CDC Director Says No Words Are Actually Banned At the CDC (pbs.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CDC Director Says No Words Are Actually Banned At the CDC (pbs.org)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday December 18, 2017 @10:40AM from the watch-your-mouth dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from PBS: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald on Sunday addressed a report that President Donald Trump's administration had banned the CDC from using seven words or phrases in next year's budget documents. The terms are "fetus," "transgender," "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "evidence-based" and "science-based," according to a story first reported on Friday in The Washington Post. But Fitzgerald said in a series of tweets on Sunday said there are "no banned words," while emphasizing the agency's commitment to data-driven science. "CDC has a long-standing history of making public health and budget decisions that are based on the best available science and data and for the benefit of all people -- and we will continue to do so," she said.

A group of the agency's policy analysts said senior officials at the CDC informed them about the banned words on Thursday, according to the Post's report. In some cases, the analysts were reportedly given replacement phrases to use instead. But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited "a few" CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, said the reported decree on banned words was a misrepresentation.

177 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

An easy way to prove it..... by Puls4r · 2017-12-18 10:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Would have been officially send out documentation using the words "fetus," "transgender," "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "evidence-based" and "science-based". The fact that her statement carefully avoided saying any of those just throws more fuel on the fire.
1. Re:An easy way to prove it..... by Rick+Schumann · 2017-12-18 10:55 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Maybe they just need to use a leet-speak translator to get around word filters:
  
  "f37u5"
  "7r4n563nd3r"
  "vuln3r4bl3"
  "3n717l3m3n7"
  "d1v3r517y"
  "3v1d3nc3-b453d"
  "5c13nc3-b453d"
2. Re:An easy way to prove it..... by RightwingNutjob · 2017-12-18 11:22 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Evidence-based entitlements for diverse trans-gendered fetuses are vulnerable to science-based bans.
3. Re:An easy way to prove it..... by skovnymfe · 2017-12-18 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Science-based and evidence-based reports show transgender fetuses are vulnerable to diversity entitlement.
  Message decoded.
4. Re:An easy way to prove it..... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 22:13 · Score: 0
  
  it's not a ban. it's a tactic to fool republicans... there is some sort of difference there, but not much really.
5. Re:An easy way to prove it..... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-19 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  More to the point, someone with more time on their hands should try to go back over the last 8 years of documentation from the CDC and see how often those terms come up.
  And then as an ongoing project while a certain individual is in office, continue to collect all documentation they release - and see if those terms have mysteriously disappeared.
So less banning, more sugar-coating... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 10:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

...to *prevent* controversial topics from getting blocked by ideologues in the budget approval chain.
1. Re:So less banning, more sugar-coating... by Obfuscant · 2017-12-18 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Much like we now say "infrastructure investment" instead of "taxes", and "budget cut" instead of "not getting as much of an increase as you wanted".
2. Re:So less banning, more sugar-coating... by RightwingNutjob · 2017-12-18 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  And "sustainable" for overly-expensive and poor quality.
3. Re:So less banning, more sugar-coating... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  And "sustainable" for overly-expensive and poor quality.
  It is more sustainable to have good quality equipment that you can fix, than some crap carefully built with planned obsolescence in mind. Of course, properly built and fixable costs more than a piece of crap, but you're user name explains it all and you can't be bothered to think about anything for more than three seconds...
4. Re:So less banning, more sugar-coating... by mlw4428 · 2017-12-19 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Republican snowflakes melt at mildly inflammatory things.
Nor did she deny that they HAD been banned by WindBourne · 2017-12-18 10:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

She said that the words are NOT banned, BUT when asked if they had been banned, she would not answer the question.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:Nor did she deny that they HAD been banned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps it might be that she already answered the fucking question and didn't feel the need to re-answer the same question phrased differently.
2. Re:Nor did she deny that they HAD been banned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  nope.
  But you can keep trying to lie for her and drump.
3. Re:Nor did she deny that they HAD been banned by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2017-12-18 11:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  She said that the words are NOT banned, BUT when asked if they had been banned, she would not answer the question.
  "The banning of words has now been banned. Those responsible for the banning have now been banned."
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
4. Re:Nor did she deny that they HAD been banned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  Here is the thing asswipe. I fucking HATE Trump. Absolutely fucking detest the asshole. I'm not remotely defending Trump or the CDC director. Somehow I seriously doubt that they banned those words and then suddenly decide, oh we decided to unban them now. You give this administration entirely too much credit.
  I seriously hate all the fucking politicians in this country, but for fuck sakes, this advice was obviously given to try to help ram their budget through a GOP controlled Congress that loses its goddamn mind over anything that doesn't fit the fairy tales in the Bible. Some would argue that excluding these words is in fact a pragmatic action.
5. Re:Nor did she deny that they HAD been banned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  Here is the thing asswipe. I fucking HATE Trump. Absolutely fucking detest the asshole. I'm not remotely defending Trump or the CDC director.
  Sorry, but that doesn't necessarily cover all of the people who are defending Trump, the CDC director, the Confederacy, the Third Reich, and Satan himself.
  
  Somehow I seriously doubt that they banned those words and then suddenly decide, oh we decided to unban them now. You give this administration entirely too much credit.
  You're right, what most likely happened is they tried to scrub those words, but got more of a backlash when word got out, so they're insisting that they never actually officially ordered a ban on those words.
  And how can we prove it? Where are the tapes? Oh yeah.
  
  I seriously hate all the fucking politicians in this country, but for fuck sakes, this advice was obviously given to try to help ram their budget through a GOP controlled Congress that loses its goddamn mind over anything that doesn't fit the fairy tales in the Bible. Some would argue that excluding these words is in fact a pragmatic action.
  I would argue that considering these words as necessary to exclude, is in fact, a condemnation of the current GOP Congress and its tendency to lose its goddamned mind over anything and everything that somehow manages to arise their easily provoked ire.
  I mean, some of us remember the GOP freaking out over the word choices of the Obama administration, and I suspect many of them actually think that there's an actual literal war on Christmas or something of that ilk.
6. Re:Nor did she deny that they HAD been banned by burtosis · 2017-12-18 12:32 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  No realli, a moose once but my sister,
7. Re:Nor did she deny that they HAD been banned by Pseudonym · 2017-12-18 13:21 · Score: 2
  
  George Carlin's "Seven dirty words" routine would have been even funnier had it been phrased as a Glomar response.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
8. Re:Nor did she deny that they HAD been banned by arth1 · 2017-12-19 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps it might be that she already answered the fucking question and didn't feel the need to re-answer the same question phrased differently.
  Whether they are banned does not answer the question of whether they have been banned. That's two very different questions.
9. Re:Nor did she deny that they HAD been banned by desdinova+216 · 2017-12-19 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  moose bites can be nasti
Banjos; I head banjos! by Rick+Schumann · 2017-12-18 10:53 · Score: 0, Troll

The New York Times cited "a few" CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases.
Is the GOP, in general, so ass-backwards that you can't mention anything about 'science' without them making warding signs against evil, invoking the Spirit, or whatever it is they do? I'm hearing banjo music..
1. Re:Banjos; I head banjos! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 11:09 · Score: 0
  
