SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
You don't say!
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
CDC Gets List of Forbidden Words: Science-Based, Evidence-Based, Vulnerable, Fetus, ...
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 94 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
Everything bows to success, even grammar.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @05:32AM (31 children)
vulnerable: Unbiased stuff virtually never uses this word. The presence of the word suggests a liberal mindset.
entitlement: Unless preceded by something like "costly", this is liberal stuff.
diversity: Normally this has an absurd Orwellian definition. If a group of 5 people has 1 white person, you gain more diversity by eliminating the white person. It's more liberal junk.
transgender: Unless the CDC is studying environmental toxins (like phytoestrogens in soy milk for example) that could cause this, there is no justification for the CDC to have anything to do with it.
fetus: This purposeful use of a coldly-clinical latin term is designed to dehumanize unborn children.
evidence-based, science-based: These should be taken as a given for the CDC. Specifically using the terms is a snipe at the right. The terms are also used to wrongly claim legitimacy for things that are not in fact justified by science or evidence, like... is it 72 genders now? More?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:07AM (1 child)
Let's start burning books containing these words next to Make America Great Again!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @02:28PM
You'll be hard pressed to find a science text containing even two of the listed words at once. And political drivel belongs in a stove all right. Making people warm is much better, than making them crazy.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:35AM (11 children)
You need to get fucked by the horse you rode in on. One of the mosst horrible things I've seen over my life has been the progressive rape of language by the (predominantly christian in name) neo-cons. Clear language is what those dirty commoners use to equalize the battle. Can't have them communicating clearly or in depth.
Vulnerable: some readily identifiable groups have higher subsceptibility to various epidemics, and/or respond in consistently worse ways to "standard" treatment. The word exists for a reason, and it's hard to corrupt. Better ban it.
Entitlement: I'm giving this a small bit of personal space, because there are some hornets in the American language that even I am unwilling to stir up. Much. Do you think you're entitled to call the police? Or stop signs? Or an insurance payout if you get hit by a car? Hint: you are.
Diversity: did you know that a heart attack presents different symptoms in men and women? Or that treatment afterwards can vary depending on your race? Most white male doctors don't, and that's not changing any time soon because doctors are, for the most part, trained by and for white men. Maybe if medical organizations were not a boring monoculture this would change.
Transgender: guess what, they are at higer risk for a whole barrel of diseases, and half of that results from social attitudes such as yours. Go die in a fire, by the way.
Fetus: are epidemiologists supposed to stop talking about zika? Or possibly safer methods of abortion? Again, go die in a fire.
Evidence/science based: You're just grasping at straws now. Except you're punching the rest of us in the face first. I direct you to this classic [teenvogue.com]: "Don't use science to justify your bigotry. The world is way too weird for that shit."
Go, tell the Reagan Foundation that you tried. And failed. You wers stopped in your tracks by a drunken fool who couls still see rgiht through yoru lies.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:01AM (2 children)
Zika is a virus that causes brain damage, particularly in unborn children.
See? That works great. It's perfect, unless you are trying to dehumanize little kids so that your conscience doesn't bother you when you kill them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @11:58AM (1 child)
Fetus is a term of science that applies to all gestating animals. So the CDC is going to start calling fetal pigs unborn pigs too in order to avoid dehumanizing pigs?
PS The Unborn sounds like the name of a horror movie.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19 2017, @02:32AM
Don't worry though; we can start referring to them as fetal hominids so as to be more specific, and thus have higher quality writing.
Calling them unborn children would be foolish; childhood is a stage of development that begins after birth.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:23AM (4 children)
You think there is "progressive rape of language by the (predominantly christian in name) neo-cons. Clear language is what those dirty commoners use to equalize the battle. Can't have them communicating clearly or in depth."
OK, how about liberals trying to replace the correct legal term "illegal alien" with "undocumented immigrant"?
Don't you want clear language?
1. They are illegal. (our law says so)
2. They are aliens. (by dictionary: a noncitizen; owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign; an outsider)
3. They are not undocumented. (They buy documents on the black market. They might be using YOUR documents.)
4. They are not immigrants. (according the the IRS: An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States.)
If being "undocumented" is OK, then maybe I don't need a gun permit in California? I can be an undocumented gun owner. Maybe if I have sex with you without asking, I'll be be an undocumented spouse. If I wander about your house, I'm an undocumented resident. No, this is a load of nonsense.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @02:46PM
And you too can go burn in the very lake of fire you are terrified of ending up in when you finally kick the bucket.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:53PM (2 children)
Over-staying your visa isn't even a crime [procon.org] and entering the US illegally is just a misdemeanor.
