republicans in general or Trump in particular:

This suggests two significant caveats to the Post story and the firestorm that has followed it. First, the question of these terms (both those in the style guide and those that came up in last week’s CDC meeting) relates only to a distinct subset of budget documents and not to the general work of the CDC or other agencies. No one is saying people can’t use these terms at HHS, though some people clearly think they shouldn’t be used in budget requests sent to Congress. And second, the most peculiar and alarming of the reported prohibitions on terms were not prohibitions at all and did not come from higher-ups in the department but emerged in the course of an internal conversation at CDC about how to avoid setting off congressional Republicans and so how to maximize the agency’s chances of getting its budget-request approved.

Lol — I’ll save everybody the time of clicking on the link. The source LITEA quotes is The National Review.

[acroy]

cough FAKENEWS cough

[trollwithamustache]

"Style Guide", I would love it expect I just realized my state probably has 20 of these style guides, my county another 5 and my city another one.  Oh yeah the transportation district that can't get buttkiss done must have the best style guide of all since they keep getting money! The CDC should call up BART!

[caffeine]

I've read and heard from several sources now that this is a tactic for budget requests. Knowing your audience is important, and Republicans would have a knee-jerk reaction to at least some of those words.

This is an example of a non-issue becoming sensationalized for clicks.

[solon]

I am still looking for the article where I read this, but I definitely read today that this language was related to budget requests. Not a verboten list of words for the actual research & reporting. In the article I read (either in NYT or WashPost) an insider source says it was advice given to the CDC by HHS in order to increase their chances of getting their work funded.

To be clear, I'm not condoning this. But I do think it's a somewhat different story if it's somebody giving advice on how to best position their work in order to get funding approval from the people with the money. In other contexts, that's what grant writers do all the time, and it's also more generally a "speak your audience's language" approach.

However, even as I write this I'm thinking that in this particular context, that's a line that's going to be easy to blur/cross/eliminate. Because any work you generate with the money you got has to reflect the language of your proposal/request.

So... nevermind. This sucks.

Apparently, according to this the "ban" is a revision to the budget request style guide that was made at the request of career CDC personnel not politically connected to Republicans in general or Trump in particular:

This suggests two significant caveats to the Post story and the firestorm that has followed it. First, the question of these terms (both those in the style guide and those that came up in last week’s CDC meeting) relates only to a distinct subset of budget documents and not to the general work of the CDC or other agencies. No one is saying people can’t use these terms at HHS, though some people clearly think they shouldn’t be used in budget requests sent to Congress. And second, the most peculiar and alarming of the reported prohibitions on terms were not prohibitions at all and did not come from higher-ups in the department but emerged in the course of an internal conversation at CDC about how to avoid setting off congressional Republicans and so how to maximize the agency’s chances of getting its budget-request approved.

Lol — I’ll save everybody the time of clicking on the link. The source LITEA quotes is The National Review.

oh my god. right here in our forums, too

[partgypsy]

So they are self-censoring themselves, because using words like "evidence-based" might trigger congressional Republicans? Why? Why would the words "evidence-based" or "science-based" set them off?  I don't expect congresspeople to be geniuses, but I do expect higher than average intelligence.

[bacchi]

So they are self-censoring themselves, because using words like "evidence-based" might set off congressional Republicans? Why? Why would the words "evidence-based" or "science-based" set them off?  I don't expect congresspeople to be geniuses, but I do expect higher than average intelligence.

To paraphrase Colbert, scientific facts have a well known liberal bias.

[cliffhanger]

This is going to be one of the most easily debunk-able bullshit stories next year since anybody can ctrl + f their way through any of the publicly available CDC justification documents in less than five minutes. It won't matter though, we'll have moved on to the next 1000 hyperbolic outrageous stories meant to drive up fear of how awful Trump is by the time the FY 2019 justification gets published.

Here's the number of occurrences of those 'banned' words from the 333 page FY 2018 funding document for reference:

vulnerable: 0
entitlement: 1
diversity: 2
transgender: 1
fetus: 1
evidence-based: 33
science-based: 5

[solon]

This is going to be one of the most easily debunk-able bullshit stories next year since anybody can ctrl + f their way through any of the publicly available CDC justification documents in less than five minutes. It won't matter though, we'll have moved on to the next 1000 hyperbolic outrageous stories meant to drive up fear of how awful Trump is by the time the FY 2019 justification gets published.

Here's the number of occurrences of those 'banned' words from the 333 page FY 2018 funding document for reference:

vulnerable: 0
entitlement: 1
diversity: 2
transgender: 1
fetus: 1
evidence-based: 33
science-based: 5

Is this before or after they were banned?

[cliffhanger]

This is going to be one of the most easily debunk-able bullshit stories next year since anybody can ctrl + f their way through any of the publicly available CDC justification documents in less than five minutes. It won't matter though, we'll have moved on to the next 1000 hyperbolic outrageous stories meant to drive up fear of how awful Trump is by the time the FY 2019 justification gets published.

Here's the number of occurrences of those 'banned' words from the 333 page FY 2018 funding document for reference:

vulnerable: 0
entitlement: 1
diversity: 2
transgender: 1
fetus: 1
evidence-based: 33
science-based: 5

Is this before or after they were banned?

