19 ms·

CDC gets list of forbidden words

382 points by js2 9y ago

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” This administration is using 1984 as a how-to manual.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ams6110 9y ago
  With no explanation as yet offered, I note that some of these words are cliche or "checkbox" words in certain advocacy lexicons. The word "sustainable" is another example, and I'm somewhat surprised it wasn't included.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  We've been in 1984 for much longer than this administration and the previous and the one before that. We've been in Orwell's world longer than I've been alive and longer than my parents have been alive. Obama spent ever day of his tenure at war and bombing people with drones. Bill Clinton was very anti-immigration. Web and Rupert revealed how the CIA was funneling cocaine into the US from South and Central America. This has been happening a long time. President Twitter's idiocy is just batshit insane enough that people yell about it now, but it's all there to make us angry and mad at one another. This is just another thing to make us angry. We are in the 24/7 hate.
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    This is the worst kind of whataboutism. Yes, Obama and Bush and Clinton did things we didn’t like. That doesn’t mean they are even remotely comparable to Trump and his administration.
    - scrollaway 9y ago
      > That doesn’t mean they are even remotely comparable to Trump and his administration. They're not, but the Trump administration has been allowed to get to where it is through the abuse of an increasingly broken system. Every administration puts policies into place that will last longer than the administration itself. For every administration you trust, that enables potential abuse, you have to ask yourself "Maybe I trust the current administration, but what about the next one?". This is a point that I, and many others, tried to make during the Obama era. Unfortunately, few listened. Politicians themselves didn't care. Obama did a lot of wonderful things for the US, but he also centralized a lot of power into the White House, and look how that's turning out. People are so easily tricked into believing the government forever has their best interest at heart, as long as the current person "in charge" is affiliated with their party. Democrats, in years past, enabled today's abuses of power. Republicans today, enabling the abuses of power for the years to come. It's as if the majority of voting citizens have zero ability to predict consequences. djsumdog is right, the system has been broken for a long time. America is just coming to terms with the cultural shock of seeing it all play out at high speed instead of it being a slow boil. I am optimistic however, that this shock will end up being the wake-up call the US needed to start seriously fixing itself, so hope is not lost.
      - grigjd3 9y ago
        You gotta lay at least 50% of the blame on a congress that refused to do anything of value for the centralization of power in the presidency. When the only legislation that can ever be passed in name a bridge after a general, there's serious problems.
        gizmo686 9y ago
        More than 50%. When the legislative branch breaks, the executive branch has 2 options: assume the power that should be in the executive branch; or let the government slowly atrophy due to lack of management. Neither of these are good options, but if I were president, I would view my primary job as keeping the government well functioning. Without congress doing there job, this means increasing the scope of the executive branch.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  Yes, but those are 'war words'. For example - some people view borders as an institutional immorality. Nancy Pelosi has said that America goes from the 'Rocky Mountains down the Andes' and Hillary Clinton as openly called for a borderless North American society. This represents an absolute and fundamental shift in view of citizenry, nationalism and identity. Such views should be allowed in America surely - but should we allow people with 'extremist' agendas to integrate them subtly into our government documents etc.? Those words are banned because they might be used to further a specific political agenda. One could argue it's 'defence' instead of 'offence'. Anyhow - I don't like it and I don't want to defend Trump ... but I do prefer efforts to keep things generally neutral.
- arkona 9y ago
  Daily reminder that war mongerer Barrack Obama won a Nobel Peace prize You don’t get more 1984 than this.
- mjevans 9y ago
  I propose referencing 1984 and adding a second number to indicate the banned word. Assuming the above list is inclusive and in order... s/vulnerable/1984#1/i s/entitlement/1984#2/i s/diversity/1984#3/i s/transgender/1984#4/i s/fetus/1984#5/i s/evidence.?based/1984#6/i s/science.?based/1984#7/i s/logic/1984#0/i (For anyone that doesn't know sed rules, s?regexp?replacement?)
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  Today is there a word more inane and overused as "diversity"? It probably shouldn't be used in government reports. But no word should be banned and attempting to do so is dangerous.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
For fuck sake. What is this? Is there a precedent for this? Have words been banned like this before? If this is legal, I am completely baffled. If it was the standard list of "7 words", I could understand, but this is nuts.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Yes, on the state level. Florida banned climate change. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article1298372...
- esaym 9y ago
  Actually this is just restoring what was already lost. For instance, at least in my school district, if one gives any kind of sex talk or parenting talk to students they are informed by higher faculty to not use the term "baby" unless you are talking about a child that is already born. This is of course to defend the position that a fetus is not a baby and thus not a human. There are laws against killing humans you know, but if something is "sub-human"[0] the game is still on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch
wnevets 9y ago
If your position is righteous and based on facts why would such measures be required? Can someone explain to me how these are actions of well intention and intelligent people?
- craftyguy 9y ago
  Well, because their position is none of those things.
  - grigjd3 9y ago
    yep, more like a puerile attempt to win the culture wars.
roywiggins 9y ago
That's an unusual way to fight for "free speech" and against "political correctness".
- tanilama 9y ago
  They get tons of ideas from China.
- Balgair 9y ago
  6 months ago: "Liberal snowflakes on college campuses need safe spaces, what babies! Haha" Today: "Hey, so don't use these words specifically, it may upset some people" The bald-faced hypocrisy is staggering, not surprising, yet still it makes me trip.
jimjimjim 9y ago
How can anybody actually support the current administration if this sort of thing is what is being pushed. how is this improving the world? how is this better? how is this good? anyone?
- maneesh 9y ago
  "How can anybody actually support Silicon Valley if this sort of thing is what is being pushed. how is this improving the world? how is this better? how is this good?" https://imgur.com/a/vGbLm https://imgur.com/a/vGbLm
  - jimjimjim 9y ago
    interesting article. right. back to the original question...
    - snowpanda 9y ago
      Your question was being answered. You asked how, OP showed you how by showing you that you're likely doing it yourself. Unless you've never used a product from SF.
      - scrollaway 9y ago
        I'm not aware of San Francisco censoring the CDC. And should you point me to such a thing happening, I would certainly be against it. If maneesh's or your point is that you somehow cannot be against this without also being hypocritical, please check your assumptions. "You're likely doing it yourself" is complete bs.
  - wnevets 9y ago
    are you really comparing a title of a post on hacker news to official policy of the united states of america?
    - smsm42 9y ago
moonka 9y ago
And here I was under the impression that Silicon Valley was the real threat to free speech.
- irieikek288383 9y ago
  Oh alright; they both are! Twisted my arm, but I try to be open to compromise
- w-ll 9y ago
  They're many fronts attacking the first amendment, both government and corporations. Silicon Valley does not share the idology it once did. Undoing Net Neutrality is a clear sign of this. It will hurt startups that try and compete in the spaces that Google/Netflix/Spotify occupy before it really hurts consumers. NN cements the current leaders in their position as they can pay the tolls and blocking them would be mass outrage. But gives very little room for a newcomer to compete.
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  Someone alert Sam Altman!
- smsm42 9y ago
  Free speech is big, can have more than one threat at a time.
somebodynew 9y ago
I probably need to preface this comment by making it clear that I'm against banning words and not a fan of Trump. Banning "fetus" and "transgender" is completely indefensible as they're fairly neutral words with no obvious replacement. But for the rest, imagine that rather than a ban this was a style guide recommending against certain words. The common theme in the rest of them is that they don't convey much useful information but have a strong emotional charge. You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence. Coming right out and saying your position is evidence-based just sounds like a way to shut down any objections, even reasoned discussion, by casting the other side as being against science, evidence, or facts in general. This is similar for science-based, vulnerable, and diversity. If you're seen as being "anti-diversity" your argument doesn't matter because you're a misogynistic racist xenophobe. Entitlements is charged term because you've cemented your position on social welfare pretty clearly just by referring to them as entitlements. It's not quite as bad as Derry/Londonderry , but it's certainly not neutral. I don't think any of these words should be banned, but I do think it would be reasonable for government agencies to use neutral language and fully explain their thoughts rather than using emotionally charged buzzwords.
- justinpombrio 9y ago
  > You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence. No, "evidence-based medicine" is a term of art. Maybe you could argue that it took too generic of a name, but that's the word we have. From Wikipedia: "Although all medicine based on science has some degree of empirical support, EBM goes further, classifying evidence by its epistemologic strength and requiring that only the strongest types (coming from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials) can yield strong recommendations; weaker types (such as from case-control studies) can yield only weak recommendations."
  - somebodynew 9y ago
    That's a fair point and a good example of why an outright ban is bad. I don't know if the administration intended to impact the term evidence-based medicine or if it's just collateral damage from a perceived abuse of the prefix evidence-based, but it's only the latter that I would stylistically discourage.
berbec 9y ago
“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” ― George Orwell, 1984
beebmam 9y ago
Censoring the CDC, of all organizations. What a travesty. The entire world looks to the US CDC for guidelines. Let's be clear: The political right in the US pretends to care about free speech until they get serious political power. It wasn't too long ago that conservatives were strongly against the depiction of violence and sex in video games.
- grahamburger 9y ago
  > It wasn't too long ago that conservatives were strongly against the depiction of violence and sex in video games. You might be thinking of Hilary Clinton? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protect...
- mulmen 9y ago
  I don't get the impression that the political right in the United States even pretends to be concerned with free speech.
  - menacingly 9y ago