And visa over-stays make up more than half of the total number of "illegal immigrants."? [washingtontimes.com]
So, unless you've been going around calling jaywalkers "illegal citizens" you are just a damn hypocrite.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @04:49AM (1 child)
Misdemeanors are illegal acts, you stupid fuck. You take the fact that a misdemeanor is LESS OF an illegal act than something like first degree murder, then try to make that less illegal act into legal? You are one STUPID motherfucker. Illegal aliens are breaking the law - THAT is what makes them "illegal aliens".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @11:40AM
And jaywalking is a misdemeanor. But you go ahead and spazz out all you want. Temper tantrums are the best way to prove U R the smartest person in the room.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:34AM
Yeah, there is a heart drug approved only for black people. Never mind that this gets interesting with the whole liberal idea that you can self-identify as whatever race you like.
Basically, the drug company abused statistics. Lots of drugs fail, and this one did too... until they only counted the black people who were studied. It then squeaked by, just barely passing.
The problem is how the statistics are being used. Specify a p-value that you like, so that there is only a tiny chance that the results are false. Do a trial, get good results, and everything is fine... probably. Say you have your p-value set for only a 1-in-1000 chance of false results. Hey, pretty sure it is a good drug! Oh, wait, you tried 5000 drugs. You're getting false results almost certainly. Worse yet, the drug company just sliced and diced the data until they got a result they could sell. They tried every way of dividing up the data until they lucked out and managed to pass the statistical requirement for selling the drug.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:43PM (1 child)
Funny - I haven't been seen by a male caucasian doctor since . . . . I think it was in 1985, when I had a work related accident in Chicago. I woke up in an ER, to see some white dude hovering over me, checking for signs of neuro problems. Since then, I've been seen by a white female doctor, a Vietnames male, a Peruvian male, and a Black male. I've had physicals for work by an Indian male doctor. That monoculture you mention seems to have melted away somewhere, sometime.
Oh, wait, to be fair, I've seen two male caucasian eye doctors - presumably hetero. A male caucasian delivered my first son. Another delivered my second son. Third son was a complicated birth, and an entire TEAM was involved in that - black, white, and Indian. Likewise, the nurses and orderlies present were a mixed bunch.
But, whatever. Keep telling yourself about that monoculture.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:49PM
“Fake news would tell you that we don’t care for mud people. I tell you all this because I’ve seen it also; I just want to set the record straight while they’re here. Some of of our doctors are mud people. We have very close friends who are mud people and we also fellowship with them.”
(Score: -1, Troll) by frojack on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:47AM (13 children)
Actually its a big lie.
http://www.pacificpundit.com/2017/12/16/fake-news-no-cdc-isnt-removing-words-like-fetus-or-evidence-based/ [pacificpundit.com]
HHS responds to reports of CDC banning words:
"The assertion that HHS has 'banned words' is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process."
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fritsd on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:27AM
I read your article, but unfortunately it didn't have a link to the CDC itself.
That looked like a blog, with interesting topics such as "left wing terrorism".
The PacificPundit article started with:
and there were two more lines of text, without much content (it was a rather short article).
Did you find a source from the CDC itself that disputed this "fake news"?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:57AM (10 children)
You just posted a link to a site with a menu bar that reads:
How can anyone possibly take you seriously now? Also, the HHS "response" is not a denial, it's just BS doublespeak weasel words:
Whether it came directly from Trump or some layer of people under him is irrelevant. People working in a department of the government (HHS) under the Trump administration is telling the CDC to censor itself from using bog-standard common technical terms, presumably in order to increase their chances of getting grants funded under this administration. But who could be offended by technical, completely non-partisan terms like "transgender" or "evidence-based"? Only religious fundamentalist nutjobs.
If you believe in freedom of thought and expression you should have a huge problem with this.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @02:43PM (8 children)
Problem is NOT the use of words to offend; acting offended by mere words is a left-wing game anyway.
Problem is the abuse of them to MISLEAD.
If you believe you have a worthwhile thougth to express, you should not have a huge problem with REPHRASING it.
