24 ms·
CDC: Unpublished manuscripts mentioning certain topics must be pulled or revised
- duxup 2y agoWhy is this submission flagged?
- SlightlyLeftPad 2y agosomething something “overly political”
- hipadev23 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- viraptor 2y agoThere's a contact email in the footer for queries like that and requests to restore.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- arresin 2y ago[flagged]
- _Algernon_ 2y agoI mean I sort of get it. HN isn't really the place for discussing this (ref. HN Guidelines[1]), and judging by the past two weeks, the Trump administration will do something as discussion-worthy as this at least every day for the next 4 years. If each such instance gets a thread here, it will be pretty bad for Hacker News, an Eternal September-like event. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
- sigotirandolas 2y agoI don't find this kind of article interesting or novel (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), specially as someone outside the US.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ggm 2y agoI'm assuming at this point refusing will be a badge of honour but one which is terminal for federal funding, in this 4 year term if not longer. You would need very high confidence in your future career trajectory to do that. We had a mini storm over government censorship of CSIRO science in Australia and it got pretty ugly, but this is much uglier. If they do the same for NSF, earth sciences, DoE and AGW it's going to be pretty nasty. I don't even have to agree with the science. This kind of mass bad-topic-ban is really unhelpful. I wonder if the editorial boards are also going to put up a fight? I can imagine some kind of "retracted because of Trump policy, not because the peer review process asked for it" markers. Genetics, and Lysenkoism comes to mind. A stain on soviet science which echoed down the years.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoIf they do give in though, they might face consequences after Trump’s term. The Supreme Court should definitely chime in quickly here, although the court is stacked way too heavily with conservatives who open to Trump’s new interpretation of the constitution.
- ggm 2y agoHolding back science publication for national security is pretty well understood. I'd be amazed if the funding T&C doesn't have weasel words back to the sixties about requiring permission from the feds to publish, even if it was implicitly assumed most of the time.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoRetraction of previous work for political reasons is a new thing.
- Fomite 2y agoFunder publishing requirements are actually one of the few contractual things my university usually refuses to accept.
- maeil 2y ago
- sambull 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sunshowers 2y ago[flagged]
- ClassyJacket 2y ago[flagged]
- sunshowers 2y agoWhy exactly do you think that a model of gender created by a bunch of people who didn't know anything about germ theory, let alone statistics, describes biological reality? Have you been so unlucky in life that you never ever have considered this?
- somename9 2y agoWhy exactly do you think that a model of gender created by child molester Dr. John Money describes biological reality? Have you never considered this?
- sunshowers 2y agoOn top of being an evil person, Money was quite wrong about gender — not only making intersex mutilation a thing, but also forcibly transitioning a young cis boy in one of the most heartbreaking cases I've ever read about. The modern scientific model is a collaborative effort by many professionals across several fields, refined over several decades. There is no single scientist who is responsible for it. Instead of projecting cis insecurities, it centers trans people and treats us as honest conveyors of our experiences. And it sure is more correct than anything a bunch of illiterate fundies who beat their wives ever dreamed up.
- revx 2y agoThe one that says there are only two genders and disagrees with biological reality, confuses sex and gender, and is mostly about fear instead of education.
- deleted 2y ago
- msie 2y agoThe right: "free speech for me but not for thee."
- teractiveodular 2y ago[flagged]
- Kilenaitor 2y agoThe individual scientists' rights to publish uncensored papers??
- teractiveodular 2y agoThe CDC instruction applies only to researchers actually employed by the CDC (read: the government). Again, I don't like this any more than you do, but your employer generally does get to dictate what you do and say at work.
- rhinoceraptor 2y ago[flagged]
- zmgsabst 2y ago[flagged]
- rhinoceraptor 2y agoWho controls the present controls the past
- masterclef 2y ago[dead]
- baxtr 2y agoLuckily not always the future though.
- arghandugh 2y ago[flagged]
- tomrod 2y agoLiterally, they are following the Playbook of Yarvin and the so called Dark Enlightenment
- xor-eax-eax 2y agoI'm trying to wade through Varoufakis' Technofeudalism. It's obvious most billionaires lack ideological loyalty except which might make them the most money. The problem is the manufacturing of consent amongst the populous of a belief that a tiny fraction of the population should be celebrated and enriched without regard to all other concerns. This, I think, is what allowed inverted totalitarianism to give way to more overt totalitarianism. The US is presently exhibiting themes of ochlocracy, anocracy, kleptocracy, and plutocracy.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pixelesque 2y agoIt's going to be NASA next isn't it, because of climate change and the need to remove any evidence of that and other environmental changes...
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago[flagged]
- itishappy 2y agohttps://appliedsciences.nasa.gov/ https://appliedsciences.nasa.gov/ :(
- NeckBeardPrince 2y agohttps://ntrs.nasa.gov https://ntrs.nasa.gov. Get to downloading!
- 1270018080 2y agoIt'll be tough to silence the overwhelming consensus in essentially every single field of science.
- duxup 2y agoI don’t disagree, although defunding them and threatening their jobs will go a long ways.
- riffraff 2y agoUSDA was told to take down websites mentioning climate change days ago https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/31/trump-order-usda-websites-climate-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/31/trump-order-...
- bpye 2y agohttps://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/ https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/ is still up, for now.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago[flagged]
- xcv123 2y ago[flagged]
- hipadev23 2y ago[flagged]
- WarOnPrivacy 2y agoHN is not a RW stronghold. There are RW posters and I've even seen a few threads dominated by them (but not recently). That's the extent.
- hipadev23 2y agoAgreed. But that's why I said nazi bar. It doesn't mean everyone. Also due to the upvote/downvote/flag system, entire narratives are controlled with a small number of accounts. It's a fundamentally broken approach to online discussions. We need to get rid of upvote/downvotes completely. Retain flagging for vetted users, and punish those who are flagging material that should not be flagged.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago> But that's why I said nazi bar. It doesn't mean everyone. Doesn't nazi bar refer to a bar full of nazis?
- hipadev23 2y agoNo, it doesn't.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
- zmgsabst 2y ago[flagged]
- WarOnPrivacy 2y agoThere isn't anything that any other party has done that is equitable to what is happening now.