    Neither end of the political spectrum is interested in free speech right now, they just use different justifications to ban the undesirable thought.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      So what? The GP said the right pretends to care, I say they don't even do that. Other views on the political spectrum have nothing to do with this.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    Unlike the left, of course, which would never even think of instituting speech codes, banning people they don't like from speaking, violently attacking them, suppressing dissenting opinions and using governmental prosecution to win scientific disputes. Let's be clear here - nobody likes the speech they disagree with. That's why we have 1st amendment - so that people won't be tempted too much to go there. They still try all the time - I think that's why it's the first one, because it was clear that's what will start happening immediately, it was the most obvious concern.
tzahola 9y ago
Haha! I’d appreciate such regulations for startup pitches by blacklisting phrases like “deep learning”, “blockchain-based”, “disruptive”, “fast-moving”, “lean”.
WhitneyLand 9y ago
Comments saying some of these words could be used inappropriately are missing the point. Fuck, rat bastard, and many other words may not be appropriate for use either. We don’t start surgically censoring non-elected, non-party affiliated, government staff for theoretical transgressions. Let’s be evidenced based (sorry), and ask how many times in the past this approach would have helped a CDC situation? At least, a situation that does not divide along political lines.
- gizmo686 9y ago
  >Fuck Not the best example. The government censors this word for non government employees (radio, TV).
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    No no no. Fuck is not censored by the US Government. TV and Movie studios censor words themselves with their own Standard and Practices. The idea that there are seven dirty words is a total myth. There are some FCC standards around TV programming before prime time and safe harbour laws, but in general the reason we don't see tits and hear 'fuck' is more to do with the industry than the government.
    - gizmo686 9y ago
      >Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464, prohibits the utterance of any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication. Consistent with a subsequent statute and court case, the Commission's rules prohibit the broadcast of indecent material during the period of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. FCC decisions also prohibit the broadcast of profane material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Civil enforcement of these requirements rests with the FCC, and is an important part of the FCC's overall responsibilities. At the same time, the FCC must be mindful of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 326 of the Communications Act, which prohibit the FCC from censoring program material, or interfering with broadcasters' free speech rights. >Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. >The safe harbor refers to the time period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., local time. During this time period, a station may air indecent and/or profane material. In contrast, there is no safe harbor for the broadcast of obscene material. Obscene material is entitled to no First Amendment protection, and may not be broadcast at any time. To your point: >Are there certain words that are always unlawful? No. https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/obscenity-indecency-profanity-faq https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/obscenity-indece...
tptacek 9y ago
If I understand this well, and it's likely I don't, but for the sake of argument assume I do? Then the most important thing to know about this story is that it's about the President's budget document (which is assembled with input from all the Executive Branch departments). That budget is one of the more elaborate charades in Washington. Congress controls the budget by passing laws allocating funds to departments. The President can't not spend money allocated to those departments. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the budget goes to stuff that is effectively non-discretionary; for instance, to Medicare and Social Security entitlements spending. Banning words, and these words in particular, is batshit. I'm probably not alarming many people on HN when I say this is a batshit administration. But this is about the words the administration is soliciting from a department for an elaborate marketing document. Someone tell me why, apart from the principles and precedents of it all, any of this matters?
- will_brown 9y ago
  >Someone tell me why, apart from the principles and precedents of it all, any of this matters? Like you, I feel I might not understand this in its entirety, but I think the answer is...face saving. It’s counterintuitive but I believe these words are being banned from the budget to allow both parties to pass a maximum CDC budget which may be controversial politically for the GOP to pass and they might otherwise not support. For example, if these words were not censored than you would have an electorate/media (more importantly tea party/primary opponents) that would be able to point at the elected GOP and question why they would pass a budget that includes research for transgender issues, research on fetuses, supporting science based research (rather than faith based), etc... My understanding is the money would still be allocated and budgeted to support all the same issues (which is good). If my interpretation is correct, it might not be so far off from a budget to combat extreme Islam (drones, intelligence, secret courts, etc...) but censoring that phrase publicly because it allows some face saving for political purpose.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    This is an interesting use of the term "face saving". I typically understood it to mean trying to maintain perceptions rather than a way to execute an underhanded agenda.
cs702 9y ago
Wow. Scientific censorship in the US. I'm speechless.
propman 9y ago
