Seven Little Words: CDC gets list of forbidden words

These guys are such idiots. The professionals working at the CDC must be going nuts with this nonsense.

WTAF?

They're bright people at the CDC. They can find some good synonyms and work-arounds. But this is absolute bullshit.

Right on. And in addition, they're stupid in Washington so even alternative spellings by CDC (e.g. foetus) might sneak by.

Edit: prompted by admin's comment below: There are some people in Washington who may be unaware that there are multiple spellings for some of these words, and so alternative spellings are also an option.

(But, this version of the sentiment is less snappy.)

This is double plus ungood.

Ignorance is strength.

Another list of seven 'forbidden' words. Where is George Carlin when we need him? Oh, yeah, in another place, shaking his head sadly that things never change.

And, a sentence using all of them: It is both science-based and evidence-based that the diversity of the vulnerable transgender fetus is an entitlement.
(It would flow more smoothly if I used the form of 'science and evidence-based' but that seemed to be cheating.

AW Admin said:

I'm scratching my head over the underlying agendas; I am in particular stumped by the inclusion of "entitlement." Because that's one of the words the #45 and the more anti-public programs funded by taxes people like to use with entirely negative connotations.

Click to expand...

It's the Evangelical extremists that Trump has installed in all sorts of administrative positions.

GW Bush put like-minded people in jobs overseeing NASA and the National Parks. They put limits on NASA referring to or mentioning global warming, but they also instructed NASA personnel in public education jobs or those on the lecture circuit not to mention the Big Bang or anything that conflicted with Christian Creationism.

In the Grand Canyon bookstore they wanted to put religious books claiming the Grand Canyon formed in Noah's Flood in the science section of the book store. Later, after an enormous outpouring from the scientific community they claimed it wasn't true and we were mistaken because the bookstore was small and didn't have a science section.

Dr Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer, Discovery Magazine: Bush White House still promoting creationism

According to this press release from PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), Bush White House appointees are suppressing real science in order to promote creationism. Specifically, at the Grand Canyon National Park, a book is on sale that says the canyon was formed in Noah’s flood. Also, guides at the park are not allowed to answer questions about how old the canyon is, despite scientists’ incredibly detailed and intricate knowledge of the formation mechanism, scheme, and history of the canyon (hint: some of the oldest rocks in the canyon are two billion years old).

How angry does this make me? Well, how hot is a supernova? That’s about the same level.

It’s not bad enough that this White House is stepping on the throat of science everywhere it can, but now this Administration (through proxy appointees) is actively engaging in promoting a belief system which is demonstrably false… oh, and it happens to be unconstitutional, too. The very first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution really could not be any more clear on this....

As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan…​

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt these are the beliefs of Little Donnie Two Scoops (sorry, couldn't help myself ). They are the beliefs of the Evangelicals he's gotten in bed with because they each smell people they can con for their own gain.

Alessandra Kelley said:

“Diversity”?

”Evidence-based”?

”Science-based”?

Click to expand...

At least the last two there are easy to replace with: "real" and "fact" and "true."

IIRC "evidence-based" was a capitulation to religious/Fox news/etc, who wanted an even playing field with the established "faith-based" terminology.

I think it's great if we can ditch "evidence based" and go back to "factual."

I see stuff like this, and I just want to grab everyone who shrugged off their chance to stop this in 2016 by not voting and shake them senseless...

Patty said:

At least the last two there are easy to replace with: "real" and "fact" and "true."

IIRC "evidence-based" was a capitulation to religious/Fox news/etc, who wanted an even playing field with the established "faith-based" terminology.

I think it's great if we can ditch "evidence based" and go back to "factual."

Click to expand...

The challenge here is that scientists don't qualify everything, or even most of the things we "know," as facts per se. One generally cannot examine every grain of sand on every beach in the world (metaphorically speaking), so science based knowledge is nearly always theoretical and subject to refinement, even abandonment, if better evidence becomes available. This is something laypeople like to use against scientific theories and hypotheses that are extremely well tested and extremely unlikely to be dethroned. But calling science based information with the word "facts" may well come back to bite us on the butt when some of these ideas are falsified or refined.

The difference, of course, is that a competing theory or hypothesis won't supplant an older one unless the newer one is even more rigorously tested and explains everything the old theory or hypothesis did and more.

The disingenuous Right doesn't care about subjecting their own ideas to the same level of scrutiny, however, and they try to cherry pick data they think are consistent with their own ideas while disregarding the data that falsify them. What they really want is to sow seeds of doubt about the ideas that are inconvenient for their agenda. Dictating the words people can use when discussing theories, hypotheses, and data is part of that strategy.

I find this absolutely chilling. There are things that have made me angry, and things that have made me afraid, but I'm not sure anything's twisted my gut like this one has.

At the risk of playing the "I have friends who are..." card - my daughter knows multiple transgender children. Right now their worries are about how their families and friends are reacting, which is difficult enough. These are people our government is trying to make invisible.

So much for free speech.

I'm baffled that this is even legal. Double-think at its finest. It's scary.

Roxxsmom said:

But calling science based information with the word "facts" may well come back to bite us on the butt when some of these ideas are falsified or refined.

Click to expand...

Yes. You are (absolutely) right, but....

amergina said:

It only makes me want to be more visible and in your face.

Click to expand...

I'm with Amergina. Bring it. The people who 'don't like' words like evidence and can't be bothered to understand how a hypothesis differs from a theory aren't going to engage forthrightly regardless.

I expect the CDC science people to be smarter than the White House and work around the terms. Just to piss them off.


> I'm baffled that this is even legal.

It is? Where did you get that?


-cb

Raindrop said:

I'm baffled that this is even legal. Double-think at its finest. It's scary.

Click to expand...

It's legal if they get away with it. Like seating blatantly unqualified judicial nominees and presidents violating emoluments clauses in the Constitution.

Remember, every government atrocity in any country ever was technically legal because it was made to be legal...