  Is the GOP, in general, so ass-backwards that you can't mention anything about 'science' without them making warding signs against evil, invoking the Spirit, or whatever it is they do?
  No. Obviously. The whole "issue" is Fake News. Oh, and if you like to head banjos you can keep that little factoid to yourself thank you very much.
2. Re:Banjos; I head banjos! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  Funny, I'm hearing banjo music now, too, reading your comment. Is your father also your brother, and were you homeschooled?
3. Re:Banjos; I head banjos! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  Funny, I'm heading banjos now, too, reading your comment. Is your father also your brother, and were you homeschooled?
  There, fixed that for ya. Apparently you can't read. And no.
4. Re: Banjos; I head banjos! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-19 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  His father is now his sister. His mom is now his uncle. On Wednesdays, anyhow.
5. Re:Banjos; I head banjos! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-19 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  sperging out on a typo
  Forget to take your autism meds, Cletus?
Then it is proved by SuperKendall · 2017-12-18 10:56 · Score: 1, Troll

You can still find words like "fetus" on the web site, and the very statement they issued noting the story was false included "science-based" (which I still believe to be a stupid term).
I can't believe how willing so may of you are to spread #FakeNews. Even I believed it was real (and stupid) at the time, so compelling and well-crafted has the #FakeNews industry become.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Then it is proved by iMadeGhostzilla · 2017-12-18 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not that anyone cares but I will toot my own horn and prove that I suspected the news were fake:
  https://slashdot.org/comments.....
  There is something recognizable emerging slowly about fake news but I can't verbalize it yet. Some quality of "it is an affront to all that is decent and rational" kind of thing.
2. Re:Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 11:38 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Except we just had confirmation it wasn't fake news. The initial story I heard said it was just for budget documents to congress and now we hear such a list really did exist, with suggestions on what to use instead. Yes, some people hyperventilated and some headlines contained lies to get people to click, but it wasn't fake.
  
  The assertion that H.H.S. has 'banned words' is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process.
  So, such a discussion about what words not to use in a budget really did exist!
3. Re:Then it is proved by Arzaboa · 2017-12-18 11:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The news that kicked off these stories was a piece taken out of context. Purposefully or not, we'll never really know. They'll issue a retraction, half the people will hear that, then half of those will remember there was a retraction.
  Without the drive for non-stop, headline news, this wouldn't have been news as it would have been vetted. The editors are clearly in a race for time, to all of our detriment.
  This nonsense is terrible for everyone that prints it, ingests it and has to try to un-ingest it. Of course, until everyone puts down their devices, and we all stop, this will happen unless we deter it in a meaningful way. While profits outweigh penalties, the editor will err on the side of being the first to publish.
  --
  "I'm sure to have a brain" - Scarecrow
4. Re:Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 11:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Except it was the department recommending to not use such words. The headlines were implying that Trump banned them. When in reality it's bureaucrats recommending certain language in order to avoid conflict with those that control the budget in Congress. The type of thing that people throughout government and in private industry do in order to secure funding for projects -- know your audience and play to it.
  This was made out to be something entirely different than it really is. It was very irresponsible journalism.
5. Re:Then it is proved by serviscope_minor · 2017-12-18 11:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I can't believe how willing so may of you are to spread #FakeNews. Even I believed it was real (and stupid) at the time, so compelling and well-crafted has the #FakeNews industry become.
  My good man, this isn't twitter. It's kind of tacky trying to use hashtags here.
  Also, you know, it's not precisely fake news now is it:
  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...
  So the HHS said calling it a ban was a "mischaracterization", which means they have admitted something was said on the topic but are claiming the reporting was bad. But, they've not gone further and relased a statement of what they said.
  Bleatig about fake ews makes you sounds foolish, because you're drawing an equivalence between this and something like pizzagate which was completely fabricated.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
6. Re:Then it is proved by iMadeGhostzilla · 2017-12-18 12:00 · Score: 3
  
  I agree. The race is a big factor and I think also the broken feeling of knowing that "is must be true" (in this case because obviously Trump administration would say such a thing, from the viewpoint of the reporter).
  To your point about un-ingesting it, I remember a quote(*) from Churchill, "Public reads news and not retractions." That makes this all the more dangerous, though perhaps in the shorter news cycle some retractions may slip into the consciousness.
  (*) Of course I don't know if it really was from Churchill, I wasn't there when he said it, if he did, I only think I read it years ago from a source I believe I thought reputable at the time.
7. Re: Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  Only trash reads Breitbart.
  Yes, that is an ad hominem
  Your existing is an ad hominem attack on me
8. Re: Then it is proved by kenh · 2017-12-18 12:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The previous /. story explicitly included statements from several gov't official quoted by the New York Times saying it was likely nothing more than recommendation to ease budget approval process.
  Buy you had to actually get beyond the click-baity headline screaming "Trump Administration bans words!" (That wasn't even supported by the brief excerpt provided) And read the summary.
  
  --
  Ken
9. Re:Then it is proved by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-18 12:06 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Except it was the department recommending to not use such words. The headlines were implying that Trump banned them. When in reality it's bureaucrats recommending certain language in order to avoid conflict with those that control the budget in Congress.
  Those bureaucrats may not be physically situated in the White House, but they are indeed part of the Trump administration, which is what the headline said was the source of the word-ban.
  And it is not a stretch to imagine that this kind of lexicographic micromanaging came from the White House. Far from being "iresponsible journalism" or "fake news", this was journalism doing what it is supposed to do: uncover and report stories that could indicate changes in policy in the administration that the POTUS controls.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
10. Re:Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 12:13 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Honestly, racing for headlines had nothing to do with this. There's nothing about this that's news worthy. It's all about reporters looking for every little thing to nitpick Trump on and not bothering to get their facts straight.
11. Re:Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 12:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Most of the actual bureaucrats are non-political employees that were likely there during the previous administration. They're the work horses and adjust strategy based on getting things done as political winds change. If you want funding, you avoid saying things that those with the purse strings might not want to fund.
  Notice that nothing in this report says they're going to change actual policy or programs, just that they're being directed to use different wording in budget proposals. Had this been done because of ideological changes of direction, the directive would have been to cancel programs rather than change the wording in budget proposals.
12. Re:Then it is proved by Obfuscant · 2017-12-18 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Those bureaucrats may not be physically situated in the White House,
  It doesn't matter where they were because ...
  
  the headline said was the source of the word-ban.
  it wasn't a "word-ban". You've just argued that the irrelevant part of the fake news was indeed true, while ignoring the fake part.
13. Re: Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  Wise people read news from multiple perspectives so that they can actually make an informed opinion. Staying in an echo chamber just makes you feel more smug.
14. Re: Then it is proved by kenh · 2017-12-18 12:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The source of the recommendation (not a ban) was from senior career administrators at CDC itself (not the Trump Administration)...
  Aside from getting those two facts 100% wrong, the only nugget of truth in the headline was that it involved the CDC.
  
  --
  Ken
15. Re:Then it is proved by burtosis · 2017-12-18 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  Fake ewes is an affront to sheep everywhere.
16. Re:Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 12:33 · Score: 0
  
  Why does a link to the NYT mean it's not "Fake News"? Does a printing in the NYT mean a story is based on fact? If only that were actually true....
  Bleating about Fake News being comparable to Pizzagate makes you sound foolish - not only was Pizzagate NOT news (until some idiot shot up the place), it's a conspiracy theory up there with alien visitations and Bush orchestrating 9/11 - only a few fools actually believe it.
17. Re:Then it is proved by dog77 · 2017-12-18 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Bleatig about fake ews makes you sounds foolish, because you're drawing an equivalence between this and something like pizzagate which was completely fabricated.
  