Some words got tainted by constant abuse. Leaving them alone for some time, for the semantics to cool and lose the stink of politics, could be the best thing to do with them.
(Score: 5, Touché) by RedBear on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:16PM (3 children)
I'm sorry, your post was highly offensive.
If you believe you have a worthwhile thougth to express, you should not have a huge problem REPHRASING it without using any of the following prohibited words:
abuse
tainted
believe
constant
alone
semantics
best
problem
worthwhile
offended
huge
game
left-wing
words
Looking forward to your properly rephrased response.
If this seems completely ridiculous to you, congratulations. That was the point.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @11:20PM (2 children)
I trust you're capable of running a synonymizer app on your very own.
Any assertion can be made to "seem completely ridiculous" by extensive word games, thanks for the demo.
Just the same way, any bullshit can be made to sound sciencey and convincing.
https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763 [nature.com]
Prevention of both should be the point all right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @12:03AM (1 child)
Waaaaah! I got owned and my ego is too fragile to just let it pass, so I had to post something, anything!
It doesn't matter if its total bullshit that reveals how much of a beta I really am, I'm still gonna do ieeeet!
Waaaaah!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @01:02AM
but carrying this much stupid with you, the road will surely be exhausting
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Sunday December 17 2017, @04:27PM (1 child)
Nope, doublespeak is a bipartisan issue. Different words, same basic reactions. The Right even gets off on being offended by a lack of words, demanding that football players pledge allegiance to a flag. You're all pretty ridiculous.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday December 17 2017, @11:22PM
The anthem, it's very important that NFL players always STAND for the playing of our National Anthem. We're paying them big money to respect our Flag and our Country! #StandForOurAnthem [twitter.com]🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/czutyGaMQV [t.co]
(Score: 4, Touché) by nitehawk214 on Sunday December 17 2017, @04:51PM (1 child)
Says the person offended by the words "evidence" and "science".
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @11:25PM
and it's from the likes of you the words "evidence" and "science" get a bad taint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:12PM
If frojo had a motto, that would be it.
That weak-ass stephen miller wannabe has been full of bullshit for decades.
Nobody sane has taken him seriously since high school.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:21PM
Actually, that's called a "backpedal". It's what you do when dumb shit blows up in your face.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/16/forbidden-words-fda-cdc/ [statnews.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday December 17 2017, @11:01AM
"entitlement" is the one that confuses me, because I thought this was the Repubs' preferred term for social spending. Aren't Paul Ryan and his ilk always on about entitlement reform? Why would they want to ban their own word?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @01:08AM (1 child)
That one has bounced between -1 and 4 at least.
Somebody... bothered by something? People don't get so upset about nonsense. Only an uncomfortable truth can do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @01:21AM
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
You sounds a lot like those fox evangelicals who respond to any criticism with "jesus was persecuted too so I am righteous!"
Most times an asshole is just an asshole.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @05:40AM (21 children)
We had a good run, about a century or so. Guess it's somebody else's turn to be the showboat in the global stage.
Israel, better watch out now that we go down the hill. Europe is no friend of yours. Might wanna hook up with Russia or China.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @05:46AM (3 children)
The original Romans got a sense of entitlement, becoming unused to the hard life. They got diversity, bringing in all sorts of people who didn't share Roman values. Rome fell.
The CDC will now be keeping quiet about such problems, which is at least better than encouraging the problems.
(Score: 2) by chromas on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:08AM (1 child)
At first, I thought you were stuffing in all the forbidden phrases. I am a disappoint.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:50AM
The original Romans got a sense of entitlement, becoming unused to the hard life. They got diversity, bringing in all sorts of people who didn't share Roman values. Rome became vulnerable and fell, standing as precedent from which to make evidence-based assertions about the dangers of immigration and acceptance of murdering fetuses, transgender rights, and science-based thinking. MAIA!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:58AM
To be specific, the Roman Empire fell.
It's happened to every empire that has existed.
The reason Rome had an empire was that they let their republic slip away from them.
Mitch Jeserich has a "Letters and Politics" program on Pacifica Radio that is often excellent on historical matters.
A while back, he had this guy on.
The Beginning Of The End Of The Roman Republic - Mike Duncan [kpfa.org]
A couple of weeks before that, he had this guy on.
The Birth Of American Empire - Stephen Kinzer [kpfa.org]
He talks about USA.gov's invasion and occupation of Hawaii in 1896 and especially about the trumped-up Spanish-American War in 1898.