Useless bureaucracy and admin making up their own rules to shove down an agenda down our throats. Right or left, this is wrong and I hope the conservatives and libertarians on this board oppose this. I understand excluding diversity because it gets paraded around everywhere and perhaps is not related to the CDC's budget proposals but the rest are very science based and I'm 90% sure diversity is the most accurate term to describe a lot of health related information. Linguistics is important, words are important and there is a culture war happening around words politically from both left and right. The left has been far more aggressive, but the last year the right has been doing the same. Diversity, feminism, multiculturalism, globalism, transgenderism have now turned from something neutral/positive to something negative now and synonymous with a negative connotation. That being said, I'll wait and see why the CDC is doing this. The only word that seems glaringly alarming to me is fetus. Pro or anti-abortion, being able to describe a fetus is mandatory and excluding that might force the CDC to not discuss that aspect with as much detail or even a more nefarious purpose. Transfenderism is something the left has completely banned any debate about and the right have coined with mockery and derision. Gender dysphoria may be a better word to use, but I wouldn't know because of the extremely politically charged environment. This is also pushing an agenda, but might be the correct term, at least historically in the medical sense, but I'm almost certain it's still pushing down political agenda even if transgenderism is not the correct term to use. Entitlement, evidence and science based don't make sense to me. Maybe it's too vague sounding and leads to credibility to the layman when there is little? I guess you could make anything sound factually true by using those words but it doesn't make sense why they'd exclude them. Basically, freedom of speech isn't a left or right issue. Both are guilty and we as Americans should call out any bullshit on both sides because it's a very, very dangerous, slippery slope and I'm glad tbere's an uproar rightfully for this
- grigjd3 9y ago
  You don't think being able to describe diversity in bacteria cultures is something the CDC might want to do?
  - propman 9y ago
    "I'm 90% sure diversity is the most accurate term to describe a lot of health related information." I was just posturing on possible reasons for this insanity and that's the best I could come up with which is why I call this BS and completely unacceptable. If anyone had any doubts that this is a "libtard conspiracy" or whatever they say these days, then I outlined possible reasons to support this and then hopefully emphatically repudiated that.
froo 9y ago
If only George Carlin were still alive. I’m sure he’d have seven words to use to respond to this...
mythrwy 9y ago
Perhaps these words are trigger words? Aren't people in Alabama entitled to their safe spaces? Hearing "Fetus" and "Science-Based" maybe are seen as micro-aggressions? (Which, to be fair, there isn't any sense in offending people. And there may be some bureaucrats that wouldn't mind doing exactly that. The more neutral and non-political you can make communication by government the better. So perhaps that is the motive.)
booleandilemma 9y ago
This gives me ungood bellyfeel.
userbinator 9y ago
All that I can see as a result is that people will just get out the thesaurus and find equivalents/"euphemisms" -- not exactly the same, but "close enough for government work" (no pun intended)... I see mentions of 1984 in the comments, but realistically, if you look at history it seems that attempts at controlling what thoughts people can express have only been met with opposing creativity to great success.
- Sylos 9y ago
  Which does not slim the imbecility of this ban in any way.
amandakalnina 9y ago
Draudzīgākais Kredīts uzņēmumiem tava biznesa izaugsmei https://www.cityfinances.lv/kredits-uznemumiem/ https://www.cityfinances.lv/kredits-uznemumiem/
Sylos 9y ago
Announcing moon missions and starting to ban reasoning with science within one week...
grigjd3 9y ago
I think what strikes me most about this is how incredibly dumb it is. This is clearly meant to be a strike in the culture wars, but has really awful repercussions. Imagine not being able to use phrases like "experiments done in mice fetuses", "effects of entitlements on disease propagation", or "diversity of bacteria found in culture samples". This is ridiculous and borders on inhibiting the CDC from being able to do its job.
yesenadam 9y ago
Wow. Another ever-more-crazy story out of the US. As the page was loading, I first thought the story's title was "Democracy Dies in Darkness" but then realized that's the Washington Post's motto...
JVan27952 9y ago
Banning a word like "evidence-based" implies - don't look at the evidence - just believe what I say. Thats the Trump method. It's not the scientific method. This ban goes against freedom of speech.
dctoedt 9y ago
FTA: "Instead of 'science-based' or 'evidence-based,' the suggested phrase is 'CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with [sic] community standards and wishes,' the person said." [Emphasis added.] Assuming this is accurate, we should contact the Nobel Prize committee, because clearly the Trump administration has figured out how to make viruses and bacteria also take "community standards and wishes" into account.
Davisss 9y ago
Draudzīgākais Kredīts uzņēmumiem https://www.cityfinances.lv/kredits-uznemumiem/ https://www.cityfinances.lv/kredits-uznemumiem/
smsm42 9y ago
Turns out this is all a complete fiction, as far as "forbidden" goes: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/19/fake-news-no-trump-admin-conservatives-at-the-cdc-didnt-try-to-ban-words-like-fetus-and-transgender-n2424580 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/19/fake-news... There was no ban coming from the administration, but a strategy coming from inside CDC to avoid these words so that their proposals would go more smoothly with Republican congressmen.
kunab21 9y ago
Yet more fake news pushed to the top of the stack here. Just because you want to believe it is true, does not make it so.