  I would say news that is close to the truth, but leaves out important details or context is just as bad if not worse than news based on flat out lies. It is harder for people to detect the deception. Have you ever heard it said that the best lies contain large elements of truth?
18. Re:Then it is proved by Hal_Porter · 2017-12-18 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  Hey if a ram identifies as a sheep who are you to call her 'fake'.
  Bigot.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
19. Re: Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody is claiming the list is inaccurate. And the fact that the list exists primarily to please the loony far right faction of the Republican party seems pass the nugget of truth standard.
20. Re:Then it is proved by Darinbob · 2017-12-18 13:26 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Fake news gets mixed up a bunch. There is fake news that is misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or jumping to conclusions. "Chocolate is healthy for you!" Not fake per se, but the reporter could have done a better job rather than rushing to print. Then there's the fake news which is deliberate exaggeration, pushing a small story to make it a big story or other sensationalism. Still, there's a shred of truth hidden behind a whole lot of outrage, the sort of stuff Fox News is known for.
  Then there's the real fake news. Stories that are made up from beginning to end. For instance the story about a town in Texas which is where the Mexican drug lords send all their families to live in safety and get decent medical care. Totally made up and pushed by Brietbart news. It is interesting that the president shouting the most about fake news had as his primary campaign adviser the head of Brietbart news. A deflection strategy; either shouting wolf all the time in order to make people cnfused about what's fake or not, or calling stuff fake so often at the drop of a hat in order to diminish the seriousness of "fake news".
  Anyway, real fake news is a serious matter, and as time goes on it will become easier and easier to just make stuff up and still provide doctored photos, videos, and audio that make it sound convincing. But the other "fake news" that is just exaggeration or mistakes, while certainly a major failing of news media, should not be treated as the same level of dishonesty.
  Problem is that everything these days turns into a partisan fight. Everyone's trying to find "gotchas", uncover political misdealings by the other side, and so on. So there are a lot of people who just won't accept that the CDC is trying to improve public health, they assume there's some political agenda behind everything.
21. Re:Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's nice. But its not relevant. The original reporting on this story clearly stated the context was budget requests, not the entire agency. The official pushback on the story doesn't even dispute the original reporting, instead it denies something that was never in the original reporting. Which seems to be pattern with this administration.
22. Re: Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 13:42 · Score: 0
  
  Which is a shame when there is so much to actually cover..
23. Re:Then it is proved by mukinrestak · 2017-12-18 13:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  "They'll issue a retraction, half the people will hear that, then half of those will remember there was a retraction."
  The thing with this is that if it was an occasional error, it could conceivably be a mistake, but when, as it is now, it's a consistent reliable pattern of behaviour, it is pretty clearly a method of propaganda.
  Step 1: Tell a whopper of a lie. Let it get in everyone's minds.
  Step 2: Issue a retraction that 20% of the original group will see, if that. (And let's be serious here, your estimate of 50% is preposterously optimistic.)
  Step 3: The other 80% of people that didn't see the retraction (or wilfully ignored it due to previous examples of this technique influencing their internal narratives) use this whopper to fuel the fires of hysteria and reinforce their pre-existing biases.
  So, what's the goal here? To introduce biases into people, and reinforce them in people where they exist already. Where do we most see this shit going on? Personally, I see it the most in anti-Trump "news", especially in the Russia collusion BS.
24. Re: Then it is proved by epine · 2017-12-18 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  The source of the recommendation (not a ban) was from senior career administrators at CDC itself (not the Trump Administration)...
  If your job is at stake either way, there's far less practical difference than your comment suggests. On the second point, it defies comprehension that you've never heard of a political sock puppet.
  
  Aside from getting those two facts 100% wrong, the only nugget of truth in the headline was that it involved the CDC.
  When a puppet's lips move, which is more factual observation: the plastic lips, or the live hand rammed up the puppet's ass?
  Narrowly, the lips—if narrow floats your boat.
  Both versions map equally well onto "Orwellian-quadrant, career-threatening heat blunderbussed down from on high"—an implied headline extremely hard to dismiss out of hand within a thousand yards of Sam Clovis, or several other equally competent nominations (Matthew Petersen, Blackwater cum Academi's progenitor's evil actual sister), because there's no way to nominate these Ignatius Reilly's of de-operationalization without actively despising the agency's prior mandate.
25. Re:Then it is proved by serviscope_minor · 2017-12-18 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  I would say news that is close to the truth, but leaves out important details or context is just as bad if not worse than news based on flat out lies. It is harder for people to detect the deception. Have you ever heard it said that the best lies contain large elements of truth?
  Yes, that is true. A half truth is often worse than a lie. However, the response has been to claim misrepresentation, but to not give us the context to judge for ourselves.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
26. Re: Then it is proved by PoopJuggler · 2017-12-18 14:12 · Score: 2
  
  Except it's extortion. Unless you use their doublespeak words your budget won't get approved. So it may not be a "ban" per-se but it's still intended to be chilling and is still an attack on science and alternative lifestyles.
27. Re: Then it is proved by greenwow · 2017-12-18 14:31 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Oh please. It's not fake news even though it isn't correct since all thinking people know Trump wanted to do that.
28. Re:Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 15:16 · Score: 0
  
  It's not fake news though.
  We all know they use those words in budget reports = no money.
  Look at her response. She talks around it and doesn't flat out deny it.
  We all know what's happening. And they all know we know.
  Nothing needs to be said explicitly.
29. Re:Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  What part of "I want to assure you there are no banned words at CDC." is unclear? Gathering every bit of fake news into your beliefs is toxic and is not good for anybody.
30. Re: Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  Stop ruining the narrative!
  There's absolutely nothing wrong with twisting or reinterpreting the headline or the facts like a pretzel to make trump look bad.
31. Re: Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 16:09 · Score: 0
  
  Which is a shame when there is so much to actually cover..
  I'd like more coverage on long term effects of policy and law changes. Since this is a CDC article, it would e nice if they would tell me the long term effects of assuming that global warming is a hoax and that coal and such are good ideas. They won't do that of course, since even if words aren't technically banned. Criticizing the government now is, at least by other governmental agencies.
  Perhaps some other country has that information available? It might be interesting if the Canadian government were to do a study on the impact of American head in the sand policy on health.
32. Re: Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  His speaking patterns are unlike any known human language. That, and a few other things, are evidence aliens are supporting him.
33. Re: Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 16:38 · Score: 0
  
  ...Which is a shame when there is so much to actually cover...
  Like the booming economy?
  The desolation of ISIS?
  The collusion, by democrats, to use Russia to sway the election?
  The revelations of anti Trump texts by a Mueller team member?
  Or perhaps you just have an agenda...
34. Re: Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  And during a D admin if the CDC used words n phrases like "fairness" or "equal opportunity not outcomes" or "global warming hoax" or "Benghazi" or "bimbo eruptions" or "you can keep your doctor" or "constitutional" they'd get defended and vilified and never work for the government again.
  So fucking what is your point? Do you have one?
35. Re: Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  So the report was "fake but accurate"?
36. Re:Then it is proved by interkin3tic · 2017-12-18 17:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They were told in no uncertain terms that the words were to be avoided.
  