- userbinator 2y ago[flagged]
- userbinator 2y agoRelated discussion of the existing ideology: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32595083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32595083
- bagels 2y agoHelp me understand what research was suppressed before under the other 'one ideology'.
- teractiveodular 2y agoStart here: https://www.thefire.org/cases?_page=1&keywords=diversity&_limit=6&topic=32&_order=asc&_sort=date https://www.thefire.org/cases?_page=1&keywords=diversity&_li...
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoAre you seriously trying to use a Charles Koch backed "civil rights" op as your source? Stop eating up billionaire bullshit. They don't care about you. They will gladly use your corpse as cattle feed.
- teractiveodular 2y agoWould you like to offer a substantive critique of any of the highlighted cases? And for what it's worth, here's a later highlighted case where FIRE defended a professor who had been told to stop teaching, and I quote, "woke shit" like gender studies at a state university. https://www.thefire.org/cases/valdosta-state-university-professor-given-ultimatum-stop-teaching-pedagogically-relevant https://www.thefire.org/cases/valdosta-state-university-prof...
- userbinator 2y agobiologically male, biologically female The trans stuff has definitely been controversial, but those phrases are definitely not "woke"?
- oguz-ismail 2y ago[flagged]
- thomasfedb 2y agoThe adverb correctly identifies that it’s more complicated than that. The fantasy that “biological reality” is anything other than substantially more complicated and messy than a neat dichotomy with perfect alignment across sex characteristics and gender is both wrong and obviously so. Nothing in medicine or biology is so simple. There’s always a way for the human organism to be more complicated. It keeps me very busy and in a job.
- Qwertious 2y agoThe implication of the term is that there are other contexts for "male" or "female" other than "biologically". If "non-woke" contexts assume that male/female are inherently biological terms, then "biologically [male/female" is obviously "woke".
- technothrasher 2y agoYour second sentence is tautological, and also begging the question.
- pests 2y agoI don't see the implication. How is it obviously woke?
- honestSysAdmin 2y ago[dead]
- 2y ago
- rhinoceraptor 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tayo42 2y ago"woke" seriously broke the minds of the conservatives in America. Crazy to watch their reaction to this. They can't take their own advice and just mind their own business? Leave people alone? The cdc is political and gets involved in cultural wars? This is already happening with this administration?
- jfengel 2y ago"Woke" is exactly the same thing as "politically correct" used to be, along with "social justice warrior" and "cultural Marxism" and a bunch of other euphemisms for "not us and therefore evil". It's been the same thing for decades. This is just the latest incarnation. People often seem to say that this is the ultimate form of it. It's not. It continues unabated, and in a few years they'll have yet another term for the same thing.
- threeseed 2y agoSame thing with DEI and Affirmative Action. Everything has to be based on merit except for nepotism, legacy admission, donations for favours etc.
- RF_Savage 2y ago"It's all about merit until merit has tits." - Naomi Wu
- belorn 2y agoNo one is interested in eliminating strict gender roles. What people want to do is to exclusively be the one to define and enforce them according to their own believes and views. Affirmative action has a long history of only being applied when the benefiting demographic is the intended benefiting demographic. The same rules apply to freedom of religion, in that only officially approved religious beliefs are allowed to benefit from freedom of religion. The definition of an approved religion get defined by those creating and enforcing the rule, which changes based on who is in power.
- SlightlyLeftPad 2y agoWhat a terrible blow to US Constitutional rights.
- peeters 2y agoIt's a shame most of that research is digital, I'm sure they would have preferred a public book burning like in die gut old days.
- resonious 2y ago[flagged]
- revx 2y agoThere's a few people in here doing whataboutism like this. Where are you getting the idea that the "left" or whoever banned words in scientific articles?
- xcv123 2y ago[flagged]
- thomasfedb 2y agoCommenting the same thing all over the place is really tiresome. Try and actually participate.
- resonious 2y agoI don't mean to refer to scientific articles specifically. Rather, it just seems to me that the left is usually the one coming up with lists of "bad words" (I believe it was Stanford? Some big university a few years back came up with a huge list of "potentially harmful" terms and alternatives you should say instead.) And the right usually gets mad about it, so I'm a little surprised to see them play the same game. It's not a good look (in my eyes).
- immibis 2y agoAnyone is allowed to publish a list of "bad words". Did they force the CDC to retract 5 million perfectly good studies because they contained the words?
- isodev 2y agoRemember how a few days ago, headlines were exploding how DeepSeek wouldn't answer questions about Tiananmen Square and other "sensitive topics"? Well, welcome to the inside part of a great wall in the making. Thoughts and prayers y'all.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- garbagewoman 2y ago[flagged]
- jmg_ 2y agoCare to comment on how CDC resources for primary care providers have been removed related to contraceptive eligibility? https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/hcp/provider-tools/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/hcp/provider-tools/index.h... https://web.archive.org/web/20241219075518/https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/hcp/provider-tools/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20241219075518/https://www.cdc.g... https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=gov.cdc.ondieh.nccdphp.contraception2&hl=en_US https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=gov.cdc.ondieh... https://web.archive.org/web/20241231085620/https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=gov.cdc.ondieh.nccdphp.contraception2&hl=en_US https://web.archive.org/web/20241231085620/https://play.goog...
- rocqua 2y agoChina supresses information because they fear the anger of the oppressed. This censorship is much more petty. "My child hates me, and it can't be my fault. Let's call some modern progress ideology, and stomp all over it". This isn't about repression, it's a show of force. Both for intimidation, and to gather admiration. Because it is cool if you can be above the law. It takes strength to be above the law, so we should respect it. Scary thing is, it seems to be working.
- spuz 2y ago
- thedays 2y agoI am not a lawyer but this CDC order seems contrary to Trump’s recent Executive Order “RESTORING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ENDING FEDERAL CENSORSHIP”. This Executive Order states in part: “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society. … Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to: (a) secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech; (b) ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; … Sec. 3. Ending Censorship of Protected Speech. (a) No Federal department, agency, entity, officer, employee, or agent may act or use any Federal resources in a manner contrary to section 2 of this order.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/rest...