382 points by js2 9y ago

The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” This administration is using 1984 as a how-to manual.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ams6110 9y ago
With no explanation as yet offered, I note that some of these words are cliche or "checkbox" words in certain advocacy lexicons. The word "sustainable" is another example, and I'm somewhat surprised it wasn't included.
djsumdog 9y ago
We've been in 1984 for much longer than this administration and the previous and the one before that. We've been in Orwell's world longer than I've been alive and longer than my parents have been alive. Obama spent ever day of his tenure at war and bombing people with drones. Bill Clinton was very anti-immigration. Web and Rupert revealed how the CIA was funneling cocaine into the US from South and Central America. This has been happening a long time. President Twitter's idiocy is just batshit insane enough that people yell about it now, but it's all there to make us angry and mad at one another. This is just another thing to make us angry. We are in the 24/7 hate.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  This is the worst kind of whataboutism. Yes, Obama and Bush and Clinton did things we didn’t like. That doesn’t mean they are even remotely comparable to Trump and his administration.
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    > That doesn’t mean they are even remotely comparable to Trump and his administration. They're not, but the Trump administration has been allowed to get to where it is through the abuse of an increasingly broken system. Every administration puts policies into place that will last longer than the administration itself. For every administration you trust, that enables potential abuse, you have to ask yourself "Maybe I trust the current administration, but what about the next one?". This is a point that I, and many others, tried to make during the Obama era. Unfortunately, few listened. Politicians themselves didn't care. Obama did a lot of wonderful things for the US, but he also centralized a lot of power into the White House, and look how that's turning out. People are so easily tricked into believing the government forever has their best interest at heart, as long as the current person "in charge" is affiliated with their party. Democrats, in years past, enabled today's abuses of power. Republicans today, enabling the abuses of power for the years to come. It's as if the majority of voting citizens have zero ability to predict consequences. djsumdog is right, the system has been broken for a long time. America is just coming to terms with the cultural shock of seeing it all play out at high speed instead of it being a slow boil. I am optimistic however, that this shock will end up being the wake-up call the US needed to start seriously fixing itself, so hope is not lost.
    - grigjd3 9y ago
      You gotta lay at least 50% of the blame on a congress that refused to do anything of value for the centralization of power in the presidency. When the only legislation that can ever be passed in name a bridge after a general, there's serious problems.
      - gizmo686 9y ago
        More than 50%. When the legislative branch breaks, the executive branch has 2 options: assume the power that should be in the executive branch; or let the government slowly atrophy due to lack of management. Neither of these are good options, but if I were president, I would view my primary job as keeping the government well functioning. Without congress doing there job, this means increasing the scope of the executive branch.
alexasmyths 9y ago
Yes, but those are 'war words'. For example - some people view borders as an institutional immorality. Nancy Pelosi has said that America goes from the 'Rocky Mountains down the Andes' and Hillary Clinton as openly called for a borderless North American society. This represents an absolute and fundamental shift in view of citizenry, nationalism and identity. Such views should be allowed in America surely - but should we allow people with 'extremist' agendas to integrate them subtly into our government documents etc.? Those words are banned because they might be used to further a specific political agenda. One could argue it's 'defence' instead of 'offence'. Anyhow - I don't like it and I don't want to defend Trump ... but I do prefer efforts to keep things generally neutral.
arkona 9y ago
Daily reminder that war mongerer Barrack Obama won a Nobel Peace prize You don’t get more 1984 than this.
mjevans 9y ago
I propose referencing 1984 and adding a second number to indicate the banned word. Assuming the above list is inclusive and in order... s/vulnerable/1984#1/i s/entitlement/1984#2/i s/diversity/1984#3/i s/transgender/1984#4/i s/fetus/1984#5/i s/evidence.?based/1984#6/i s/science.?based/1984#7/i s/logic/1984#0/i (For anyone that doesn't know sed rules, s?regexp?replacement?)
hyperdunc 9y ago
Today is there a word more inane and overused as "diversity"? It probably shouldn't be used in government reports. But no word should be banned and attempting to do so is dangerous.

jasonkostempski 9y ago

For fuck sake. What is this? Is there a precedent for this? Have words been banned like this before? If this is legal, I am completely baffled. If it was the standard list of "7 words", I could understand, but this is nuts.