  A Health and Human Services official who asked not to be named told STAT it was not accurate to say that CDC had been ordered not to use the seven words. Instead, he said, agency budget analysts were told that some words and phrasing might be more likely to win support for the CDC’s budget in the current Congress.
  It goes on
  
  Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said discussion of words that are banned or to be avoided sends a dangerous message to the agency. “There’s as much of a risk of self-censorship that comes out of this than actual direct censorship,” he told STAT. “This is the part that’s much more pernicious than any direct pronouncement.” “So of course the administration and its defenders are going to argue that this is only about what goes into the budget,” Jha noted. “But we know that the signal to the agency is much stronger than that. And it’s going to change behavior of people who work there. And that’s much more damaging than any direct censorship.”
  Keep in mind the republicans are slashing money for research right and left in an orgy of giving public money back to the robber barons. Scientists and doctors interested in serving public health aren't stupid, they know a "guideline" from their funding agency isn't an order, but they do know it's how they win funding and keep their jobs.
  
  To suggest this is fake news is to ignore the obvious reality: republicans are intentionally subordinating science to the wishes of their evangelical base.
37. Re: Then it is proved by interkin3tic · 2017-12-18 17:31 · Score: 2
  
  The source of the recommendation (not a ban) was from senior career administrators at CDC itself (not the Trump Administration)...
  And the senior career administrators were basing this recommendation on a nightmare they had? These officials, you know TALK to the politicians and act accordingly. The government sent a message, quibbling over exactly how it was delivered is disingenuous or naive. This is typical republican behavior undercutting science they don't like but being too cowardly to do it outright.
38. Re:Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 18:21 · Score: 0
  
  People chose sides and then do anything they can to make sure their side wins the argument. Truth and facts are replaced by hearsay and opinions. Any thing purporting to be factual is always provided by an anonymous source or from a source not authorized to speak. Meanwhile every single news source from the media conglomerates to independent and relatively small websites generate revenue based on how many people they can attract. A news organization claiming to provide honest and balanced views should not have an "editorial line". The only possible fix would be to super charge the existing libel and slander laws and vigorously enforce them. Revoke Congresses immunity against libel or slander charges. And while we are at it we need to revoke Congresses immunity being investigated in a public forum. All the investigations centered around the executive branch could never be applied to anyone in Congress. They have immunized themselves against questions and investigations in a public venue. When are the people frothing at the mouth over the executive branch when it is the legislative branch that holds all the power? Unlike the President there are no term limits in Congress. Congress passed the 501c law which enables unlimited donations to those running for or occupying a position in Congress. There is a small group of Congressmen with all the power. Any new members elected are subservient to these few power brokers. Internal Committees and caucuses are structured in such a way to ensure those at the top dictate who moves up the Congressional ladder. Every single problem the country faces today can be laid at the feet of Congress. Presidents are just useful distractions and spokesmen for those in the halls of Congress. The current President, like all the Presidents prior to him, inherit problems that Congress has created. While Congress has been running all their investigations and running for office they have utterly failed to do their actual jobs. Budgets, infrastructure, taxes, and national security concerns represent just a few things Congress has failed to address for years. The only thing they work hard on is making sure all the attention is directed at the President in order to keep their monumental failures under the radar.
39. Re: Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 19:06 · Score: 0
  
  And the senior career administrators were basing this recommendation on a nightmare they had?
  Maybe it's just one person who voted for Hillary and wanted to make Trump look bad.
  There's precedent with the ex-intern getting booted off an official twitter account and the news spinning it up as Trump censorship.
  Ockam's razor indicates this is most likely to be correct.
40. Re:Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 21:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Problem is that everything these days turns into a partisan fight.
  Which includes your comment too! All those fake news perpetrators you called out were only right wing news. But I know you know there are major fake news examples on both sides.
41. Re: Then it is proved by serviscope_minor · 2017-12-18 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  because there's no way to nominate these Ignatius Reilly's of de-operationalization without actively despising the agency's prior mandate.
  I agree, except I very strogly disagree with your iterpretatio of Igatius Reilly.
  Politics will come and go, but that's oe of my favourite books ad IMO, one of all time.
  The thig that makes such an unpleasant person so appealing (the genius of the writig) is that Ignatius is not them, he's you (and me): every bad thought, mean spirited sentiment, cowardly act and so on you've ever had is laid bare in one single place, but in such a marvellous way you can't help but root for him.
  Also the title is genius it comes from a quote:
  > When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him
  He of course (i his own mid at least) is not a member of the confederacy.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
42. Re:Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how you try to highlight right wing news sources in your examples yet totally ignore the producer of this story. The Washington Post has been caught time and again this past year publishing fake news trying desperately to bad-mouth the President and his administration, yet time and again their anonymous sources are proven false and totally biased. Nor do you mention the other king of Fake news this past couple years and that's CNN. MSNBC has it's own share of fake stories, all to push the left wing agenda.
  
  If you are going to call out fake news sources call out sources from both sides.
43. Re: Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 21:44 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah but Americans think the earth is 6000 years old, and flat. And diseases are caused by evil spirits. So why would they be doing science there anyway?
44. Re:Then it is proved by jellomizer · 2017-12-18 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  That is the big problem with current news. It is often given out of context. A lot of these problems are complex with multiple factors in play often at odds with each other. News readers don’t want a wall of text or hour long episodes on the topic. So they get a quick summary to try to make it simple, a summary is what the information the journalist thinks is important, but still could leave out a lot of context.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
45. Re: Then it is proved by kenh · 2017-12-19 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Oh please. It's not fake news even though it isn't correct since all thinking people know Trump wanted to do that.
  So it's real news ("not fake news") even though "it isn't correct" since you believe "Trump wanted to do that".
  So in your mind, journalism and fiction writing are really the same thing, because enough people believe the fiction to be the truth? I think your thoughts on this topic are skewed by the meaningless inclusion of President Trump's name in the headline.
  
  --
  Ken
46. Re: Then it is proved by kenh · 2017-12-19 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Wish I had mod points to mod this up...
  
  --
  Ken
47. Re:Then it is proved by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-12-19 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Also, you know, it's not precisely fake news now is it:
  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...
  So the HHS said calling it a ban was a "mischaracterization", which means they have admitted something was said on the topic but are claiming the reporting was bad. But, they've not gone further and relased a statement of what they said.
  Bleatig about fake ews makes you sounds foolish, because you're drawing an equivalence between this and something like pizzagate which was completely fabricated.
  Er, except in reality the CDC recommended to itself not to use the words, in order to trick those meanie Republicans into fully funding them as much as they wished. Since they just knew those knuckle draggers were knuckle draggers.
  None of it came from Trump or Republicans at all.
  So, yeah, it kinda was fake news.
  It's kinda like watching an SNL parody, and then blaming a Republican for something that Tina Fey said (not that anyone would actually do that, lol)
48. Re:Then it is proved by arth1 · 2017-12-19 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  You can still find words like "fetus" on the web site
  Yeah, but I doubt we'll see a request for funding for science based research on transgender fetuses.
49. Re:Then it is proved by FuzzyDaddy2 · 2017-12-19 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  >> a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases
  
  This line, to me, says there is an issue with science and government. The CDC believes republican congressmen will react badly to this list of science words; what I would like to hear is a statement from some group of Republican congressmen that it's not necessary. My impression is that their fears are well founded. Republicans in congress react to unpleasant scientific data by trying to deny the data and suppress further investigation:
  
  http://science.sciencemag.org/...
  https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
  
  This anti-science, anti-evidence approach to policy is a disturbing, and I think recent, trend in Republican politicians. Newt Gingrich was a big science guy, for example. C Everett Koop, the surgeon general under Reagan who personally opposed abortion, refused to interfere with a study in the psychological harm of abortion to the mother.
  