There's a direct line between that stuff and over half of USA's current budget going to militarism.
Over a century ago, USA also lost its republic.
N.B. Those are ~22MB MP3s, available infinitely.
The presentations start at about 07:00, after an intro and the day's newsbreak, and they go for about 50 minutes at normal playback speed.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:17AM (16 children)
WTF? You're trying to pretend that America's "left" is Israels friend? Jesus H. Christ - what kind of warped rationality do you use to arrive at that conclusion? Israel's friends in the US consiste of communist and socialism haters, the military industrial complex, religious righties, and people who always root for the underdog. And, oh yeah, those wishy-washy people who always cheer for the winning team. (You know who you are - if Dallas wins the superbowl, you're a Dallas fan - whoever wins is your team.) America's left has little if any use for Israel, except for boycotts and protests.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @11:18AM (15 children)
It's the Palestinian kids with nothing but rocks to throw who are the underdogs in that part of the world.
The guys on the other side with Kevlar, rifles, bulldozers, explosives and carte blanche to use them are the Israeli "Defense" Force.
...and, oh yeah, the Israelis also have nuclear weapons and systems to deliver them (the only nation in the region so equipped).
Other than that, I agree with your rebuttal.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 17 2017, @02:39PM (14 children)
Ho-hum. When one nation is attacked by every nation that surrounds it, and wins, THAT is the story of an underdog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War [wikipedia.org]
Palestinian children with rocks? Cry me a river. I know that rocks as weapons is pretty much stone age, but a rock can still bash a person's head in. Tell me more about these poor Palestinians. Their brothers don't want them. No one wants them. They are literally SURROUNDED by brethren, related by faith and ideology, and NONE OF THEM WILL ACCEPT THE PALESTINIANS IN THEIR OWN LAND!
If their fellow Arabs don't want them, why would any else, such as the Jews want them?
Whatever else you may have to offer - I remember well the stories of the kids in encampents on the Golan Heights. Doesn't make much difference whether you're trying to rationalize events from one side, or the other: idiot kids attacking tanks with rocks are unfit to survive. Their parents were unfit to be parents, the kids were unfit to survive, and I can't feel especially sorry for kids whose parents sent them out to throw rocks at armed men. Idiots.
Got any more bleeding heart bullshit?
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:36PM (13 children)
Surely that's the definition of a superior military power, which is the complete opposite of an "underdog"?
The underdog only wins in heart-warming movies, which reality isn't.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 17 2017, @04:14PM (12 children)
Shirley, you jest. The Arabs had far more equipment, some of it technologically superior* to Israel's, much of technologically equal, and only some of it inferior. Numbers alone should have won that war. The Arabs, especially Arafat, were so humiliated that they had to create a conspiracy theory in which the US made strikes against the Arabs, because the Jews couldn't have done it alone. (Never mind that the Jews were busy shooting up the USS Liberty at the time.)
In reality, the Jews had huge swinging balls, and they went into battle with the intention of WINNING. Many Arabs are known for going into battle, and expecting Allah to win the battle for them.
*the superior equipment consisted mostly of battle armor. The burnt and shattered tanks were still in the desert, (from both '67 and '71) to be inspected, when I was in the Navy. You can tell Israeli tanks from Arab tanks, because Chrysler. Chrysler corporation built tanks with shit hydraulic systems that tended to leak, and catch fire - hence the burnt tanks. Russia, on the other hand, built tanks that didn't leak, and used less flammable hydraulic fluid - hence the shattered tanks. Egyptian and Syrian tankers should have mopped Israel's armor away, and spearheaded major infantry assaults, based on technology.
https://highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/flatview?cuecard=50044 [nbclearn.com]
Armed Forces Study Danger of Hydraulic Fluid in Military Equipment
That is exactly why Israel builds it's own armor today.
Note that NBC News apparently has confused core with corps - those misspellings will be found on the linked page, if you bother to click on it.
Of course, one must remember the Muslim chant - inshallah. God willing, we will . . . whatever. Strangely, Muslims never seem to consider that Allah was fighting on Israel's side? God willed that Israel would win? Think about it . . . American technology didn't hand Israel the victory free of charge.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @07:53PM (11 children)
Hey bub, 1948 called and it wants its colonial facts back.
