The forbidden words

[Paranormal Panther]

12 minutes ago, bee said:

I'm not even sure what position you are taking in this thread...?  

ETA - my position is that, like Manfred illustrated ... it's a storm in a teacup

and it's being used in such a way to cause damage to Trump - imagine that eh ?
How could that possibly be..?.. How could such a thing happen to the POTUS...
unheard of...!! shocking !!!  

I hear tell that the man likes his diet soda too. Surely, he must be impeached!

[bee]

5 minutes ago, pallidin said:

My position is simple:

Banning words in communication is a direct threat to communication itself.

Tell me, what's wrong with the word "fetus" that it should be banned from CDC writings?

 

I've no idea -- I wasn't at the meeting to know what context it happened in or if it was over the top or not -

but to quote again from Tiggs post -

"The assertion that HHS has 'banned words' is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process," the HHS statement said. 

anyway the word fetus isn't being '''banned''' from common usage you know - just on this occasion in that process for some reason -

 

[pallidin]

So, are the 7 words banned from CDC usage, or not?

Should be one hell of a simple question and answer.

[bee]

5 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I hear tell that the man likes his diet soda too. Surely, he must be impeached!

 

I know ---- terrible 

and doesn't he put tomato sauce on his steak ?

AND have two scoops of ice cream 

AND recklessly puts the life of Japanese fish at risk -- 

[bee]

Just now, pallidin said:

So, are the 7 words banned from CDC usage, or not?

Should be one hell of a simple question and answer.

 

you tell me -- are they or has the 'discussion been mischaracterized' .....?

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

16 minutes ago, pallidin said:

My position is simple:

Banning words in communication is a direct threat to communication itself.

Tell me, what's wrong with the word "fetus" that it should be banned from CDC writings?

Banning words is literally from “1984”. It’s Winston Smith role in the Ministry.

[Space Commander Travis]

18 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Tell me, what's wrong with the word "fetus" that it should be banned from CDC writings?

That's what I've been trying to find out. 

[pallidin]

5 minutes ago, bee said:

 

you tell me -- are they or has the 'discussion been mischaracterized' .....?

 

So basically, there will never be a simple answer to my obviously simple question.

Good God.

 

[pallidin]

Were the 7 words banned from CDC usage?

Yes or No

 

[bee]

56 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Were the 7 words banned from CDC usage?

Yes or No

 

yes
it looks like it - if the reporting is accurate -

we are told that they were 'banned'  .... link

“related to the budget and supporting materials that are to be given to the CDC’s partners and to Congress”, citing an unnamed policy analyst:'

but we aren't given any details as to why...
 

"The Post reported that Kelly did not tell the group why the words are being banned, and said that she was merely relaying the information."

 

that was from the link Lilly posted because the one in the OP is now restricted and it says --

>>>>Get access to this story, and every story, on the web and in our apps. Try 4 weeks for $1, then just $6/4 weeks after that.<<<<

you'll have to excuse me not screaming blue murder about Trump and Fascism and Nazis and totalitarianism etc etc
over all this because we have seen too often in the last year how a negative spin can be put on things -
and how things can be twisted  - to get the message across - the message being - Trump BAD - you GOOD - 

(well .... you GOOD if you go against Trump but you BAD if you support him in any way)
 

Edited December 17, 2017 by bee

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Banning words is literally from “1984”. It’s Winston Smith role in the Ministry.

More like 2014, when "illegal alien" became "economic migrant".

[+Hammerclaw]

Isn't it funny how the terms baby and unborn child becomes "fetus" when you want to abort it?

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Isn't it funny how the terms baby and unborn child becomes "fetus" when you want to abort it?

So what you're saying it is a conspiracy on behalf of the conservative/"pro-life"/creationist community to avoid causing offense to them by using scientifically neutral words (the scientifically neutral words cause offense to them I mean)?  Actually I agree; "fetus" is an ugly word, particularity in the American spelling. For some reason "foetus" doesn't look nearly as bad. 

[+Hammerclaw]

38 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

So what you're saying it is a conspiracy on behalf of the conservative/"pro-life"/creationist community to avoid causing offense to them by using scientifically neutral words (the scientifically neutral words cause offense to them I mean)?  Actually I agree; "fetus" is an ugly word, particularity in the American spelling. For some reason "foetus" doesn't look nearly as bad. 

Not so much the use as it is a medical term, but contextually, given the situation. You would never call a pregnant women "with fetus" or one getting an abortion as "aborting her child" yet it's exactly the same thing. One term is warm and human, the other, cold and dispassionate. As in war, it's a necessary dehumanizing step before committing an act one may have qualms about.