  I hope it's not every Republican, but science denial has become the consensus approach to policy of the Republican party.
50. Re:Then it is proved by jedidiah · 2017-12-19 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  > This line, to me, says there is an issue with science and government. The CDC believes republican congressmen will react badly to this list of science words
  That is the bullshit narrative right there. With the exception of "fetus", NONE of these are "science words". They're political nonsense.
  They belong in the same category as "gay cancer".
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
51. Re:Then it is proved by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-19 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  Elsewhere on slashdot, a post with a major lie within the first three sentences is modded +5, with the parent claiming 'whoops that was a typo' when called out.
52. Re:Then it is proved by AK+Marc · 2017-12-19 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  1. The story wasn't a lie.
  2. Retractions of true stories are given all the time, and are the reason nobody listens to them.
  3. The presence of absence of this particular story is irrelevant. It didn't change a single person's mind. Those that hate Donnie John will do so without the story, and those who believes his poo is solid gold won't change their minds either.
  
  So all the fake outrage is fake. The story is real.
  
  The real problem is that real news is called fake.
  
  There is a real memo from (arguably) "the Trump Administration" that lists those words to "avoid". The Right Wing Media re-writes the story to "Donald Trump personally band 7 words at CDC" then spreads the news. Anyone who picks up the fake news by the Far Right is slammed for reporting real news with a political slant.
  
  The truth is that the CDC was requested to adjust wording in budget reports. That's real. That's verified. That's been lost in the Fake News spread by the Right Wing biased Conservative Media. We aren't even allowed to discuss that, as the Nazi Apologists claim it's spreading False News to discuss the truth that the Nazi Apologists doesn't like.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
53. Re:Then it is proved by FuzzyDaddy2 · 2017-12-19 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  "Evidence based" is not a science word? It's practically a declaration "We're using science here"
I see by nospam007 · 2017-12-18 10:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

" the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases."
IOW the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help not getting fired by eliminating certain words and phrases.
1. Re: I see by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  In other words like real life in politics.
  See Van Jones and the Obama administration for what happens when you cross the red line.
2. Re:I see by mspohr · 2017-12-18 11:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's a kind of "soft" censorship. The words are not "banned" but if you use them, there could be consequences.
  Kind of like "newspeak".
  "In the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), Newspeak is a controlled language, of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, a linguistic design meant to limit the freedom of thought—personal identity, self-expression, free will—that ideologically threatens the regime of Big Brother and the Party, who thus ..."
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
3. Re:I see by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  It's more in line with the new guidelines for the PDB, "Don't make anyone volatile angry." I leave it to you, gentle reader, to fill in the blanks.
4. Re:I see by Hal_Porter · 2017-12-18 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  If you're arguing on the Internet whether you're living in the world of Orwell's 1984 you're not living in the world of Orwell's 1984.
  The whole point of 1984 is that truth has been abolished and people are unable to even explain what has happened. So if you're arguing about living in that world, you're not living in that world.
  E.g.
  http://orwell.ru/library/essay...
  
  The only propaganda line open to the Nazis and Fascists was to represent themselves as Christian patriots saving Spain from a Russian dictatorship. This involved pretending that life in Government Spain was just one long massacre (vide the Catholic Herald or the Daily Mail - but these were child's play compared with the Continental Fascist press), and it involved immensely exaggerating the scale of Russian intervention. Out of the huge pyramid of lies which the Catholic and reactionary press all over the world built up, let me take just one point - the presence in Spain of a Russian army. Devout Franco partisans all believed in this; estimates of its strength went as high as half a million. Now, there was no Russian army in Spain. There may have been a handful of airmen and other technicians, a few hundred at the most, but an army there was not. Some thousands of foreigners who fought in Spain, not to mention millions of Spaniards, were witnesses of this. Well, their testimony made no impression at all upon the Franco propagandists, not one of whom had set foot in Government Spain. Simultaneously these people refused utterly to admit the fact of German or Italian intervention at the same time as the Germany and Italian press were openly boasting about the exploits of their' legionaries'. I have chosen to mention only one point, but in fact the whole of Fascist propaganda about the war was on this level.
  This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. After all, the chances are that those lies, or at any rate similar lies, will pass into history. How will the history of the Spanish war be written? If Franco remains in power his nominees will write the history books, and (to stick to my chosen point) that Russian army which never existed will become historical fact, and schoolchildren will learn about it generations hence. But suppose Fascism is finally defeated and some kind of democratic government restored in Spain in the fairly near future; even then, how is the history of the war to be written? What kind of records will Franco have left behind him? Suppose even that the records kept on the Government side are recoverable - even so, how is a true history of the war to be written? For, as I have pointed out already, the Government, also dealt extensively in lies. From the anti-Fascist angle one could write a broadly truthful history of the war, but it would be a partisan history, unreliable on every minor point. Yet, after all, some kind of history will be written, and after those who actually remember the war are dead, it will be universally accepted. So for all practical purposes the lie will have become truth.
  I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written. In the past people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case they believed that 'facts' existed and were more or less discoverable. And in practice there was always a considerable body of fact which would have been agreed to by almost everyone. If you look up the history of the last war in, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, you will find that a respectable amount of the material is drawn from German sources. A British and a
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
5. Re:I see by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  IOW, here are words that will trigger the sensitive snowflakes known as Republicans, avoid using them, please.
6. Re:I see by fafalone · 2017-12-18 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  No you don't suddenly wake up in the morning and find yourself in the world of 1984; you get there slowly, one 'no big deal' at a time.
7. Re:I see by AmiMoJo · 2017-12-18 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Similar to Slashdot. Phases like "male feminist" attract immediate down-mods, regardless of context or message content.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:I see by cold+fjord · 2017-12-18 16:25 · Score: 2
  
  IOW the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help not getting fired by eliminating certain words and phrases.
  LOL ... you actually think it is that easy to fire a US Federal Government employee?!? No, No, No.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
9. Re:I see by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-20 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  Try using "closeted rapist". They're pretty much synonyms, anyways.
How is this not a ban? by cnaumann · 2017-12-18 11:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

"But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited “a few” CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. "
If you use these words, your budget may be cut. How is that not a ban?
1. Re:How is this not a ban? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Get your head out of your rectum. It's not a ban. It's direction to assure budge proposals have the best chance of getting approved. It's wise to avoid controversy. This was sound advice and is likely not any different than what has been done when Democrats have the majority as well. Just different advice in the word smithing department.
  I've been directed in similar ways when filling out hiring reqs. My VP tells me what key words to use and to avoid based on how finance is currently tightening strings and strategic directions from other top leadership. It's a game and you need to play it right.
2. Re:How is this not a ban? by fahrbot-bot · 2017-12-18 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  "But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited “a few” CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. "
  If you use these words, your budget may be cut. How is that not a ban?
  Maybe they're just warning about using words most Republican representatives won't understand. Although... I'm pretty sure they understand the word "entitlement" and the word "evidence" too -- something they say Mueller doesn't have, but they can't prove he doesn't, they just know it.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
3. Re:How is this not a ban? by Solandri · 2017-12-18 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  "If you use these words, your budget may be cut (because we don't like these words)"
  
  Is very different from
  
  "If you use these words, your budget may be cut (because our constituents may vote us out of office if we are on record as approving a budget item using these words)."
  