Before. Washington Post story talks about a very recent meeting discussing this. FY 2018 documents are submitted spring-ish 2017. For fun, let's see the language used under Obama's CDC!

Here's the number of occurrences of those same words from the 674 page FY 2017 funding document for reference:

vulnerable: 0
entitlement: 0
diversity: 7
transgender: 10
fetus: 0
evidence-based: 119
science-based: 4

[Kris]

This is going to be one of the most easily debunk-able bullshit stories next year since anybody can ctrl + f their way through any of the publicly available CDC justification documents in less than five minutes. It won't matter though, we'll have moved on to the next 1000 hyperbolic outrageous stories meant to drive up fear of how awful Trump is by the time the FY 2019 justification gets published.

Here's the number of occurrences of those 'banned' words from the 333 page FY 2018 funding document for reference:

vulnerable: 0
entitlement: 1
diversity: 2
transgender: 1
fetus: 1
evidence-based: 33
science-based: 5

Is this before or after they were banned?

Before. Washington Post story talks about a very recent meeting discussing this. FY 2018 documents are submitted spring-ish 2017. For fun, let's see the language used under Obama's CDC!

Here's the number of occurrences of those same words from the 674 page FY 2017 funding document for reference:

vulnerable: 0
entitlement: 0
diversity: 7
transgender: 10
fetus: 0
evidence-based: 119
science-based: 4

I, uh...

...don’t think you’re proving your point that well so far...

[cliffhanger]

I, uh...

...don’t think you’re proving your point that well so far...

How so? My point is there's no ban of 'trigger' words at the CDC. This anti-Trump, anonymously sourced, fear-mongering article is misleading at best, outright false at worst. This will be an easily verifiable claim when the CDC releases their budget request in a few months, and I presented a few examples from past years to show the scope of what we're talking about.

[Kris]

I, uh...

...don’t think you’re proving your point that well so far...

How so? My point is there's no ban of 'trigger' words at the CDC. This anti-Trump, anonymously sourced, fear-mongering article is misleading at best, outright false at worst. This will be an easily verifiable claim when the CDC releases their budget request in a few months, and I presented a few examples from past years to show the scope of what we're talking about.

By using figures from before the edict was issued? Yes. It will be easily verifiable in a few months. But you have not presented anything of the sort now, and it seems as though you think you have.

[cliffhanger]

I, uh...

...don’t think you’re proving your point that well so far...

How so? My point is there's no ban of 'trigger' words at the CDC. This anti-Trump, anonymously sourced, fear-mongering article is misleading at best, outright false at worst. This will be an easily verifiable claim when the CDC releases their budget request in a few months, and I presented a few examples from past years to show the scope of what we're talking about.

By using figures from before the edict was issued? Yes. It will be easily verifiable in a few months. But you have not presented anything of the sort now, and it seems as though you think you have.

Unfortunately, your statement is not evidence-based.

This is going to be one of the most easily debunk-able bullshit stories next year since anybody can ctrl + f their way through any of the publicly available CDC justification documents in less than five minutes. It won't matter though, we'll have moved on to the next 1000 hyperbolic outrageous stories meant to drive up fear of how awful Trump is by the time the FY 2019 justification gets published.

[Kris]

I, uh...

...don’t think you’re proving your point that well so far...

How so? My point is there's no ban of 'trigger' words at the CDC. This anti-Trump, anonymously sourced, fear-mongering article is misleading at best, outright false at worst. This will be an easily verifiable claim when the CDC releases their budget request in a few months, and I presented a few examples from past years to show the scope of what we're talking about.

By using figures from before the edict was issued? Yes. It will be easily verifiable in a few months. But you have not presented anything of the sort now, and it seems as though you think you have.

Unfortunately, your statement is not evidence-based.

This is going to be one of the most easily debunk-able bullshit stories next year since anybody can ctrl + f their way through any of the publicly available CDC justification documents in less than five minutes. It won't matter though, we'll have moved on to the next 1000 hyperbolic outrageous stories meant to drive up fear of how awful Trump is by the time the FY 2019 justification gets published.

Yes. Clearly objective, evidence-based language you are using there.

[MDM]

Lol — I’ll save everybody the time of clicking on the link. The source LITEA quotes is The National Review.

But it must be true if Slate says so: There is no ban on words at the CDC.

[Kris]

Lol — I’ll save everybody the time of clicking on the link. The source LITEA quotes is The National Review.

But it must be true if Slate says so: There is no ban on words at the CDC.

Certainly a better, though left leaning source. Thank you for citing it.

[ncornilsen]

Lol — I’ll save everybody the time of clicking on the link. The source LITEA quotes is The National Review.

But it must be true if Slate says so: There is no ban on words at the CDC.

Basically, beauracrats, based on the fake outrage/hysteria mindset generated by the media, think the trump admin/supporting representatives and senators are against those words... so they self censor, then the media picks this up... then blows it up into another cycle of fake outrage/hysteria...  a lifecycle completly seperate from reality. It's like a CDO of stupid that the media gets to repackage and sell over and over again!