- userbinator 2y agoSomeone should tell him about it then...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- duxup 2y agoGenerally when it comes to Trump it is rhetoric indicating the opposite. He complains about a bias government, to install his own loyalists. Same goes for science. Rule of law…
- liamwire 2y agoOvertures of fascism. I expect we’ll see thinly-veiled euphemisms and rephrasings that just evade the banned list, if not outright refusal. Ultimately this falls short for the same reason that simple filters of all kinds fail in their (apparent) objective, to the extent that it doesn’t even feel like the point is to actually stop the discussion, but rather to send a message.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- riffraff 2y agoThere's a big difference between word filters and this: this one has a chilling effect. The intent is to send a message, but that message is a threat. If you are a spammer and get past the filters you win, if you get past the word filter here the thought police can still decide to punish you. The more successful you are the more likely you are to be punished instead of being rewarded. It will require self-sacrifice to actually work on "dangerous" topics.
- adamiscool8 2y agoThis is a weird way to look at it. There's a shifting of incentives towards less "dangerous" topics. But "dangerous" just means citizens have decided research involving these terms is generally not the highest ROI for taxpayer funding. No one's going to face the wall over private research.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- necovek 2y agoI wonder how will this affect private institutions and private publications? I could imagine people moving away from CDC into private sector, and considering it's long been a "model" US view that things progress best when done in a free market, it might actually be a boon to medical research. But, a couple of quick searches tells me 1/3rd of healthcare costs per person comes from the federal government (data from 2023), and NIH puts majority of it's $48B budget towards external (83%) and internal (11%) research. Obviously, only some research would have (or need to have) the forbidden terminology, so perhaps nothing really happens. Edit: and lest it remains unsaid, let's also take this with a grain of salt until it comes out from multiple sources or officially.
- coldpepper 2y ago[flagged]
- samus 2y agoAccording to TA, this also affects lots of other papers even if they are not central to the topic. The intention is to combat "woke" research, but it creates pure chaos and uncertainty across the whole field. There is no official policy, and every bureaucrat is trying to guess what is going to be permissible in the future and what not. To be on the safe side (i.e., to not get fired), the ban is interpreted broadly.
- roenxi 2y agoHopefully not much. They'll invent some jargon if necessary and move on. The issue with banning "woke ideology" in principle is that it isn't formally defined and doesn't mean anything. And to ban a thing first it has to exist in a detectable way. My guess is there'll be a bit of flailing then everyone will default back to status quo. It isn't possible to implement incoherent policies and it isn't going to do anyone any favours in terms of image to pursue this. Might take 4 months, might take 4 years to blow over.
- fishcrackers 2y ago[dead]
- tenpies 2y ago> While the policy is only meant to apply to work that might be seen as conflicting with President Trump’s executive orders, CDC experts don’t know how to interpret that. This seemed key to me. The managerial/editorial layer is acting in a way that any manager would when there is unclear interpretation: risk-adversity. It's much easier to do than undo, so you stop until things are cleared up. However, it seems the organizational layer whose work is being affected is assuming this risk-adverse interpretation is the new policy coming from the top. No doubt, legacy media will take the same interpretation. If I were to approach this rationally, I would probably want to see clarification before running with the Hitlerian comparisons.
- pjmlp 2y agoThis is what happens when people decide for dictorship, hard times ahead, unfortunately saying we have told you so isn't going to sort out things now.
- xcv123 2y ago[flagged]
- ggm 2y agoNot disputing the right. What do you think about it, as a policy?
- xcv123 2y ago[flagged]
- user9999999999 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ConspiracyFact 2y agoI’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve seen a politician make an absurd campaign promise and then follow through on it successfully. I’d find it terrifying if it weren’t about the most first-world of all first-world problems.
- philipov 2y agoFirst they came for the trade-unionists, but you said nothing because you are not a trade unionist.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mindslight 2y agoIf by first world problems you mean that this destruction of our society is going to give us the traditional living standards of the third world, that seems like something worth worrying about.
- coldpepper 2y agoXi Jinping and his colleagues must be opening a champagne bottle over the US being this stupid. They could have never imagined an enemy so retarded
- SlightlyLeftPad 2y agoIt’s like watching a combined plot of succession and space force.
- aaomidi 2y agoEverything people keep telling me about how bad China is keeps happening here.
- colechristensen 2y agoThis was bin laden’s goal. Making Americans afraid was very successful because it turns out that stoking fear is very profitable and useful for gaining power. Now everyone is taking advantage of it.
- guerrilla 2y agoThis isn't just this person's opion. bin Laden wrote about and spoke about it quite often, even before 9/11.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Philpax 2y agohttps://theonion.com/fbi-uncovers-al-qaeda-plot-to-just-sit-back-and-enjoy-c-1819576375/ https://theonion.com/fbi-uncovers-al-qaeda-plot-to-just-sit-...
- jfengel 2y agoNote that that was published in 2014. Those days seem positively halcyon now.
- 2y ago
- aaron695 2y ago[dead]
- bruce511 2y ago[flagged]
- grahamj 2y agoFuck that. Stand up for what's right.
- bruce511 2y agoThat's my instinctual reaction too. But then the whole federal work force becomes politicized. I mean, if I stand up for what's right, then I can't complain when a right-wing worker does the same when say Obama is in power. If a racist was to follow your logic (allowing each individual to determine their "rightness") and they start applying rules on racist principles, is that OK?
- trimethylpurine 2y agoNo. Because they'd be breaking the law.
- bruce511 2y agoIf Trumps orders, and by extension the CDC orders are unlawful, then a court will decide that. I don't think a CDC employee should break the law, equally I don't think CDC employees should be lawyers interpreting the law. So the point stands. If you're asking employees to rebel against their employers, yet stay within the law, then I guess they need to lawyer up, and hope that (ultimately) Supreme Court judges agree with them.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoTrump ordered to Army Corps of Engineers to just start releasing water from dams, so they did. They them took the initiative upon themselves to stop when it became obvious continuing would just cause damage. Are you saying the Army corps should have waited for a case to make it's way through the supreme court? Our government doesn't run top to bottom, that is how fascism/dictatorships work. Our executive branch executes laws/policy, Trump oversees that, not dictates. Trump does not give federal employees orders. He can only give orders to the military. We also don't go for the 'I was just following what I was told' excuse. In fact, we've executed a whole nations leadership for using that excuse in how they governed.
- evo_9 2y ago[flagged]
- xcv123 2y ago[flagged]
- grahamj 2y agoWould you quit spamming the thread with this? Everyone knows this but it's still a shitty thing to do.
