Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The forbidden words


Tiggs

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

I suspect the briefing happened, based on the reports, and the absence of Fitzgerald's denial that they occurred.

My best guess at what happened was this:

1. During the meeting, the policy analysts were told not to use the words in their budget proposal, because the government would be less likely to fund them if they did.

Good guess, but the Post's reporting contradicts it.

35 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

2. Policy analysts became outraged they weren't allowed to use those words, and leaked it to the press.

Yes, it's not a guess to say that someone from the CDC went to the Post with something. That's simply what happened.

 

35 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

If there's a mischaracterization -- then perhaps the message they were supposed to receive is that they should use words more likely to gain funding, with a list of words that they expected to elicit a negative reaction.

Interesting thought. However, not what the Post said. Their lede is clear in stating a top down ban, which has been equally clearly refuted by Fitzgerald.

Quote

The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.

Either the Post's source, or the Post themselves, is lying. Or else Fitzgerald is point-blank lying. Which should be easy enough to prove with internal documentation detailing the "banned words", since apparently analysts have no problems talking to news outlets.

35 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

A list of words to try and avoid is different from a list of words that are forbidden -- but not by much.

The simple admission that they are indeed different is enough to render the Post's reporting misleading. Given, of course, that Fitzgerald is telling the truth. (When all is said and done, I trust someone using their real name more than anonymous sources.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
12 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

Good guess, but the Post's reporting contradicts it.

Yes, it's not a guess to say that someone from the CDC went to the Post with something. That's simply what happened.

Interesting thought. However, not what the Post said. Their lede is clear in stating a top down ban, which has been equally clearly refuted by Fitzgerald.

Either the Post's source, or the Post themselves, is lying. Or else Fitzgerald is point-blank lying. Which should be easy enough to prove with internal documentation detailing the "banned words", since apparently analysts have no problems talking to news outlets.

The simple admission that they are indeed different is enough to render the Post's reporting misleading. Given, of course, that Fitzgerald is telling the truth. (When all is said and done, I trust someone using their real name more than anonymous sources.)

Perhaps they're both telling the truth, and the message Fitzgerald wanted the analysts to hear didn't make it's way down to the briefing intact.

I don't believe she gave -- or was present at -- the briefing herself.

From the Wapo Article:

At the CDC, the meeting about the banned terms was led by Alison Kelly, a career civil servant who is a senior leader in the agency’s Office of Financial Services, according to the CDC analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly. Kelly did not say why the words are being banned, according to the analyst, and told the group that she was merely relaying the information.

ETA: Actually -- give me a minute or two to catch up again -- The WaPo article has changed from when it was first issued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. Caught up again.

From the revised article:

Kelly told the analysts that “certain words” in the CDC’s budget drafts were being sent back to the agency for correction. Three words that had been flagged in these drafts were “vulnerable,” “entitlement” and “diversity.” Kelly told the group the ban on the other words had been conveyed verbally.

That's new (to me) & definitely changes things. One of them is definitely lying.

Will be interesting to see if a copy of the returned budget draft with flagged words makes it's way out of the building, at some stage.

If not -- then I guess we'll see where the truth is when the CDC's budget draft is finalised.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing unusual about one administration changing hot button terminology after taking over from another. The Obama administration changed a lot terminology, too. As I recall, they didn't like the term "War on Terror" and changed it to something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Nothing unusual about one administration changing hot button terminology after taking over from another. The Obama administration changed a lot terminology, too. As I recall, they didn't like the term "War on Terror" and changed it to something else.

Yes but there's a difference between changing the politically correct (that's all it is on both sides) terminology and refusing to use scientific vocabulary when discussing science. 

Although personally I hate 'science based' anyway. It's either evidence based or supported by scientific research. Saying it's based on science suggests you may have added things. Like all those films 'based on a true story'. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bee said:

:tu:

yeah invoking peer pressure and fear of ostracism (tribalism) is a powerful psychological tool isn't it - 
and it's being utilized to  the max in the '''Trump Bad'''' PSYOP -

although the message and pressure is topped up on a daily basis (a bit like praying 5 times a day?)
it's now internalised by the target group and they police themselves - 

I listened to a programme about the fear of ostracism a while back and it's a very raw and primal fear based on
actual survival... because on a basic animal level if you're ostracised you are on your own and will probably die - rejected -

the fear of ostracism is so strong, the programme said... it even extends to the internet with strangers when we are all anonymous -
 (to each other anyway :) but not to the intelligence services) - 

so I suppose the Hillary Tribe are only too aware of what will happen to them socially if they go off message in any way -- ?

People tow the political line on all or both sides, but it seems to be worse on the left side than it is on the right side. I'm talking about mainstream points on the political spectrum. The extreme points, on both sides, aren't the same. They often take things way too far. It could be that the guy, who's a regular on "Saturday Night Live", is one of the best examples of this. He has a tattoo of Clinton! It demonstrates that it's no exaggeration to say that some individuals are in the Hillary cult. It also explains why that show is far from fair and balanced in its political "humor".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Setton said:

Yes but there's a difference between changing the politically correct (that's all it is on both sides) terminology and refusing to use scientific vocabulary when discussing science. 

Although personally I hate 'science based' anyway. It's either evidence based or supported by scientific research. Saying it's based on science suggests you may have added things. Like all those films 'based on a true story'. 

"What's a moniker? A rose by any other name still gives yas hay fever.". Benjamin Grimm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

"What's a moniker? A rose by any other name still gives yas hay fever.". Benjamin Grimm

But scientific language has a real purpose. It allows scientists and public who have never met to understand one another without misinterpretation or having to define every word they use in every research paper. 

It's  an extreme example but who far do you think medicine would have come if we each scientist made up their own name for a disease and measured medicine in their own made up units? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Setton said:

But scientific language has a real purpose. It allows scientists and public who have never met to understand one another without misinterpretation or having to define every word they use in every research paper. 

It's  an extreme example but who far do you think medicine would have come if we each scientist made up their own name for a disease and measured medicine in their own made up units? 

The public is more familiar with plain language and not so familiar with scientific language. That's why doctors explain a patient's malady in simple words instead of Greek. I think some people are overly enamored of the mystique of scientific terminology.

Edited by Hammerclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2017 at 5:02 AM, Tiggs said:

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.”

Source: Washington Post

The war on Science is real. Or, at least, the war on '"science-based" is.

Oh holy crap Donald, you've got to be kidding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Obama Administration was notorious about banning words or using euphemisms.  Perhaps there are still hold overs at the CDC still operating under the previous regime's playbook?  And are perhaps trying to anticipate what the current Admin wants using nothing more than the negative scripting of the MSM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.