CalChris 9y ago
Yes, on the state level. Florida banned climate change. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article1298372...
esaym 9y ago
Actually this is just restoring what was already lost. For instance, at least in my school district, if one gives any kind of sex talk or parenting talk to students they are informed by higher faculty to not use the term "baby" unless you are talking about a child that is already born. This is of course to defend the position that a fetus is not a baby and thus not a human. There are laws against killing humans you know, but if something is "sub-human"[0] the game is still on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch

wnevets 9y ago

If your position is righteous and based on facts why would such measures be required? Can someone explain to me how these are actions of well intention and intelligent people?

craftyguy 9y ago
Well, because their position is none of those things.
- grigjd3 9y ago
  yep, more like a puerile attempt to win the culture wars.

roywiggins 9y ago

That's an unusual way to fight for "free speech" and against "political correctness".

tanilama 9y ago
They get tons of ideas from China.
Balgair 9y ago
6 months ago: "Liberal snowflakes on college campuses need safe spaces, what babies! Haha" Today: "Hey, so don't use these words specifically, it may upset some people" The bald-faced hypocrisy is staggering, not surprising, yet still it makes me trip.

jimjimjim 9y ago

How can anybody actually support the current administration if this sort of thing is what is being pushed. how is this improving the world? how is this better? how is this good? anyone?

maneesh 9y ago
"How can anybody actually support Silicon Valley if this sort of thing is what is being pushed. how is this improving the world? how is this better? how is this good?" https://imgur.com/a/vGbLm https://imgur.com/a/vGbLm
- jimjimjim 9y ago
  interesting article. right. back to the original question...
  - snowpanda 9y ago
    Your question was being answered. You asked how, OP showed you how by showing you that you're likely doing it yourself. Unless you've never used a product from SF.
    - scrollaway 9y ago
      I'm not aware of San Francisco censoring the CDC. And should you point me to such a thing happening, I would certainly be against it. If maneesh's or your point is that you somehow cannot be against this without also being hypocritical, please check your assumptions. "You're likely doing it yourself" is complete bs.
- wnevets 9y ago
  are you really comparing a title of a post on hacker news to official policy of the united states of america?
  - smsm42 9y ago

moonka 9y ago

And here I was under the impression that Silicon Valley was the real threat to free speech.

irieikek288383 9y ago
Oh alright; they both are! Twisted my arm, but I try to be open to compromise
w-ll 9y ago
They're many fronts attacking the first amendment, both government and corporations. Silicon Valley does not share the idology it once did. Undoing Net Neutrality is a clear sign of this. It will hurt startups that try and compete in the spaces that Google/Netflix/Spotify occupy before it really hurts consumers. NN cements the current leaders in their position as they can pay the tolls and blocking them would be mass outrage. But gives very little room for a newcomer to compete.
kelukelugames 9y ago
Someone alert Sam Altman!
smsm42 9y ago
Free speech is big, can have more than one threat at a time.

somebodynew 9y ago

I probably need to preface this comment by making it clear that I'm against banning words and not a fan of Trump. Banning "fetus" and "transgender" is completely indefensible as they're fairly neutral words with no obvious replacement. But for the rest, imagine that rather than a ban this was a style guide recommending against certain words. The common theme in the rest of them is that they don't convey much useful information but have a strong emotional charge. You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence. Coming right out and saying your position is evidence-based just sounds like a way to shut down any objections, even reasoned discussion, by casting the other side as being against science, evidence, or facts in general. This is similar for science-based, vulnerable, and diversity. If you're seen as being "anti-diversity" your argument doesn't matter because you're a misogynistic racist xenophobe. Entitlements is charged term because you've cemented your position on social welfare pretty clearly just by referring to them as entitlements. It's not quite as bad as Derry/Londonderry , but it's certainly not neutral. I don't think any of these words should be banned, but I do think it would be reasonable for government agencies to use neutral language and fully explain their thoughts rather than using emotionally charged buzzwords.

justinpombrio 9y ago
> You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence. No, "evidence-based medicine" is a term of art. Maybe you could argue that it took too generic of a name, but that's the word we have. From Wikipedia: "Although all medicine based on science has some degree of empirical support, EBM goes further, classifying evidence by its epistemologic strength and requiring that only the strongest types (coming from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials) can yield strong recommendations; weaker types (such as from case-control studies) can yield only weak recommendations."
- somebodynew 9y ago
  That's a fair point and a good example of why an outright ban is bad. I don't know if the administration intended to impact the term evidence-based medicine or if it's just collateral damage from a perceived abuse of the prefix evidence-based, but it's only the latter that I would stylistically discourage.

berbec 9y ago

“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” ― George Orwell, 1984

beebmam 9y ago

Censoring the CDC, of all organizations. What a travesty. The entire world looks to the US CDC for guidelines. Let's be clear: The political right in the US pretends to care about free speech until they get serious political power. It wasn't too long ago that conservatives were strongly against the depiction of violence and sex in video games.