- xcv123 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. I'm not talking about the parent comment, but egregious cases like these: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42858607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42858607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42854194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42854194 You can't post like that here, so I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- grahamj 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoCould you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- grahamj 2y agoI'm finding it difficult to maintain civility when your country is attacking mine. Maybe I'll step away for a bit.
- duxup 2y agoIf the US chooses to opt out of science research, China and others will not. That doesn’t bode well for the US.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- WorkerBee28474 2y agoWait, do you think China is more accepting of LGBT ideology than the USA, even after this directive?
- dyauspitr 2y agoThe trans stuff doesn’t matter much to scientific progress but these regressives are going to kill research in EV, renewable energy, vaccines, public health, climate etc.
- JauntyHatAngle 2y agoI think the idea is that this keyword list will be expanded to include climate change etc over time, or some similar uncontroversial topic scientifically, but controversial socially/religiously that will reduce USA's scientific output in areas that are a genuine competition globally. E.g. climate change research to plan locations for future farming enterprises etc. We shall see if true.
- jprete 2y agoChina doesn't care about climate change either.
- tzs 2y agoThey are building vast amounts of solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power, and for fossil fuels they can't yet get rid of they are replacing old equipment with newer more efficient equipment. New car sales there are over 50% EV or PHEV, up from 7% a few years ago. They currently have the 4th highest percent of EVs in use at 7.6% in 2023, behind Netherlands at 8.3%, Sweden at 11.0%, and Norway at 29.0%. The US is at 2.1%.
- have-a-break 2y ago[flagged]
- Taniwha 2y agoWhy is this flagged? this is important news
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- garbagewoman 2y agohow does its importance compare to all the other similar garbage they are generating? the volume is designed to wear you down
- bufferoverflow 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- p_l 2y ago"Assigned" is used because it refers to what is put into documentation, which can be different actually from what is observed, especially long-term (yes, it happens). But with birth certificate data having huge impact on later life, one needs to take into account for example in studies of rare (not extremely rare) cases including intersex.
- bufferoverflow 2y ago[flagged]
- KevinMS 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- garbagewoman 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jnsaff2 2y agoYea, this is what Ezra Klein seems to think as well. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-trump-column-read.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Androth 2y ago[flagged]
- Mistletoe 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sneak 2y ago[flagged]
- riffraff 2y agoHow does eliminating research that was already done make the government smaller?
- cheema33 2y ago[flagged]
- sixothree 2y agoOh? Name one super power with a weak central government.
- defrost 2y agoIt all depends on definition of "weak central government" .. check back in a week and catch up on the regress being made by the wreckers.
- tarkin2 2y agoSo the US government is cancelling federal research that uses terminology it doesn't like? Isn't this sending an Unamerican view of freedom of thought and expression? And a very dictatorial view of the American government and institutions? All future research must abide by whatever histrionic whim the president has? I could imagine this being news from Belarus
- lazide 2y agoWelcome to the party pal.
- Insanity 2y agoThe entire “freedom” thing in the US has some pretty funky “terms and conditions apply”. I am not sure if anyone actually thinks they are more “free” than other first world countries.
- sixothree 2y agoI live in the Deep South. People here absolutely and unironocally believe they live in the freest country on earth. This view is widespread for a thousand miles.
- rplnt 2y agoThat's by design and not new. The whole nationalist brainwash since early age thing. I always thought the primary benefit is to have enough soldiers to mess stuff up abroad. But of course it helps to ged rid of enemies within, including the existing government structure, rules, and paradoxically constitution.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lolbutserisou 2y ago[dead]
- jfengel 2y ago
- yujzgzc 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- djfobbz 2y ago[flagged]
- pizza 2y agothank you for your input, gpt-4o with web search..
- djfobbz 2y agonice try but no…o3-mini-high
- dyauspitr 2y agoThose are retractions made in good faith not a mass retraction for political reasons.
- remus 2y ago> So what? Blatant government censorship of ideas it doesn't like, that's what! Using tools more usually seen in repressive regimes across the world.
- gmd63 2y agoWhich ten regulations did they cut to introduce this anti-free speech one?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- debeloo 2y agoJudging by the last few days, I'd guess something to do with the aerospace industry.
- impossiblefork 2y ago[flagged]
- justinator 2y agoIt's erasing the very idea of trans folk. That's beyond "quite bad".
- FeepingCreature 2y agoIt is quite amusing how an order that changes language is an existential attack when done by a rightist, but just a request for basic common courtesy when done by a leftist. I'd be much more angry about this if I didn't remember the past decade of language policing. (And no, I don't want to misgender trans people. But I do want leftists to finally be honest that pronouns and the associated language games were and are an attempt to change people's thoughts by hacking their language. Maybe if we all agree that this order is bad, we can remember that when the next pendulum swing comes around.)
- fzeroracer 2y agoYou realize you're saying this in the same thread as the US government demanding a mass retraction of submitted scientific paperwork to facilitate the mass censorship of words and science they don't like, yeah? I assume you know the difference between the president telling you to do something or else and a random nobody telling you to do something.
- FeepingCreature 2y agoI think there is a legal difference, but if the effect is practical exclusion from the field, then I would call the distinction academic.
- fzeroracer 2y agoAgain, we are talking about the president utilizing the power of the US government to censor and control information by directly retracting already printed scientific research. Who are you referring to that is equal in power to the executive?
- nobodywillobsrv 2y ago[flagged]
- jmward01 2y agoWe are now at the digital equivalent of book burning in the 1930's. The parallels are pretty clear. This is the moment in history class that someone raises their hand and asks 'but why didn't anyone stop them?'.
- jaimsam 2y ago[flagged]
- weinzierl 2y agoThere is truth to what you wrote but a major difference is that this is mainly about scientific results now and no matter how it plays out it will mean major damage to science and evidence based research that will take decades to fix. We will lose all the people on the brink of distrusting science.
- jmward01 2y agoThis isn't mainly about scientific results. This is about hate and power. It didn't start here and it won't stop here. History is very clear that this will get even uglier very fast. We have a very small window left to do something to stop it, if we are lucky.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Chance-Device 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Chance-Device 2y ago[flagged]
- pvg 2y agoYou should maybe skip the meta-commentary which is something the site docs specifically ask you to avoid because it's tedious and uninteresting Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. From: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Chance-Device 2y agoThe social dynamics of what’s going on in this thread are extremely relevant, indeed this is the essence of what this whole thing is about. But I suspect you know that already.