Comparing the situation of modern day Palestinians to multiple oil-rich states from 50+ years ago is to literally bury your head in the sand.
The facts of today are that Israel has been systematically ghettoizing the palestinians for decades.
When even fucking Everlast [youtube.com] knows what's up, its time to stop denying.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:33PM (10 children)
Cute. The Six Day War was in 1967. The Yom Kippur war was in 1973. I viewed some of those tanks in 1978/1979. The article I linked to was dated 1983. The first Israeli built Merkava MK1 went into service in 1979. So, maybe you're not as cute as you think you are? No, I wasn't talking about 1948, I was talking about events that were "current events" in my own lifetime.
Also, the Palestinians aren't using the same weapons and tactics that they were using in 1948. In '78-'79, my own "baptism of fire" was under a rocket attack. Stupid little shitty rockets that couldn't really be aimed. Payload was minimal, damage minimal. There was no guidance system, the Pals just pointed them in the general direction, lit a fire, and watched them fly away. Today, the Pals have rockets that can reach Jerusalem from the Gaza Strip. The rockets still have crappy guidance, but they DO HAVE guidance.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/hamas-firing-china-designed-syria-made-m-302-rockets-israel-n152461 [nbcnews.com]
No - you're not half so cute as you think you are.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:45PM
1979 was 39 years ago
You know you've lost the argument when your best rebuttal is that your facts are just 4 decades out of date.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:15PM (8 children)
...and Israel was the aggressor.
The Yom Kippur war was in 1973
...and Israel was the aggressor.
Way to step on your own argument.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:35PM
Runaway personifies that line about riding with the devil and hiding with the lord.
He's what's called a "fox evangelical." [twitter.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:42PM (2 children)
When there is a military build-up right on the other side of the border involving lots of tanks and military aircraft, and that country's leader is demonizing you to an unusual degree, attacking does not make you the aggressor. There is no duty to wait until you've had your airfields blown to bits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @03:10AM (1 child)
Within its own borders, a country is free to conduct whatever military maneuvers it wants to.
attacking does not make you the aggressor
Actually, crossing the border with military might is the definition of aggression.
Additionally, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 (USA is a signatory) forbids the Bush Doctrine (preemptive war).
Big clue: Just because USA.gov does something doesn't make it right.
In fact, WRT militarism in the last half century, what USA.gov has done has been the template for what -NOT- to do.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @06:05AM
Had you been running Israel, you'd have let the country come to an end. You'd fancy yourself to be moral and ethical as you and your fellow citizens are dying. I don't find it moral or ethical to let them die.
The attack was obviously coming in a matter of days. Destroying the enemy works a lot better when you are dishing out the nasty surprise than when you are receiving it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 18 2017, @03:08AM (3 children)
Read what AC says.
You may not be familiar with Texas law. I visit a town. Some dude carrying a gun gets loud and obnoxious, and says he is going to shoot me. I have all the justification I need to shoot him dead. No, I wasn't the aggressor, HE WAS! His credible statement that he was going to shoot me was the aggression. It was an assault, and I acted in self defense when I shot him first.
International law is no different.
Israel has been restrained, if you want to know the truth. When the shooting starts, there is no real reason to stop shooting as long as there are still bodies at non-ambient temperatures.
You don't like Israel? Oh-kay. I don't like Israel a whole lot either. But, try to get your facts straight. The Arabs have been the aggressors in almost every conflict since David ben Gurion and associates bombed that British hotel.
Next, you're going to be telling us how sweet and nice the Arabs are, right?
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @03:13AM
Lol, look at runaway! Not only is he a texas lawyer, despite living in a different state even, he's also an international lawyer!
We are truly blessed to have such an educated fool here on soylent.
Ayup!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @03:20AM (1 child)
If there was any veracity your "facts", it would have been simple for you to have linked to a list of Arab incursions into the Israeli homeland.
I notice that you didn't provide any such substantiation.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 18 2017, @04:45AM
You're being intentionally obtuse. Rocket attacks constitute "incursions". Doesn't much matter that few were injured, and none killed in those attacks, the intent was there. Your ideology means jack shit if you and your friends are pointing weapons at someone - you'll be killed on sight just for pointing weapons.
You've forgotten too that this is a tribal land, and the crap has been going on for thousands of years. Muslims have been putting Jews to the sword, and burning down synagogues since the madman Mohammed was dancing around on the sands. Ditto with Christians, animists, and everyone else who didn't believe the same as Mohammed.