  The snippet you quoted seems to imply the latter, while you're assuming the former.
4. Re: How is this not a ban? by kenh · 2017-12-18 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  So if the senior CDC officials said "avoid mid-spellings and typos" would the headline have read "Trump Administration Bans Typos!"?
  
  --
  Ken
5. Re:How is this not a ban? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  You mean I can't write "gib money pl0x" on a scrap of paper and get my budget? CENSORSHIP!
6. Re:How is this not a ban? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 19:29 · Score: 0
  
  If you check out their guidelines, the NYT has a longer list of banned words and phrases.
7. Re:How is this not a ban? by halivar · 2017-12-19 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Quick! My god, how much do you need and how do I get it to you??? You said the magic words and I can't resist!
8. Re:How is this not a ban? by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-12-19 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  "But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited “a few” CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. "
  If you use these words, your budget may be cut. How is that not a ban?
  The CDC said this to themselves ... they are censoring themselves?
  They convinced themselves that talking differently was better for budget approval. Less charitably, they decided to get all weasel worded in the hopes of fooling the elected representatives of the people when said representatives were deciding on budgets.
  It doesn't sound quite as noble that way though ...
9. Re:How is this not a ban? by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-12-22 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Although... I'm pretty sure they understand the word "entitlement" and the word "evidence" too -- something they say Mueller doesn't have, but they can't prove he doesn't, they just know it.
  Um ... in civilized countries, it's the prosecution who has to prove they have evidence, not the defense who has to prove they don't.
Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 11:28 · Score: 0

This still highlights the fact that republicans don't like things like science, evidence and reality.
They prefer things like God, Jesus and creationism.
Because it's not a ban??? by SuperKendall · 2017-12-18 11:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you use these words, your budget may be cut. How is that not a ban?
Because not using the terms would only apply to a budget proposal, not general communications and even then it was only a suggestion...
Apparently is was guidance how how best to craft one document, not guidelines for every document. But who can resist the allure of #FakeNews, the faker the better!! Spread On #FakeNews soldier!!

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Because it's not a ban??? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  Nicely done sir! Keep spreading the #FakeFakeNews! #MAGA
Call it what you will by quonset · 2017-12-18 11:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you have to put out a list of words which shouldn't be used for whatever reason, it's still a de facto ban.
They can try to spin it all they want, but if real words, words used in the medical and scientific community, cause that much outrage in certain people, perhaps the people are the problem and not the words.
1. Re: Call it what you will by kenh · 2017-12-18 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  If you have to put out a list of words which shouldn't be used for whatever reason, it's still a de facto ban.
  No one was 'banned' from saying/writing anything, they were told how to make their budget reqyests more palletable, kinda like how a friend might suggest using a lot of 'action words' in your resume...
  
  --
  Ken
2. Re: Call it what you will by dev-in-seattle · 2017-12-18 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  so why don't they clarify their original message. for some reason they decided not to clarify. that means they are (1) stupid, or (2) not wanting to reveal something. Pro tip, it's number 2. They are hiding shitty behavior.
3. Re:Call it what you will by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  Most of the "banned" words are noise anyway in budget proposals.
Put another way ... by fahrbot-bot · 2017-12-18 11:49 · Score: 1

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, said the reported decree on banned words was a misrepresentation.
"In consideration with community standards and wishes," the parrot's not dead - he's just restin'. Beautiful plumage!

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:FAKE NEWS!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 11:52 · Score: 0

Whereas actual THOUGHT will be punished severely
Not a ban by hawguy · 2017-12-18 11:57 · Score: 1

The words aren't banned, we just warned staff not to use those words or we may not get funding and the staff will suffer the consequences.
It is them yelling HELP! by Arzaboa · 2017-12-18 11:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

They are shining a bright light on the world they live in and operate in right now. If they put those words in there, you have a large group of ideologues that will outright, not look at it, therefore not fund the CDC, as "those people" aren't "their people."
It is them yelling HELP! They are not allowed to tread into politics per their job titles. They are screaming that there is a large number of people that already can not hear these words for sake of them not being re-elected, or that they simply don't care that there is science, and other *things* outside of their religion (and I use the term very loosely here).
It should be a very stark warning to all of us, that this isn't just happening now, it has already happened. Their hands are being tied by entire groups that thinks science that accepts anything other than their own is bad science. They have a base that believes this as well, and will back them up.
These people don't look at a world of people that are different. They look at the world through a lens where only they are right, and everyone else is wrong. Anything not serving their own self interests is a waste of time and money, and a clear example of a bloated government.
--
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
1. Re:It is them yelling HELP! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  If you think this type of behavior doesn't occur on both sides of the aisle for the same stupid reasons, or that it's okay to behave that way because you're a (D) and your political posturing pays lip service to social justice rather than traditionalism, you're part of the problem.
Then it is proved by Okian+Warrior · 2017-12-18 11:58 · Score: 0, Troll

For those of you who are interested in actual news, Breitbart had an article about the so-called "ban".
I've found that Breitbart, with a conservative slant, is more accurate and has better overall journalism. They provide links and are very cautious about unnamed single-person sources like the one cited in the WaPo article. (Makes perfect sense: they have a lot to lose, and if they made a mistake they'd never hear the end of it.)
Just recently Trump's lawyer complained that the E-mails were "unlawfully" obtained.
That was a direct quote, the actual word used. Watching the news cycle on this was hilarious:
E-mails were "illegally" obtained (ABC News)
E-mails were "improperly" obtained (NBC News)
Trump criticizes how Mueller obtained transition emails (WaPo)
Trump Allies Flip Out After Mueller Lands Tens Of Thousands Of [EMails] (HuffPo)
Image of Cooperation Between White House and Mueller Starts to Fracture (NY Times)
Are Trump's Lawyers Attempting to Discredit Mueller? (nymag.com)
Everyone falling over themselves trying to make the actual quote softer and less significant.
Anyone still wonder why no one trusts the mainstream news?
Not banned by WillAffleckUW · 2017-12-18 12:02 · Score: 1

You just can't use the words.
Heil Drumph!

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. Re: Not banned by kenh · 2017-12-18 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  There's a difference between 'shouldn't' and 'can not'... being advised to avoid certain terms is not enforcing a ban on those same terms.
  