grahamburger 9y ago
> It wasn't too long ago that conservatives were strongly against the depiction of violence and sex in video games. You might be thinking of Hilary Clinton? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protect...
mulmen 9y ago
I don't get the impression that the political right in the United States even pretends to be concerned with free speech.
- menacingly 9y ago
  Neither end of the political spectrum is interested in free speech right now, they just use different justifications to ban the undesirable thought.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    So what? The GP said the right pretends to care, I say they don't even do that. Other views on the political spectrum have nothing to do with this.
- smsm42 9y ago
  Unlike the left, of course, which would never even think of instituting speech codes, banning people they don't like from speaking, violently attacking them, suppressing dissenting opinions and using governmental prosecution to win scientific disputes. Let's be clear here - nobody likes the speech they disagree with. That's why we have 1st amendment - so that people won't be tempted too much to go there. They still try all the time - I think that's why it's the first one, because it was clear that's what will start happening immediately, it was the most obvious concern.

tzahola 9y ago

Haha! I’d appreciate such regulations for startup pitches by blacklisting phrases like “deep learning”, “blockchain-based”, “disruptive”, “fast-moving”, “lean”.

WhitneyLand 9y ago

Comments saying some of these words could be used inappropriately are missing the point. Fuck, rat bastard, and many other words may not be appropriate for use either. We don’t start surgically censoring non-elected, non-party affiliated, government staff for theoretical transgressions. Let’s be evidenced based (sorry), and ask how many times in the past this approach would have helped a CDC situation? At least, a situation that does not divide along political lines.

gizmo686 9y ago
>Fuck Not the best example. The government censors this word for non government employees (radio, TV).
- djsumdog 9y ago
  No no no. Fuck is not censored by the US Government. TV and Movie studios censor words themselves with their own Standard and Practices. The idea that there are seven dirty words is a total myth. There are some FCC standards around TV programming before prime time and safe harbour laws, but in general the reason we don't see tits and hear 'fuck' is more to do with the industry than the government.
  - gizmo686 9y ago
    >Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464, prohibits the utterance of any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication. Consistent with a subsequent statute and court case, the Commission's rules prohibit the broadcast of indecent material during the period of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. FCC decisions also prohibit the broadcast of profane material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Civil enforcement of these requirements rests with the FCC, and is an important part of the FCC's overall responsibilities. At the same time, the FCC must be mindful of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 326 of the Communications Act, which prohibit the FCC from censoring program material, or interfering with broadcasters' free speech rights. >Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. >The safe harbor refers to the time period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., local time. During this time period, a station may air indecent and/or profane material. In contrast, there is no safe harbor for the broadcast of obscene material. Obscene material is entitled to no First Amendment protection, and may not be broadcast at any time. To your point: >Are there certain words that are always unlawful? No. https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/obscenity-indecency-profanity-faq https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/obscenity-indece...

tptacek 9y ago

If I understand this well, and it's likely I don't, but for the sake of argument assume I do? Then the most important thing to know about this story is that it's about the President's budget document (which is assembled with input from all the Executive Branch departments). That budget is one of the more elaborate charades in Washington. Congress controls the budget by passing laws allocating funds to departments. The President can't not spend money allocated to those departments. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the budget goes to stuff that is effectively non-discretionary; for instance, to Medicare and Social Security entitlements spending. Banning words, and these words in particular, is batshit. I'm probably not alarming many people on HN when I say this is a batshit administration. But this is about the words the administration is soliciting from a department for an elaborate marketing document. Someone tell me why, apart from the principles and precedents of it all, any of this matters?

will_brown 9y ago
>Someone tell me why, apart from the principles and precedents of it all, any of this matters? Like you, I feel I might not understand this in its entirety, but I think the answer is...face saving. It’s counterintuitive but I believe these words are being banned from the budget to allow both parties to pass a maximum CDC budget which may be controversial politically for the GOP to pass and they might otherwise not support. For example, if these words were not censored than you would have an electorate/media (more importantly tea party/primary opponents) that would be able to point at the elected GOP and question why they would pass a budget that includes research for transgender issues, research on fetuses, supporting science based research (rather than faith based), etc... My understanding is the money would still be allocated and budgeted to support all the same issues (which is good). If my interpretation is correct, it might not be so far off from a budget to combat extreme Islam (drones, intelligence, secret courts, etc...) but censoring that phrase publicly because it allows some face saving for political purpose.
- colordrops 9y ago
  This is an interesting use of the term "face saving". I typically understood it to mean trying to maintain perceptions rather than a way to execute an underhanded agenda.

cs702 9y ago

Wow. Scientific censorship in the US. I'm speechless.