In Arabia, only the fittest survive. You may moon over some misplaced ideology, but no one over there is listening to you. No one. Arabs and Jews alike laugh at you. If you're going to cry rivers that neither the Jews nor the Arabs play by your rules, you might want to remove yourself to a drought stricken area, where the water will do some good. Reality isn't going to change to make you happy.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:02AM (10 children)
What does the CDC publish which isn't science or evidence based (their accounting? I sure hope its evidence based!)?
I'm not a USAian, so maybe I have an inaccurate view of the role of the CDC, but surely if they're using the phrases "science based" or "evidence based" then something is sorely wrong for that to not be implicit in everything they publish.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:19AM (4 children)
The point isn't whether or not they've been using these words and phrases. The point is that they could use them, and that is now seen as dangerous wrongthink.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:43AM (2 children)
This is a very worrying move, but that concern is obvious and shared and doesn't benefit from having an AC draw attention to it.
The fact it is felt necessary to stop the CDC from saying "evidence-based" and "science-based" implies that they are currently using those terms, and this isn't such an obvious concern, and I feel is worth drawing attention to. Although perhaps I misunderstand those terms/the purpose of the CDC.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Sunday December 17 2017, @02:02PM (1 child)
"Evidence-based" has a rather specific meaning in medicine. Most medical practice is not evidence-based in this sense. Doctors rely on their judgement, their experience in similar cases, the experience and expertise of colleagues, and so forth in treating patients. Most of the time it works well.
But then come the scientists, who point out that none of that is a proper double-blind scientific study with control groups and statistical analysis. Of course they are right. It isn't. So is born "evidence-based" medicine, which does rely on proper scientific, testable studies. Often these properly controlled studies support existing practice. But every now and then they contradict common practice, so they are valuable and common practice changes.
But it is not really feasible to practice only evidence-based medicine. There simply have not been enough properly executed scientific studies. And some things are even practically impossible to do proper double-blind studies on. As an example of such a thing in ordinary, non-medical experience, consider that there has never been a double-blind study on whether the use of a parachute improves survival when a person jumps out of an airplane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @05:02PM
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Missing Comment.
(A nice change from invalid form key at least)
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:20PM
In the specific context of the budgeting process, this is probably correct.
They, being liberals, need to signal their holiness by worship of trans, for example, so if left to their own devices, instead of determining the proper budget for zika prevention vs cholea prevention will just religiously rant about hatred of all things Trump and how its great to be racist against white people etc. Actions that are good for their social "street cred" in the context of oppressive levels of political progressivism is not necessarily useful in the context of allocating the office supply budget between black bic pens vs #2 pencils with or without erasers.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:24AM (4 children)
They publish science-based information which is broad at times. How to deal with an epidemic, for instance, as opposed to how to deal with a smallpox epidemic. For example they might say "when checking what microorganisms are in a water source, an evidence-based approach should include tests x, y, and z."
Ie. this stops them from labelling 'good' procedures as such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:29AM (3 children)
What procedures which aren't evidence based would be acceptable for them to publish?
Don't socialize while you have a cold? That's based on the evidence that colds are transmissible by actions common while socializing.
If they have no evidence, they are just repeating folk wisdom and can fuck off.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:45AM (2 children)
Actually, no, they aren't necessarily implying evidence-based procedures are okay. "Evidence-based" is actually a technical term in medicine [wikipedia.org], referring to approaches that are more heavily dependent on rigorous stats in evaluating clinical efficacy ( and often specific levels of concern depending on certain study designs, etc.).
All medicine is empirical to some extent (one would hope, anyway), but that doesn't mean it's "evidence-based" according to the technical definition, which require more rigorous evaluation of evidence and study design.
And there are also legitimate concerns about "evidence-based" approaches in medicine that specify too much rigor early on (e.g., since they may overlook small effects in exploratory studies, may misunderstand or misinterpret outcomes due to confounding factors within a complex system like the human body, etc.). And sometimes "intuitive" clinical procedures have later been shown to be effective in a more statistically rigorous study.
I'm not saying this term can't be abused or misused -- obviously it can be. But it also tries to make a technical distinction about statistical rigor in medical studies, and inability to use the term may hamper discussion about that.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:49AM (1 child)
My first sentence is missing a "non" (I.e. not implying non-evidenced-based procedures are okay, at least in the common sense of the term).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:40AM
..