  --
  Ken
2. Re: Not banned by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 14:32 · Score: 0
  
  Punishing someone who does though IS a ban. Keep licking the furher's asshole. He still doesn't like you.
3. Re: Not banned by arth1 · 2017-12-19 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  There's a difference between 'shouldn't' and 'can not'... being advised to avoid certain terms is not enforcing a ban on those same terms.
  When a wish comes from the top, it is near indistinguishable from an order. "Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
Re:FAKE NEWS!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 12:04 · Score: 0

I can't imagine anyone with half a brain ever thought this was anything other than "guidelines to make sure Republicans can approve what you write without being triggered by words like 'diversity'"
Breitbart is not proof of anything by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-18 12:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Trump's lawyer may have said that Mueller's acquisition of transition e-mails was unlaful, but that does not make it so. IIRC, the lawyer's argument was that these e-mails are privileged. That's BS. Trump was not yet president, so he and his team did not enjoy the protection of privilege at that time.
This attempt to discredit Mueller in the right-wing media has been quite intense lately. In the opinion of many, it's an attempt to weaken his image and set up cover for Trump to fire him.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
1. Re:Breitbart is not proof of anything by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  Attorney-client privilege. That has nothing to do with being the President. Everyone in this country has that right.
  The mucky part is in government data retention policies and public records acts. The transition team was obviously using government supplied e-mail servers. A wise thing considering how much they belittled Hilary for her private server. The gotcha for doing the right thing was exposing what might be rightfully considered legally privileged communications to a warrant less grab.
2. Re:Breitbart is not proof of anything by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-18 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  Attorney-client privilege. That has nothing to do with being the President. Everyone in this country has that right.
  Attorney-client privilege is irrelevant here. Executive privilege is. Trump cannot use it to shield his pre-office communications.
  Mueller did not seek records of one-on-one communication between Trump and his attorney. He sought e-mails exchanged amongst his transition team.
  And BTW, attorney-client privilege is not absolute. You cannot claim privilege just because your attorney was in the room when you spoke to someone, or s/he was cced on an e-mail. And you cannot claim privilege if your communication was part of an intent to commit or cover up a crime.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
3. Re:Breitbart is not proof of anything by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-19 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  It's the Fourth Amendment right.
  As in, you need to go in front of a judge and ask him to issue a subpoena. If you wanna wiretap, you ask for a warrant. Mueller didn't do either. This seizure was unlawful: end of story right there.
  Just because you don't like Trump, does not mean the Constitution doesn't still apply!
  Every non-public form of communication is automatically protected. Every. Single. One.
  If the Government wants your emails, they gotta ask a judge, unless you are a government employee (and additionally sign away your privacy rights), which most of Trump's team were not at the time.
  Now I do suspect you are on Obama fanboy, and you probably approve of his warrant-less wiretapping of AP journalists, the Tea Party members, or other such "threats." But even Obama didn't veto the Constitution.
So wait by argStyopa · 2017-12-18 12:22 · Score: 0

...you're suggesting the media deliberately inflamed something trivial to make Trump look dumb?
Unpossible.
Note, it sounds like pretty bog-standard advice to anyone trying to sell something: cater to your audience. In this case, their budget to Congress who would likely respond to liberal dog whistle terms like "diversity" and "transgender" in a negative way. Pretty sound advice, I'd say.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:So wait by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 15:34 · Score: 0
  
  And the media wonders why vast swathes of the country don't believe a word they say.
I'd like to see more people by rsilvergun · 2017-12-18 12:26 · Score: 1

calling the Republicans out on their anti-science platform. A good friend of mine insists on being Republican and I ask why he says "I'm gonna change it from the inside". At a certain point it starts to look like Stockholm syndrome or an abused spouse. Net Neutrality, their stance on health care, the fact that their tax cut hasn't even passed on their Speaker of the House is already talking about cutting Social Security (that I paid into for 25 years) to pay for it and now this... There's just a time when you have to call someone on their bullshit.

It's something I don't get. People really, really hate 'partisanship'. But is it partisan when the other side is objectively wrong?

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:I'd like to see more people by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  the fact that their tax cut hasn't even passed on their Speaker of the House is already talking about cutting Social Security (that I paid into for 25 years) to pay for it
  I know, right? He should stick to the tradition of pushing it off on the next generation like his forefathers did, that way the inevitable collapse won't affect you.
2. Re:I'd like to see more people by martyros · 2017-12-18 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  A good friend of mine insists on being Republican and I ask why he says "I'm gonna change it from the inside".
  Well in some areas of the country, the probability of a Democrat winning are close to zero. So the real election actually happens at the primary, when the Republican candidate is chosen. But because people don't think of these as the real election, or even an important one, it's an easy target for extremists to hijack -- and therefore, an important place for moderates to defend.
  If in "red" districts, everyone voted for a moderate Republican in the primares, I think we'd be in a lot less of a mess.
  
  --
  TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
3. Re:I'd like to see more people by desdinova+216 · 2017-12-19 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  the problem is, in most areas the primaries only draw the party loyalists. most moderates probably don't vote along party lines.
Censorship doesn't work by banning words by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 12:35 · Score: 0

IOW the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help not getting fired by eliminating certain words and phrases.
Possible. Even when a firing is not actually the result, the mere hint of censure or disapproval from a boss will make it into your speech and decisions. This has a chilling effect on speech.
Even taken to the extreme, it's not that saying bad things about the dictator is forbidden. It's that if you do, you will be disappeared by secret police. That's how it happens under Kaderov. It's also a constant threat everywhere, one that must be guarded against--even though it's not the highest risk disaster right now in the United States or the CDC.
1. Re:Censorship doesn't work by banning words by Hal_Porter · 2017-12-18 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Possible. Even when a firing is not actually the result, the mere hint of censure or disapproval from a boss will make it into your speech and decisions. This has a chilling effect on speech.
  Wait, I thought the line on this was 'It's a private business. They don't have to give you a platform' and to link to this xkcd cartoon
  https://xkcd.com/1357/
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
2. Re:Censorship doesn't work by banning words by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 13:49 · Score: 0
  
  That's only true when it benefits the Democratic party or the political left.
  Surely you did not expect people that choose their gender based on how they feel wouldn't choose what the facts are based on how they feel.
you had a nice run America by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 12:36 · Score: 0

Great while it lasted.
Informal Poll by PopeRatzo · 2017-12-18 13:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Show of hands, please:
Who believes anything a Trump appointee says? She was put in place by Tom Price, the disgraced Health and Human Services secretary who resigned when he was caught lying about using military jets as his private airline.
Here is a list of the 15 Trump appointees who had to leave in the first 11 months of his administration due to indictment or embarrassment.
http://www.businessinsider.com...

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:Informal Poll by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-19 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  At least the replubican nominees had the shame to leave after the corruption or incompetence was exposed.
  Rarely recall a democrat nominee having the character to do that. (eric holder, tim geitner, kozinski? etc)
  Well I guess lois lerner. She has the most shame of any of them. I can't recall any other that resigned or left office because of scandal or their glaring incompetence.
Different? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 13:31 · Score: 0

In addition please don't use "Him, Her, man, woman, etc..." It's okay for my side, bad for the other side. Keep playing the game the mafias want you too. "The OTHER is bad, project all that is wrong with man upon the OTHER to cleans and pardon yourself, set yourself apart from the OTHER. For THEY are the enemy of US."
Reports of ... by PPH · 2017-12-18 13:33 · Score: 1

... incipient rotation from George Carlin's grave may be premature.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Blink twice if they made you say that... by goombah99 · 2017-12-18 13:45 · Score: 1

... Or work the word Dolphin into your sentence if the Trump admin made you say that.
If you read the article carefully they are clear to say they did instruct people to remove the words from communications with congress. This is a message loud clear.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 13:51 · Score: 0

What? Slashdot left-without-a-bran losers called Demunists (democrat-communist) lied to us the other day? And Slashdot eat up the droppings?
Say it isn't so?
Spanish Inquisition by dev-in-seattle · 2017-12-18 14:35 · Score: 1