[likwidlite]

On 16/12/2017 at 5:28 PM, Gromdor said:

It seems that we are increasing happy to sign away our freedom of speech, our privacy, etc as a condition of employment.  (The if you don't like it, just get another job mentality)

For example: If the government put a camera on every street corner, Americans would be upset.  But if every store had a camera, we would be fine with it.  If we did a national database of everyone's health care, internet habits, and shopping habits people would have a fit.  But if corporations did it, we don't care.  Free speech?  Not at work.  Second Amendment?  Not at most workplaces.  You get the idea.

 

This deserves a discussion all to itself. Especially as we move closer to a world of 'internet of thing's where even a fridge can listen to you, insurance companies track your car and toys have cameras. 

[GlitterRose]

10 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

That's what I've been trying to find out. 

I'm sure it has to do with abortion in some way. 

They'd probably much rather refer to them as unborn babies. 

[GlitterRose]

It's not surprising to see that evidence-based and science-based are no-nos now. 

In a climate where the current administration is waging an assault on reality, you don't want those things interfering.

[acidhead]

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.

WAPO = Fake news

Edited December 17, 2017 by acidhead

[Tiggs]

51 minutes ago, acidhead said:

WAPO = Fake news

Don't see anywhere in those tweets where Fitzgerald is claiming that the briefing didn't happen.

[Paranormal Panther]

13 hours ago, bee said:

yes
it looks like it - if the reporting is accurate -

we are told that they were 'banned'  .... link

“related to the budget and supporting materials that are to be given to the CDC’s partners and to Congress”, citing an unnamed policy analyst:'

but we aren't given any details as to why...
 

"The Post reported that Kelly did not tell the group why the words are being banned, and said that she was merely relaying the information."

 

that was from the link Lilly posted because the one in the OP is now restricted and it says --

>>>>Get access to this story, and every story, on the web and in our apps. Try 4 weeks for $1, then just $6/4 weeks after that.<<<<

you'll have to excuse me not screaming blue murder about Trump and Fascism and Nazis and totalitarianism etc etc
over all this because we have seen too often in the last year how a negative spin can be put on things -
and how things can be twisted  - to get the message across - the message being - Trump BAD - you GOOD - 

(well .... you GOOD if you go against Trump but you BAD if you support him in any way)
 

You should start a thread about this, Bee. In fact, you could broaden and widen it to address extreme political partisanship. You could address the crazy tribalism that occurs among people who refuse to leave their political reservations even if reality dictates that they should do so. We all have biases, but there are biases and there are *biases*. I could list a dozen or so conservative and/or Republican scandals and scoundrels with no hesitation and no reservations (intentional pun). Some "Indians" in the Hillary tribe could not criticize her if she sacrificed ten dogs to a moon god. I need to use ludicrous examples since she gets a free pass for regular malfeasance. It's always us; it's never her.

[bee]

7 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

You should start a thread about this, Bee. In fact, you could broaden and widen it to address extreme political partisanship. You could address the crazy tribalism that occurs among people who refuse to leave their political reservations even if reality dictates that they should do so. We all have biases, but there are biases and there are *biases*. I could list a dozen or so conservative and/or Republican scandals and scoundrels with no hesitation and no reservations (intentional pun). Some "Indians" in the Hillary tribe could not criticize her if she sacrificed ten dogs to a moon god. I need to use ludicrous examples since she gets a free pass for regular malfeasance. It's always us; it's never her.

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 -- ?

[bee]

10 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Don't see anywhere in those tweets where Fitzgerald is claiming that the briefing didn't happen.

 

although it looks like it's the usual  exaggeration (misrepresentation) and fear mongering -

with alarmist stuff like this being banded about - 

 link

The Post's report elicited a strong reaction from critics, despite the HHS refuting the report.

The National LGBTQ Task Force's executive director, Rea Carey, slammed the alleged banning of the word "transgender," saying, "It is disgraceful for a government to attempt to wipe away transgender people, women, and science. President Trump should be ashamed of himself,” Carey said.
 

''''''wipe away transgender people, women, and science'''''   

Is it time for Freddy to take to the stage yet... 

[Doc Socks Junior]

19 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Don't see anywhere in those tweets where Fitzgerald is claiming that the briefing didn't happen.

You mean the briefing that was about "forbidden words" that Fitzgerald said are not, in fact, banned?

Do you think that a briefing did happen, but they mischaracterized the happenings?

 

[Tiggs]

10 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

You mean the briefing that was about "forbidden words" that Fitzgerald said are not, in fact, banned?

Do you think that a briefing did happen, but they mischaracterized the happenings?

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

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.

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

[aztek]

Quote

A lie is most convincingly hidden between two truths.