USA Trump Administration forbids CDC from using 7 words

[Lamb]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-cdc-forbidden-words-20171215-story.html

"Trump administration officials are forbidding 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.

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.""


I'm not sure I understand why this has happened. Is it because the words are controversial?

 

[Albion]

Sure. The use of such fabricated terms give an official endorsement to the concepts that lie behind them. If the government document, press release, or etc. speaks of a fetus rather than an unborn child, it promotes--by the usage--the idea that it is simply a mass of cells that might turn into a human...or not. The average person is horrified at the thought of babies who are able to live outside the womb bein dismembered and their body parts sold off, but call it a fetus and that whole thing seems much less horrible, something like disposing of placenta.

It is like saying someone is a "Nationalist" instead of a "Patriot" or calling someone an "undocumented person" rather than an "illegal alien." People think that principles govern politics, but something as simple as the choice of words can go a long way towards doing that as well, especially if you can condition the average person to use the ones you want them to use.

 

[MennoSota]

Sure. The use of such fabricated terms give an official endorsement to the concepts that lie behind them. If the government document, press release, or etc. speaks of a fetus rather than an unborn child, it promotes--by the usage--the idea that it is simply a mass of cells that might turn into a human...or not. The average person is horrified at the thought of babies who are able to live outside the womb bein dismembered and their body parts sold off, but call it a fetus and that whole thing seems much less horrible, something like disposing of placenta.

It is like saying someone is a "Nationalist" instead of a "Patriot" or calling someone an "undocumented person" rather than an "illegal alien." People think that principles govern politics, but something as simple as the choice of words can go a long way towards doing that as well, especially if you can condition the average person to use the ones you want them to use.

Perhaps you are correct.
I consider the term "fetus" as a developmental stage of human life, much like toddler, teenager, young adult, middle-aged adult and senior citizen.
Certainly there are people who use the term fetus in order to dehumanize and justify murder.

 

[NewCreation435]

I find this disturbing particularly when it comes to the words evidence based and science based. Unless your against evidence and science this doesn't make any sense to me. Kinda like the entire Trump administration doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[psalms 91]

I find him disturbibng period but yes this is not good

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

Forbidden words? Weak. I'm sorry, but what kind of person refuses and forbids others to use technical terms that have precise meanings just because they might be political buzzwords?

 

[Albion]

It's also not new. Government agencies have been banning or disallowing the use of politically incorrect terms and words for decades now and, in some cases, inventing new words that are supposed to be used by everyone in place of the banned ones--and that command also applies to every WOMYN, HERSTORY STUDENT, PERSON OF COLOR, UNDOCUMENTED MIGRANT, and their COMPANION ANIMALS!

 

[Lamb]

I've been trying to find more information about this. What I found was that all articles point to the Washington Post one as the source. Apparently an analyst found out about the 7 words/phrases at a meeting about the budget and wanted to share the info. It's not even confirmed by the White House.

 

[Imalive]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-cdc-forbidden-words-20171215-story.html

"Trump administration officials are forbidding 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.

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.""


I'm not sure I understand why this has happened. Is it because the words are controversial?

Is that an onion joke or something? Trump forbidding unpolitically correct words?

 

[psalms 91]

Cencoring words? Wow shades of a dictator? It is a shame that he is so infantile and insecure

 

[tango]

Cencoring words? Wow shades of a dictator? It is a shame that he is so infantile and insecure

Sadly so much political movement over the years has been about censoring speech, whether it be the "loony left" wing of the UK Labour Party seeking to ban nursery rhymes such as "Baa Baa Black Sheep" (apparently it's racist, although the black parents who teach it to their children obviously didn't get that memo) and "The Farmer Wants A Wife" (because, you know, the farmer might be female or - gasp - gay), the endless fussing over whether we should call our fellow human beings with darker pigmentation "African Americans" (even if they are not American), "Negro", "Black", "Persons of Color" etc, or the fussing over whether people who are not fully able-bodied should be called "disabled", "special needs", "handicapped", "handicapable" etc.

As a side note, what's often sadly ironic is that the politically correct terms of choice typically provide less information for those seeking to meet the special needs of those with, well, special needs. For example, if you're catering to someone who is blind in one eye you know they won't have depth perception, but someone who is "partially sighted" might have severe cataracts, they might be blind in one eye, they might be color-blind, they might be totally blind, so the term provides a politically correct descriptor that doesn't offer useful information as to what accommodations they may need.

It's sad when politicians of any persuasion try and manage discussion through the requirement or prohibition of specific terms but it's not as if this is a new thing with Trump.

 

[psalms 91]

Sadly so much political movement over the years has been about censoring speech, whether it be the "loony left" wing of the UK Labour Party seeking to ban nursery rhymes such as "Baa Baa Black Sheep" (apparently it's racist, although the black parents who teach it to their children obviously didn't get that memo) and "The Farmer Wants A Wife" (because, you know, the farmer might be female or - gasp - gay), the endless fussing over whether we should call our fellow human beings with darker pigmentation "African Americans" (even if they are not American), "Negro", "Black", "Persons of Color" etc, or the fussing over whether people who are not fully able-bodied should be called "disabled", "special needs", "handicapped", "handicapable" etc.

As a side note, what's often sadly ironic is that the politically correct terms of choice typically provide less information for those seeking to meet the special needs of those with, well, special needs. For example, if you're catering to someone who is blind in one eye you know they won't have depth perception, but someone who is "partially sighted" might have severe cataracts, they might be blind in one eye, they might be color-blind, they might be totally blind, so the term provides a politically correct descriptor that doesn't offer useful information as to what accommodations they may need.