propman 9y ago

Useless bureaucracy and admin making up their own rules to shove down an agenda down our throats. Right or left, this is wrong and I hope the conservatives and libertarians on this board oppose this. I understand excluding diversity because it gets paraded around everywhere and perhaps is not related to the CDC's budget proposals but the rest are very science based and I'm 90% sure diversity is the most accurate term to describe a lot of health related information. Linguistics is important, words are important and there is a culture war happening around words politically from both left and right. The left has been far more aggressive, but the last year the right has been doing the same. Diversity, feminism, multiculturalism, globalism, transgenderism have now turned from something neutral/positive to something negative now and synonymous with a negative connotation. That being said, I'll wait and see why the CDC is doing this. The only word that seems glaringly alarming to me is fetus. Pro or anti-abortion, being able to describe a fetus is mandatory and excluding that might force the CDC to not discuss that aspect with as much detail or even a more nefarious purpose. Transfenderism is something the left has completely banned any debate about and the right have coined with mockery and derision. Gender dysphoria may be a better word to use, but I wouldn't know because of the extremely politically charged environment. This is also pushing an agenda, but might be the correct term, at least historically in the medical sense, but I'm almost certain it's still pushing down political agenda even if transgenderism is not the correct term to use. Entitlement, evidence and science based don't make sense to me. Maybe it's too vague sounding and leads to credibility to the layman when there is little? I guess you could make anything sound factually true by using those words but it doesn't make sense why they'd exclude them. Basically, freedom of speech isn't a left or right issue. Both are guilty and we as Americans should call out any bullshit on both sides because it's a very, very dangerous, slippery slope and I'm glad tbere's an uproar rightfully for this

grigjd3 9y ago
You don't think being able to describe diversity in bacteria cultures is something the CDC might want to do?
- propman 9y ago
  "I'm 90% sure diversity is the most accurate term to describe a lot of health related information." I was just posturing on possible reasons for this insanity and that's the best I could come up with which is why I call this BS and completely unacceptable. If anyone had any doubts that this is a "libtard conspiracy" or whatever they say these days, then I outlined possible reasons to support this and then hopefully emphatically repudiated that.

froo 9y ago

If only George Carlin were still alive. I’m sure he’d have seven words to use to respond to this...

mythrwy 9y ago

Perhaps these words are trigger words? Aren't people in Alabama entitled to their safe spaces? Hearing "Fetus" and "Science-Based" maybe are seen as micro-aggressions? (Which, to be fair, there isn't any sense in offending people. And there may be some bureaucrats that wouldn't mind doing exactly that. The more neutral and non-political you can make communication by government the better. So perhaps that is the motive.)

booleandilemma 9y ago

This gives me ungood bellyfeel.

userbinator 9y ago

All that I can see as a result is that people will just get out the thesaurus and find equivalents/"euphemisms" -- not exactly the same, but "close enough for government work" (no pun intended)... I see mentions of 1984 in the comments, but realistically, if you look at history it seems that attempts at controlling what thoughts people can express have only been met with opposing creativity to great success.

Sylos 9y ago
Which does not slim the imbecility of this ban in any way.

amandakalnina 9y ago

Draudzīgākais Kredīts uzņēmumiem tava biznesa izaugsmei https://www.cityfinances.lv/kredits-uznemumiem/ https://www.cityfinances.lv/kredits-uznemumiem/

Sylos 9y ago

Announcing moon missions and starting to ban reasoning with science within one week...

grigjd3 9y ago

I think what strikes me most about this is how incredibly dumb it is. This is clearly meant to be a strike in the culture wars, but has really awful repercussions. Imagine not being able to use phrases like "experiments done in mice fetuses", "effects of entitlements on disease propagation", or "diversity of bacteria found in culture samples". This is ridiculous and borders on inhibiting the CDC from being able to do its job.

yesenadam 9y ago

Wow. Another ever-more-crazy story out of the US. As the page was loading, I first thought the story's title was "Democracy Dies in Darkness" but then realized that's the Washington Post's motto...

JVan27952 9y ago

Banning a word like "evidence-based" implies - don't look at the evidence - just believe what I say. Thats the Trump method. It's not the scientific method. This ban goes against freedom of speech.

dctoedt 9y ago

FTA: "Instead of 'science-based' or 'evidence-based,' the suggested phrase is 'CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with [sic] community standards and wishes,' the person said." [Emphasis added.] Assuming this is accurate, we should contact the Nobel Prize committee, because clearly the Trump administration has figured out how to make viruses and bacteria also take "community standards and wishes" into account.

Davisss 9y ago

Draudzīgākais Kredīts uzņēmumiem https://www.cityfinances.lv/kredits-uznemumiem/ https://www.cityfinances.lv/kredits-uznemumiem/

smsm42 9y ago

Turns out this is all a complete fiction, as far as "forbidden" goes: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/19/fake-news-no-trump-admin-conservatives-at-the-cdc-didnt-try-to-ban-words-like-fetus-and-transgender-n2424580 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/19/fake-news... There was no ban coming from the administration, but a strategy coming from inside CDC to avoid these words so that their proposals would go more smoothly with Republican congressmen.

kunab21 9y ago

Yet more fake news pushed to the top of the stack here. Just because you want to believe it is true, does not make it so.