- pvg 2y agoThere's invariably some argument that something is 'relevant' in some way. Everything is relevant to something somehow. The aspirational goal of this messageboard is interesting conversation, though, and debating its "social dynamics" in a generic way, especially with a running meta-commentary about the comments and voting of other participants is axiomatically uninteresting here. You might not have known that already but hopefully you do now.
- Chance-Device 2y agoI think it’s more that you’re just trying to silence a point of view you don’t agree with.
- neilv 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 0xbadcafebee 2y agoIf everyone at the CDC quit tomorrow, how hard would it be to create a non-profit and staff it entirely with CDC personnel and resume work? Assuming somehow funding could be acquired. What else would be a barrier? Research labs? Some kind of logistical, organizational, etc partnerships? Access to data? What else? I'm half serious.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tmpz22 2y agoWhere do the funds come from? Zuckerberg? Bezos? They’re not coming from the NIH. Do we crowd fund it? Maybe we create a system where everyone gives a percentage of their income. And we scale it progressively so as not to cause undo hardship to low earners. Eh people won’t go for that. Let’s tax neighboring countries, say 25% of the cost of their traded goods. They won’t retaliate right? Ok go.
- dinoqqq 2y agoThe annual budget is $ 11.5 billion. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2023/s0309-budget.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2023/s0309-budget.html
- AnonymousPlanet 2y agoThey would be replaced by the incompetent who want to shine in the new limelight. That happened in Germany after the Machtergreifung. The new government got rid of the unwanted in science and mathematics and many others quit in protest. The gaps were quickly filled by science backbenchers and cranks who would get rid of all the theories they didn't understand (e.g. parts of number theory) and replaced them by what they called Aryan mathematics and Aryan this or that, towing the line of the people who got them into their new position.
- Perenti 2y agoFreedom of Speech. Democracy. Equality. Equity. I used to know what these words meant, but it seems the old definitions are no longer fit for purpose.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- peignoir 2y ago[flagged]
- userbinator 2y ago[flagged]
- watwut 2y agoIt was evitable, Trump won by low margin. And the opposition toward Musk and Trump and generally republican fascism could be stronger rather then complacent.
- watwut 2y agoScience found conclusions we did not liked, so it must not be science. Because we are so deeply disgusted by people that science studied.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throw_a_grenade 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ngruhn 2y agoAlthough this is terrible, the irony is a bit funny.
- throw_a_grenade 2y agoEvery tit for that is terrible I think. Whether funny or not, I think recognising the pattern and admitting "the other side" also was suppressed (wchichever way is the other side) would be the first step to deescalation. Otherwise, right now DEI went through denial and is in anger.
- guelo 2y agothat is the propaganda that won the day but I don't think it was true to any real extent besides a few celebrities getting "cancelled" on twitter
- throw_a_grenade 2y agoPeople lost their jobs because of this. The first widely published incident was “Donglegate”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donglegate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donglegate, but I'm sure there were earlier cases. Some other were not considered for the positions, because their DEI statement was not sufficiently affirming or whatever. Those are not "few celebrities", and not a propaganda. This really happened, and understanding that this is a real issue might be the first step to understand why the pendulum is in full swing.
- andlamp 2y agoIf obvious and topical facts like Donglegate are still downvoted, I assume that the proponents of the left cancel culture indeed only understand one language, namely counter cancellations. The Python Software Foundation should lose its 501c status because it is an overtly political organization that strays from its purported mission. It should further be defunded by all tech CEOs who were present at Trump's inauguration. Watch this being flagged and another Python marketing post rise to the front page soon for compensation.
- jl6 2y agoThe search and replace they want researchers to do: gender -> personality transgender -> trans-identifying pregnant person -> pregnant woman pregnant people -> pregnant women LGBT -> LGB (or LGB and T separately) transsexual -> ??? presumably trans-identifying non-binary -> ??? presumably something to do with personality assigned male/female at birth -> male/female biologically male/female -> male/female
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Chance-Device 2y ago[flagged]
- gardenhedge 2y agoThat seems less extreme than this thread makes it out to be
- apical_dendrite 2y agoBecause as far as I can tell, he's pulled it straight out of his ass.
- blueflow 2y agoYou know what? These changes make good sense in my head. And I'm still a bit afraid to admit it.
- derbOac 2y agoSo... 1. If true, yes maybe not as bad as it seems at first, but... 2. Some of those terms are not equivalent at all, like the first. The last two are very different, and don't necessarily have anything to do with trans anything in the way this administration is concerned about. 3. This could have all been approached differently and more efficiently.
- 2y ago
- rich_sasha 2y agoIf your thesis is that Trump is awful and will be ousted, and the general public, even the MAGA crowd, will recoil at the devastation he unleashed, I suppose at least it's all mercifully quick. At this rate the US might be in a major recession this year already, with healthcare in disarray and everything else too. Not something to relish, but I suppose better than slogging it out for years. At least he's accelerating the timeline. Of course the alternative is that he's here to stay, in which case the accelerated timeline means more damage. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- delfinom 2y agoThey will just blame Biden (and Obama).
- rich_sasha 2y agoIt works for a little bit. But it stops working very quickly once people is wallets get hit.
- lawn 2y agoRussia, China, and North Korea are counter examples.
- rich_sasha 2y agoThese revolutions were literally won and maintained at gunpoint. Places like HN would be shut and people running them imprisoned. Might still happen to the US but still far away.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- matwood 2y agoBeing ousted is unlikely. It’s very hard to remove a sitting POTUS. Assuming there are midterms, that’s the first opportunity to see what the general public thinks.
- nitwit005 2y agoGiven the costs involved in all the back and forth that a typical retraction involves, I can't see the journals wanting to deal with it.
- tim333 2y agoI see the forbidden terms include "gender" and google scholar returns 5.3 million results with that. It's all a bit silly. Next they'll ban European languages for being gendered.
- sfeng 2y agoThey actually like male/female enforced gender. Maybe what they’ll do is add gender to English grammar!