It's sad when politicians of any persuasion try and manage discussion through the requirement or prohibition of specific terms but it's not as if this is a new thing with Trump.

Sadly yes, it is not new, he is a bully, and nut job and dangerous for this country but we knew what he was before he got elected, I dont know if people thought he would suddenly magically change

 

[Albion]

If you want to be allowed to practice your religion in the future, you'd better hope like anything that that "bully" doesn't stop fighting against the totalitarians who will take that right away from you if given the chance.

 

[Stravinsk]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-cdc-forbidden-words-20171215-story.html

"Trump administration officials are forbidding 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.

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.""


I'm not sure I understand why this has happened. Is it because the words are controversial?

I can understand why general terms like "evidence-based" and "science-based" are excluded. They are very general phrases used as opinion winners. "I make my claims based on science/evidence". Great. Details please. That may be enough for the already swayed but not for me.

"Entitlement","diversity","transgender" - now THIS is curious - why specifically target these terms in publications related to the stated purpose of the agency? Ie: The Center for Disease Control.

This is a budget related ban. I wonder if the Trump Admin is simply trying to weed out some rhetoric the CDC may be using to avoid coming under scrutiny by minority groups.

 

[tango]

Sadly yes, it is not new, he is a bully, and nut job and dangerous for this country but we knew what he was before he got elected, I dont know if people thought he would suddenly magically change

I'm not sure why you feel the need to turn so many things into Trump bashing.

 

[Lamb]

The director of the HHS says there is no ban although the words will be avoided in the budget. At least that's how I read it. You don't hear much about it now in the news which to me means it was just hype to turn our direction elsewhere while something else was happening. And people fell for it!

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

If you want to be allowed to practice your religion in the future, you'd better hope like anything that that "bully" doesn't stop fighting against the totalitarians who will take that right away from you if given the chance.

Hence the reason he got elected. Let's face it.. Hillary Clinton would have been more than happy to curtail Christians' rights while giving more and more concessions to our enemies. We had two dreadful choices last November. We simply chose the less toxic option ( after Benghazi, I wouldn't have elected her to walk my dog, much less lead the United States of America).

 

[Albion]

Hence the reason he got elected. Let's face it.. Hillary Clinton would have been more than happy to curtail Christians' rights while giving more and more concessions to our enemies. We had two dreadful choices last November. We simply chose the less toxic option ( after Benghazi, I wouldn't have elected her to walk my dog, much less lead the United States of America).

Yes, that point is often ignored. Just this AM I was watching a show on TV featuring an author who didn't like Trump and couldn't sympathize with Evangelicals who supported and continue to support him. Trump is a blowhard and said dirty things about women and, what's more, was divorced before entering politics, according to the explanation he gave viewers. .

BUT all that is said as if the evangelicals or anyone else heading to the polls could vote for a saint! In elections, you get choices.

Is that guy not aware that the opponents of the president, the Dems and NeverTrumpers, the Hollywood crowd, et al are the worst kind of gutter dwellers, have no morals, call for assassinating the president, encourage and finance violence, ridicule anyone who is religious, etc. etc.?? Does he not know that Hillary Clinton was the other choice? THAT is what he is saying the American people should have embraced instead!

And even if none of this were the case, find me, please, ANY president or nominee in the past fifty years who meets all the standards that this writer was trying to say are to be expected.

 

[tango]

Sadly it seems pretty common that people will highlight every single thing that The Other Guy has done wrong while conveniently ignoring the failures that Their Guy has.

As you say it's a choice between two candidates (I know there are third party choices and you can write in a name, but realistically speaking either the Republican or the Democrat nominee is going to be the winner). From what I could see it seems like just about any candidate could have beaten Hillary Clinton, and just about any candidate except Hillary Clinton could have beaten Donald Trump.

When lifelong Democrats vote Clinton just to keep Trump out and feel contaminated for doing it, while lifelong Republicans vote Trump just to keep Clinton out and feel contaminated for doing it, you know the choice is as lame as it gets. It's no surprise that the Democrats dislike the Republican candidate and the Republicans dislike the Democrat candidate but when people dislike their own candidate you know it can only get better next time around. At least we can hope so.

 

[Albion]

Sadly it seems pretty common that people will highlight every single thing that The Other Guy has done wrong while conveniently ignoring the failures that Their Guy has.

As you say it's a choice between two candidates (I know there are third party choices and you can write in a name, but realistically speaking either the Republican or the Democrat nominee is going to be the winner). From what I could see it seems like just about any candidate could have beaten Hillary Clinton, and just about any candidate except Hillary Clinton could have beaten Donald Trump.

There's been an increase in people saying that since the election of Donald Trump, but I am sure that no other Republican could have beaten Hillary Clinton, despite everything that should have made her unelectable.

When lifelong Democrats vote Clinton just to keep Trump out and feel contaminated for doing it, while lifelong Republicans vote Trump just to keep Clinton out and feel contaminated for doing it, you know the choice is as lame as it gets. It's no surprise that the Democrats dislike the Republican candidate and the Republicans dislike the Democrat candidate but when people dislike their own candidate you know it can only get better next time around. At least we can hope so.

I wouldn't count on it. When politics heads down some slope, it usually gets worse before it gets better. But that's not the biggest obstacle to what you are hoping for. The biggest obstacle is that the Democratic Party has become a radical, hate-driven party. At the top, at least.

Not every Democrat voter is that way, of course, but the party is very unlikely to put up a moderate-left candidate in 2020. The pressure is too great for that. Instead, a real firebreather like Elizabeth Warren will probably emerge, and we can see the language of some of the contenders already becoming extreme. If they don't do that, they'll seem "soft on Trump."