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:27AM (8 children)
Political Correctness forced upon one agency, likely more in the future, from the highest levels of government. A list of "offensive" words that must not be uttered, on penalty of a powerful jackboot to the throat.
Trump and his supporters are starting to hit their stride. This is only the beginning.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:43AM
Butbutbutbut ONLY THEM COMMIE NAZI PINKO FAGGIT JEW MEXICUN MOOS-LIM AY-THEIST AY-RAB GODDAMN LIB'RULS ARE PEE-SEE! I know 'cause Fox told me so!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:48AM (1 child)
No doubt. Undoubtedly, words like niggers, sand niggers, kikes, spics, gooks, slopes, slants, and wetbacks may now be uttered with impunity. (I probably have left some racial epithets out.) This is, after all, the Trump administration. There's no telling how low it will go.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @07:47AM
Seeing as Trump's daughter is a kike now, having undergone the whole miserable orthodox Jew conversion process, the term probably isn't preferred. Well, I haven't asked her. She might like it just fine, at least in jest from others at her synagogue.
The cabinet has a couple more people matching those terms you've helpfully supplied. Again, I doubt they'd like the terms, but I haven't asked. Let me know how it goes if you ask.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:50AM (4 children)
Did you read the article? Its nothing like that.
"Science-based" and "evidence-based" are atrocious neologisms. In this case, the CDC specifically recommends saying "based on science". As for "transgender", they don't offer an explanation, but I can sort of see why they'd prefer talking about gender and sexual identity instead, because transgenders only refers to a narrow subset of that particular population.
In short, I have a feeling the CDC is trying to promote the use of better and more factual English, but is going about it rather clumsily.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:32AM (1 child)
We're on the same track. Take "diversity". It is used improperly more than it is used in a proper context. The term has been appropriated by our left, and used to beat whitey to death. Diversity is claimed to be the cure for so many of society's ills. It has almost no proper use in medicine or health care. X number of black people are suffering from some disease, and the "cure" involves DIVERSITY?!?! How in hell does that work? Extract diseased blood from those black people, inject it into white and latino and Asian people, to ensure that they get the disease? That's diversity? WTF?
Over the years, I've read a number of flyers, brochures, and articles from CDC, and they have definitely taken on a leftist flavor. CDC shouldn't be political. In effect, Trump has told them to knock it off. Present the facts, offer cures and solutions, but stop blaming Whitey for every problem. Whitey didn't create sickle cell anemia, after all, and no amount of diversity can cure it.
The only reason for including such a term in most reports and statements is to curry favor with the crowd that WAS in charge for the previous 8 years. Trump has told them to stop sucking up to the previous administration.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 5, Touché) by mhajicek on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:55AM
I have diversity in the species of grass on my lawn. The common cold has variable genetic diversity from year to year. There is a diversity of medical practices which vary from region to region.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:58AM
No, that's not true. They suggest (according to TFA) replacing with the phrase “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes."
In other words, if my "community" consists of those who believe climate change can't be real or that the earth is 6000 years old or that vaccines cause autism, my "community" may "wish" for other things and are therefore perfectly valid in adopting "standards" inconsistent with the recommendations of "science."
That's not "based on science." This is explicitly about allowing the promotion of "community" ideas that are NOT based on science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:57PM
Did you read the article?
Because you left the weirdest part of that recommendation, the part that is exactly what you accuse those of creating an "atrocious neologism" of doing.
FTFA: “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes"
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @07:52AM
Those are all propaganda words. It's disgusting to see them in anything from the CDC.
If the employees want to use those words, they can do so via their own platform. They no longer get to spew their hatred as an official communication of the United States government.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:06AM (1 child)
so, the people who oversee the budget are trying to make sure they get recurrent funding, by ensuring the organisation's employees don't use words that upset (trigger?) some people, which may include people in charge of appropriations.
Seems sensible.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:15PM
You've just described the banality of evil.
Self-censorship in order to please the insane is how you lose your soul.
When money and security is more important than truth and decency evil wins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:08AM (2 children)
Deny, Deflect, Denigrate.