- defrost 2y agoLa primera pregunta es: Que es mas macho, pineapple o knife? Well, let's see My guess is that a pineapple is more macho than a knife Si! Correcto! Pineapple es mas macho que knife La segunda pregunta es: Que es mas macho, lightbulb o schoolbus? Uh, lightbulb? No! Lo siento, Schoolbus es mas macho que lightbulb Gracias. And we'll be back in un momento ~ https://youtu.be/6mRq1xgKykM?t=95 https://youtu.be/6mRq1xgKykM?t=95
- tim333 2y agoI wonder how that'd go. Like in French "the book is on the table" is "le livre est sur la table" so I guess it'd become something like "he book is on she table"? We might need some new words. Or just steal the French ones "le book is on la table"? Vive la franglais!
- card_zero 2y agoOld English had gender, and the feminine definite article to match masculine the would be theo. (The whole concept of "the" was a late addition, mind you, and Middle English followed soon after and got rid of grammatical gender, apparently because an influx of Nordics had trouble with pronunciation.)
- scirob 2y agointeresting link but too bad that Hacker News can't stay clean of politics. I always come here to chill out and read about peaceful computers
- jheuel 2y agoMaybe it’s time to implement content notes. CN: Politics CN: Rust reimplentation
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- maronato 2y agoI’m sure CDC researchers are thinking the same thing about their work. Unfortunately, totalitarianism is defined by its effects on science, education, and our private life. I expect apolitical topics to become rarer here simply because there will be no escaping it.
- kennysoona 2y agoPolitics now affects everything and you can no longer afford to ignore it IMO. Dangerous times.
- blueflow 2y agohttps://c8.alamy.com/comp/HM4JXK/planet-earth-with-only-united-states-of-america-3d-illustration-HM4JXK.jpg https://c8.alamy.com/comp/HM4JXK/planet-earth-with-only-unit...
- kennysoona 2y agoNot sure what you're trying to communicate there, friend.
- xanderlewis 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- xanderlewis 2y agoThanks for proving my point!
- lifeisstillgood 2y agoI am truly utterly dismayed that any fool could attack the very foundations of science like this. The only interesting thing is how a Supreme Court might react to a scientist challenging this blocks his right to free speech. The test would be which is greater - the ideology or the law …
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- noobermin 2y agoThis is literal political correctness. I guess when it's your censors in power, big government is fine and dandy.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bborud 2y ago[flagged]
- yladiz 2y agoI don’t get your point. Are you saying that gender studies in science is political?
- bborud 2y agoI was responding to the following > I guess when it's your censors in power, big government is fine and dandy. Perhaps I misunderstood, but my point was that scientific truth should under no circumstances be subject to political point of view. If you want to argue against scientific result you do so by producing a scientific argument.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoI'm assuming you are not a native English speaker (or at least not an English speaker in the US). Saying something is "fine and dandy" almost universally implies sarcasm.
- tsimionescu 2y agoThe point the poster above was making is that banning certain words in all published research is literally political correctness, just of the opposite persuasion than typically considered. As such, it's deeply hypocritical that the very people who complained constantly about the perils of political correctness are now gleefully applying it themselves, and even more forcefully than the left ever did.
- wesselbindt 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- baxtr 2y ago- Heinrich Heine
- concerndc1tizen 2y agoDoes this mean that they also have unconstrained control over the weaponized diseases created and stored in laboratories? Should I be concerned that they may break all treaties and engage in biological warfare with the EU?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- microtonal 2y agoUnlikely, France and the UK have nukes (yes, the UK is not in the EU). They will just attempt the same playbook in Europe. In fact, Elon is already at it in Germany and the UK.
- tremon 2y agoIf you can be concerned without it affecting your daily mood, I would answer yes. If your disposition doesn't allow for that kind of detachment, I'd say there's still plenty of time for concern later.
- aithrowawaycomm 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fujinghg 2y agoRetracted
- andyjohnson0 2y agoThats Paul Graham the co-founder of Y Combinator, which runs this site. Afaik he's not connected with Cloudflare.
- belorn 2y agoFrom my read of the article, aggressively performative moralism from either political side is bad. If we see it as human nature, then changes in political winds will do nothing to eliminate the underlying need for that kind of behavior. I do find it interesting that this kind of counter-reaction from the right is happening during a period where the left initiatives has mostly lost steam. As the quoted article says, Wokeness is already in retreat. Universities got in hot water over all the pre-filtering of students based on gender, race and religion. Companies has lost interest in diversity hiring, and moderation/banning on social media is no longer seen as the silver bullet. The code of conduct wave has lost speed, and the rush to eliminate "bad" terminologies from standards seems to have lost interests.
- talldayo 2y agoIt's been two weeks. If Trump's second administration is anything like his first, he'll have his executive orders rescinded the second his butt leaves the seat and both sides will start sharpening their knives. We'll be lucky if Trump's rhetoric doesn't kill any more pregnant protestors this time around. America's GOP ironically faces the same issue as the DNC, at this point. They can't elect a candidate that actually supports their beliefs, but they can get people to vote for an extremist that pretends to represent them. Today's conservatives have basically declared bankruptcy on the GOP's belief in smaller government, free trade and imperial detente. It's gotten to the point that "wokeness" is a relatively rational alternative if it means staying in NATO and not harassing the EU/Canada.
- gtsop 2y ago[flagged]
- locallost 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- yawboakye 2y agowith all due respect, some of these journals got themselves into untenable positions that require twisting one’s self into a pretzel to defend their practices and decisions. for example, i had to cancel my acm subscription because the communications deteriorated in quality, shifting focus from publishing more on the science and practice of computing to sociopolitical issues. there was more articles on social intervention, blacks/minorities in tech, etc that reduced the useful content to about 40% of the journal, imo. not what i signed up for even though the identity police will help me know that i’m a minority in computing—a fact i wasn’t aware of until recently. i guess at some point in these last 8 years or so, one accrued extra points for publishing articles along those lines. who knows, it probably earned acm more subscriptions, donations, pats on the back, sensitivity points, etc. and so it reinforced itself and resulted in even more sociopolitical articles. but it was a letdown for someone who wanted to passively follow developments in computing. so i left.
- apical_dendrite 2y agoPublishing no science at all, or only once it's been thoroughly scrubbed of all mentions of certain topics and the researchers threatened or punished is much, much worse than publishing too much on topics that you don't care about. Take the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which is the most prominent public health publication in the US (the first reports of AIDS were published there for instance). It's not being published at all now. If/when they start publishing it again, it will be highly censored, particularly on topics that are extremely relevant to public health (if these rules were in place in the 80s, how would they have reported on AIDS?) That's so much worse than having too high a percentage of content discussing gender or whatever.
- gedy 2y ago> Publishing no science at all, or only once it's been thoroughly scrubbed of all mentions of certain topics and the researchers threatened or punished is much, much worse You know that much social science research, especially on hot button topics, has already been dealing with censorship and academic shunning for years. I'm not equivocating with EO, etc but that is bad too.
- ninalanyon 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- TheOtherHobbes 2y agoThis is true, but the biology of gender - including gender dysphoria - is established science. There is no ambiguity about it. It's only "offensive" to people who don't like how reality works. Which is clearly the real problem here. Pretending otherwise is gaslighting, because they're doing the same thing to climate change research and pandemic research. And there's a good chance vaccines and other public health measures will be next. This is not a rational government for rational people planning a rational future. This is a government of angry anti-rational cranks with mental health issues working out those issues in public, to the detriment of everyone except a small cadre of multi-billionaires who share the same psychology, but whose wealth will (somewhat) protect them from consequences the rest of us will have to live with.
- _heimdall 2y ago> but the biology of gender - including gender dysphoria - is established science Maybe my education is just getting out of date, but isn't the biological side of that topic sex while gender is generally referring to more of the social constructs like expected social roles and behaviors? I though body or gender dysmorphia would in fact be tied to gender rather than sex because it is more of a psychology question than a biological one.
- IX-103 2y agofMRI studies have found differences in the brain that are highly correlated with gender dysmorphia. So while we may treat it as a psychological condition, it, like many other psychological conditions, also has an underlying biological basis.
- _heimdall 2y agoCorrelation still doesn't tell us too much though. In general its nearly impossible to find likely causation for psychological conditions. That doesn't mean the links aren't there, its seems likely to me that there is a biological factor, its just really hard or impossible to design proper studies for causation.
- zoom6628 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lrk12312731 2y ago[flagged]
- ghostDancer 2y ago[flagged]
- lelanthran 2y agoHaving seen the word list change, all it is doing is rolling back terms that were introduced and forced into use by the left. You're just complaining that the newspeak is being undone.
- ghostDancer 2y agoYes exactly the same they are doing with global warming and climate change. words invented by the left.
- honestSysAdmin 2y ago[flagged]
- jfengel 2y ago[flagged]
- honestSysAdmin 2y ago[flagged]
- casenmgreen 2y agoThis is darkness. State mandated lists of forbidden words. Trump's cat's paw proposing Constitutional amendment for a third term for Trump (but not previous Presidents). We can be sure at the end of such a third term, another amendment would be tabled. The recent election, won by deception; enough people believed the lies that the election was taken. This is not democracy - it is something only which looks like democracy, because there is an election. An actual election requires voters to be well-informed. The FBI staff involved in the investigation, fired. This is vindictive; they were doing their job.
- vlan0 2y agoIt's quite alarming. And it seems departments are complicit. Which is further alarming. We need Governors, AGs, and mayors to refuse to comply with unlawful federal directives. If everyone just falls in line, what levers can we pull? Feels like at that point, civil war might be upon us.
- casenmgreen 2y agoGovernment has accumulated enormous power over the centuries. Now Government goes bad, this becomes very clear.
- vlan0 2y agoYou're not wrong. We've lost the plot on what value government provides. It should be about community. People having agency and coming together because we see our selves in our neighbors.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoYes, we also lost the plot on what government should be. It should be a tool for positive some collaboration, on projects that most people can agree on. It should not be a club for beating each other over the head. I can't get an Obamacare protest poster out of my mind that sums up how democracy fails. It raid "If you shove this down our throat, We will shove it up your asses". This isn't to say democrats started it, but emblematic of the failure mode.
- throw12312899 2y ago[flagged]
- backwash663 2y ago[flagged]
- debeloo 2y ago"Of the 4,700 newspapers published in Germany when the Nazis took power in 1933, no more that 1,100 remained. Approximately half were still in the hands of private or institutional owners, but these newspapers operated in strict compliance with government press laws and published material only in accordance with directives issued by the Ministry of Propaganda." https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-press-in-the-third-reich#toward-the-end-of-world-war-ii-3 https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-press-...
- derbOac 2y ago"Efficiency".
- monetus 2y agoI'm surprised they haven't started saying phrases like 'useless eaters'
- narrator 2y ago[flagged]
- vladms 2y agoAgreed upon? Or taught in a certain way? From far away (Europe) I don't see a big difference between the multiple "fanatical" groups that I hear about in US that define one thing or another "their way" and everybody else's opinion it's wrong. And that covers a wide range of topics (like: religion, guns, transportation, gender, etc.) And just because some people are fanatical on a topic, does not mean there are not huge issues around those topics. Just as an example on gender, the horrible violence that was (and probably) inflicted to women (extreme examples: Pelicot and Fritzl cases) But sure, it is easier to argue on useless definitions (either for or against) that try to address root causes...
- harimau777 2y agoI think you may be misunderstanding what's happening. The goal is not to change the meaning of words, it is to explore greater nuance in order to expand the ideas that people are able to consider. In the case of woman, the recognition is that "woman" as commonly used conflates two separate ideas: The gender that someone was assigned at birth (which in the vast majority of cases means someone's biology) and the social constructs that define "woman" (e.g. dress, role in society, acceptable behavior, etc.). Separating conflated ideas allows people to think in more detail since they can consider them separately.
- narrator 2y agoMake a brand new word then. Even if you want to add all these layers to societal interaction we can call people who want a different identity "Gender Identified Woman." Don't confuse the meaning of the existing word and pretend it's necessary. That's another tactic is conflating categories. Usually there's some sympathetic category that is a tiny amount of people, like genuine at-birth hermaphrodites, and they argue about that while at the same time pretending all that stuff applies to men who want to be housed in women's prisons. One thing that drives me nuts with this language stuff lately is how the word "Partner" came to mean romantic partner because people can't just be bothered to say "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" anymore. Now, when people introduce their "partner" in a context where it's ambiguous whether it's personal or business "partner" I have to wonder in which sense do they mean it.