All you Trump supporters are going to be busy doing that for the next 3 years.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @01:51PM
What else can you expect from the Deplorables?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @04:56PM
You forgot the 4'th D. Dicksucking.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Sunday December 17 2017, @02:20PM (4 children)
According to the Guardian, the US department of HHS (Health and Human Services) kinda denies it:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/17/health-leaders-report-fetus-transgender-cdc-banned-words [theguardian.com]
The Guardian article also says:
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday December 18 2017, @02:51AM (3 children)
Tried to get worked up about this. But couldn't.
So basically, CDC has a budget target on it. Certain types of projects are unlikely to survive the budget process. The evaluators probably don't understand the projects... but they have expressed dis-satisfaction with projects that all contain certain words. CDC bosses put their heads together and decided 'rather than sacrifice all of these things, let's see if we can tweak the descriptions to make them look more acceptable'. Seems like typical bureaucratic gamesmanship.
Some things never change. Oh! the outrage!
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @02:57AM (2 children)
Of course you couldn't.
Now, if the CDC were forbidden from talking projects to identify racial differences in IQ and violence you'd be all over that.
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday December 18 2017, @04:10AM (1 child)
If you're going to be offensive, at least get your lines right. "If the CDC decided to conceal projects regarding racial difference in doublespeak..." at least you'd have an apples to apples comparison.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @11:35AM
Snowflake was offended. Awwwah. Did the liddle' nazi get his feel-feels hurt?
(Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:13PM (3 children)
Nope, not tired of winning yet. This could be Trump's most difficult campaign promise to keep.
This will drive many of the worst SJWs at CDC to resign in protest, and by definition every single one who leaves will make the place better staffed to accomplish their actual mission. The problem will be the smarter ones who burrow deep and continue to sabotage the mission.
Hint: SJWs are not scientists, rarely even pretend very convincingly at being one. The loudest "I fucking love science" types usually know less about science and the ways of the scientific method than a priest. Which makes a sort of sense because most SJWs are priests, of a fudged up pseudo religion of progressivism and social justice.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @07:01PM
Lol. Nobody asked if you were tired yet. But for some reason that was the first thing you brought up. Like some kinda dejected, worn-down, loser desperately trying to convince himself that he's not in denial.
Oh, how this SJW is luvin what a beta cuck you turned out to be. Turns out liberal tears aren't very nutritious. Why don't you go give Roy Moore a handy and get yourself some protein.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:33PM
I think you are right. It looks like the only campaign promise he is going to keep this year is the one to give billionaires and bigcorps a yuge tax break.
But what can you do, even his own wife [twitter.com] and children [twitter.com] are generals in the War on Christmas. Traitors all around him!
(Score: 2) by Tara Li on Wednesday December 20 2017, @09:26PM
Actually, turns out this wasn't the Trump administration. The words were already being identified and pushed back against in a CDC presentation pushed out in May or June of 2016 (The internal slide says May 2016, the filename says 060217).
https://www.cdc.gov/other/pdf/everydaywords-060216-final.pdf [cdc.gov]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @12:39AM (2 children)
This is some serious censorship. Of a kind not seen in modern American history.
And yet all the people who are outraged and screaming in support of free speech when a bunch of college kids shout down nazis aren't just quiet about this issue. They are standing up in support of this speech control and justifying it with some serious pretzel logic.
Hhhhm...
If I didn't know better I'd say they are all a bunch of fucking hypocrites. But that can't be true, can it?
(Score: 2) by Jiro on Monday December 18 2017, @02:50AM (1 child)
The CDC works for the government.
Calling this censorship is like claiming that if Trump hired a speechwriter, and told the speechwriter not to put certain things in the speech, that's censorship too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @02:54AM
Pretzel logic on cue!
The CDC does not work for the government. The CDC is the government. And thus is held to the most stringent interpretations of the constitution.
Furthermore, the president-eject knows jackshit about what the CDC does. The CDC does not exist to please the president, it exists to serve the people.
(Score: 2) by mrpg on Monday December 18 2017, @05:10PM (1 child)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cdc-director-says-there-are-no-banned-words-at-the-agency [pbs.org]
CDC director says there are ‘no banned words’ at the agency
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19 2017, @01:39AM
This is media 101.
Put words into your opponents mouth then make them live up to the lie you made up. Been watching this shit for 30+ years and they never change. The continue to pretend they are there for us. When the reality is they are waiting around for anyone to screw up so they can wave a mike around and look like the morally superior saviors. They got lazy in the past few years. They are now just starting to get back on their game.