- apexalpha 2y agoI'm looking forward to the first ChatGPT response saying it can't talk about certain topics.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- figassis 2y ago[flagged]
- whatshisface 2y agoWhat there's absolutely no chance of is that bad science can be distinguished at the level of executive action.
- allturtles 2y ago...and less chance that it can be distinguished by applying a regex to the text of papers.
- figassis 2y agoI think the EO is for review, not retractions correct?
- tremon 2y agoOf course there is a chance. The question you should be asking is rather: is the change pushed by the administration more likely to produce more "good" science or more "bad"? And the answer to that question seems obvious to me.
- notwhereyouare 2y agoremember, gender is a human concept. sex is gene based
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stonemetal 2y ago>is there a chance we had pseudo gender science as well It wouldn't surprise me if there were a bad actor or two, but suggesting everything in the area is "bad" would.
- jdietrich 2y agoIf you speak to any academic working in a "controversial" field, it becomes readily apparent that a lot of meritless papers are getting through peer review because their conclusions agree with a particular orthodoxy and vice-versa. The measure we're discussing is crude, heavy-handed and likely quite destructive, but I can't help but see it as a counter-reaction to an equally destructive opposing trend. Numerous academics have had their careers abruptly ended in recent years because they discovered the "wrong" facts; a vastly larger number have self-censored for fear of being targeted by a partisan campaign. Sadly, the politicisation of academia is so acute that I expect it will take many decades of wild over-correction and counter-correction to remedy, if it is in fact possible to remedy. https://iopenshell.usc.edu/pubs/pdf/pnas-scientific_censorship_by_scientists.pdf https://iopenshell.usc.edu/pubs/pdf/pnas-scientific_censorsh...
- jimmydoe 2y ago[flagged]
- dboreham 2y ago[flagged]
- whatshisface 2y agoBeing mad that young people are using a social network / exposing themselves to media from another country is one of the first plays in the book.
- jasonlotito 2y agoThis is part of the administration as defining all humans are neither male nor female — or, due to the presence of both Müllerian ducts and Wolffian ducts in early embryos, that all humans are both sexes at once. More importantly, they've made it clear you shouldn't trust the government, so they are going out of their way to prove that is the case.
- chasd00 2y agoThe only proof I see in the article is a picture of part of an email taken by a cellphone camera. Can anyone link to the official policy/order?
- apical_dendrite 2y agoYou can just go to the CDC website. The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which is the most prominent US public health publication, hasn't been published since the inauguration. That has not happened in over 60 years. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html
- chasd00 2y agoSorry, I mean the order described in the article requiring a list of words to be removed.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gurumeditations 2y ago[flagged]
- givemeethekeys 2y agoIt isn't banned, it just won't be state funded.
- ADeerAppeared 2y ago> It isn't banned Yet. They have clearly voiced their desire for this. > it just won't be state funded. This isn't just "The government is not funding research into this", this is the government maintaining a list of thoughtcrime and banning researchers from using words.
- dcow 2y agoNo it’s not. I am free to publish whatever my crazy mind can cook up. The government’s policy on what an acceptable bar for “take it seriously” is doesn’t change that.
- agieocean 2y agoAs someone who has been censored and who has watched my friends be censored for being trans people and talking about it we are most certainly not "free to publish whatever".
- givemeethekeys 2y agoHow were you censored? Did the government make your ISP block your website? Did you get arrested for distributing a magazine?
- tiewdhu5es 2y ago[flagged]
- EchoReflection 2y ago[flagged]
- wahnfrieden 2y agoCoverage: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/19/the-madness-of-crowds-review-gender-race-identity-douglas-murray https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/19/the-madness-of... (no I am not “liberal”)
- theptip 2y agoSo, a historical question - did these terms such as “pregnant person” get introduced by administrative diktat or by gradual evolution? I’m curious about the provenance of such terminology. Administrators have elsewhere made changes like renaming manholes “maintenance holes”, is this mostly rolling back such decisions (in a characteristic bulldozer/chaotic style of course)?
- rsingel 2y agoLanguage changes. There's been lots of inclusive changes that people have adopted without even knowing. Police officer and firefighter are pretty ingrained now, but those weren't the dominant terms just 30 years ago
- zzrzzr 2y agoThe difference is that police officer and firefighter are roles that can be occupied by people of either sex, so the change of language from policeman and fireman made sense in that context. By contrast, pregnancy is a state of being that is by its very nature female-only. Males cannot become pregnant, as by definition they lack a female reproductive system. The "pregnant people" terminology implies that pregnancy is something that affects all people, male and female alike. But this is of course not true at all. It's also not inclusive - consider that much of the sex-based oppression women experience goes back to the ability to conceive children. "Pregnant people" discards and downplays all of that.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- monetus 2y agoSome people have unusual chromosomes, ie. Not women or men's, and they can still get pregnant. Other people transition but still have kids. Sex or gender; the language can apply just fine to anyone who gets pregnant and is appropriately vague. I am fairly certain the term isn't one of disrespect to women's rights or accomplishments.
- SebFender 2y agoWhile the intention behind “woke” research may have been to promote inclusivity and address historical injustices, its execution sometimes led to unintended consequences. By prioritizing ideological alignment over rigorous methodology, some studies may have compromised objectivity, breadth, or practical applicability. The goal of creating space for marginalized voices was important, but in some cases, this approach limited open discourse, dismissed alternative perspectives, or failed to produce the most balanced conclusions. That said, the push for inclusivity did bring valuable insights and necessary corrections to many fields. However, for research to serve everyone effectively, it must remain grounded in evidence, open debate, and methodological rigor—ensuring that progress is both fair and sustainable.
- Friedduck 2y agoHaving talked to a couple of people in the CDC I fear the worst. They’re not allowed to participate with the WHO outside of the agency (even on their own time). The employees are largely censored from expressing their opinion on any topic, anywhere. They were talking about getting work outside of the States. These are smart, dedicated people who are boots-on-the-ground for crises like Ebola, and I wonder about the purpose of the agency and our ability to respond to the next event (with bird flu looming on the horizon). So research aside, our incident response has already been compromised, and we’re just seeing the beginning.