Those words are just resting, they are not fooling anyone.
1. Re:Spanish Inquisition by desdinova+216 · 2017-12-19 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  I thought they were pining for the Fjords
In other words by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 15:01 · Score: 0

"We got caught, so we didn't really mean it as a ban. Just a guideline really. And you're misprepresenting it for calling it a ban when we've (re)defined it as a "strong recommendation" (for definitions of "strong" that include firing your ass if you go against our "recommendations." Or putting you in charge of invoicing copyrights from the fossil fuel industry).
They got caught is all by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 15:05 · Score: 0

So the HHS said calling it a ban was a "mischaracterization", which means they have admitted something was said on the topic but are claiming the reporting was bad.
In other words, they got caught, so they've re-characterized it and have adopted the strategy of calling the media out on reporting exactly what is was they were doing, before they redefined it.
The collapse is engineered by people like Ryan by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 15:14 · Score: 0

I know, right? He should stick to the tradition of pushing it off on the next generation like his forefathers did, that way the inevitable collapse won't affect you.
No. Ryan, McConnell, Trump and the Republicans shouldn't be creating the 1.5 trillion hole in the budget to enrich his rich, spoiled, entitled friends by passing this ridiculous tax bill, and THEN paying for it by cutting our earned benefits and effectively stealing what we've paid into social security all of our working lives.
1. Re: The collapse is engineered by people like Ryan by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 17:13 · Score: 0
  
  I much preferred obamas 10 trillion dollar whole. Money went to nothing. Just vanished. Not a single "shovel ready job" happened.
  Oh wait, sorry, he's a fucking idiot and probably a traitor and ruined the economy and enabled Iran to continue building nukes ad gave them $300 billion in unmarked cash and spewed racist hatred at every opportunity and was such a horrible leader he made intelligent people long for the days of jimmy carter. But oh he's black and a democrat so he's the best ever!
  Yeah.....
Re: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 15:28 · Score: 0

So the solution is to defund them for being unable to accomplish science? Or is it better to let them continue to think propaganda art can be called science when the proper people are on the payroll?
different from any other year? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 16:15 · Score: 0

It's been a long time since I worked in the government, but this kind of thing was normal for every interaction with a congresscritter. When someone would visit or request some document, we generally had someone looking up what that person cared about, what issues they supported, what stories to focus on, etc. We'd usually grab the most politically similar person available to be the minder during the visit. Kissing politician butt has been a national tradition longer than we've been a nation.
Now the guys who leaked this to the press... that's not smart. Their budget is definitely in danger now (and not from Congress, the bureaucracy is brutal, nonpartisan, and can smell weakness). Being a "policy analyst" and leaking internal budget policy to the press doesn't indicate a good understanding of how policies work in the government.
Re:Why do those specific words need to be used? by felix+rayman · 2017-12-18 16:31 · Score: 1

If the word "transgender" were to be used in the context of the condition being considered a disease or a mental disorder, the Left Wing would have a complete melt-down!

An epidemic of transgender has been spreading rapidly up and down the west coast. Evidence-based analysis suggests that the probability of a fetus at this time is low.
Re:Why do those specific words need to be used? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 17:17 · Score: 1

No. Each of these words has an accepted formal definition.
news for nerds?? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 18:04 · Score: 0

How is this tech news?
The Term Has Escaped by SuperKendall · 2017-12-18 18:27 · Score: 2

My good man, this isn't twitter. It's kind of tacky trying to use hashtags here.
I'd normally agree but the the thing is, the term has come into such wide use it seems out of place without the hashtag, which obviously does nothing on Slashdot but does imply the totality of thought behind the term. Much like people actually use the word "hashtag" before something in normal conversation now...
You just have to except that language evolves, and that's one of the ways it is changing.
So the HHS said calling it a ban was a "mischaracterization", which means they have admitted something was said on the topic
Yes, BUT as I said there is rampant proof they are still using those terms so obviously the original story is #FakeNews, regardless of how much you waffle around that fact. The story claimed they were forbidden, they are not, you can also continue to "mischaracterize" (i.e. lie) about it, or people can do the adult thing, and admit when they are wrong.
Bleatig about fake ews
You complain about my use of Hashtag in a convo then you drop that.... #dadjoke

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:The Term Has Escaped by serviscope_minor · 2017-12-18 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  the term has come into such wide use it seems out of place without the hashtag
  Then you have spent too much time on twitter, and if not twitter, a very very narrow range of web forums.
  Much like people actually use the word "hashtag" before something in normal conversation now.
  They do? I mean sure they do occasionally, very, but IME usually for some ironic or amusing emphasis. I hang around with nerds so we also use "pwn3d", "n00b", "OMG", "l33t", "lol", "protip" and a few others in much the same way.
  Yes, BUT as I said there is rampant proof they are still using those terms
  That's kind of a inane thing to say. If a missive came down, it'd take months modify every public piece of information from an organisation that size.
  he story claimed they were forbidden, they are not, you can also continue to "mischaracterize"
  You haven't see the missive either. The only information you have was the perso who said it was mischaracterized. You don't actually kow what was said.
  What's iteresting, is I'll hold off on forming a strong opinio either way until all the facts are in, where as you are rabidly cliging to the
  You complain about my use of Hashtag in a convo then you drop that.... #dadjoke
  I honestly wish that had been itetional. Unfortunately, my "n" key seems to be not long for this world, that's all.
  Plus, they've been called dad jokes for decades. No need to use a hashtag. I that instace, putting a hashtag in front of it does't really add anything, because "then you drop that dad joke" scans perfectly as a phrase.
  It works much better for something that doesn't naturally scan, like adding "hashtag lifehacks" to a stuningly obvious pirce of advice.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Slashdot propagates fake news, big surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 18:27 · Score: 0

So what else is new?
In other words, trump administration is lying. by Maxo-Texas · 2017-12-18 18:50 · Score: 1

Time to impeach him for violations of the emoluments clause based on real estate deals with russia and taking cash from non-american citizens at Mara Largo.
Past time to impeach him for actively attacking our democratic institutions.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Politics. by SuricouRaven · 2017-12-18 19:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Thought so. The 'banned words' is really more of a guide for scientists on "How to talk to politicians."
"Don't say 'fetus!' To you it's a science word, but to a politician that's a flag of liberalism. If you utter that word they'll see you as the enemy and cut your funding. Just call it a pre-born child and they'll treat you as one of their own."
1. Re:Politics. by arth1 · 2017-12-19 02:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "Don't say 'fetus!' To you it's a science word, but to a politician that's a flag of liberalism. If you utter that word they'll see you as the enemy and cut your funding. Just call it a pre-born child and they'll treat you as one of their own."
  I think we need a translation dictionary, not a list of words to avoid.
  Perhaps Google Translate could get a "Conservative" language option.
2. Re:Politics. by SuricouRaven · 2017-12-19 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  The political divide in the US has grown so severe that even language is beginning to splinter in two. Using words claimed by the wrong faction is like turning up to a football match wearing the wrong team's shirt. .. are football shirts a thing there?
3. Re:Politics. by arth1 · 2017-12-19 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  are football shirts a thing there?
  Not nearly as much as in association football. One reason is that American football shirts are designed to be worn over massive shoulder pads.
"Reality" by Miles_O'Toole · 2017-12-18 23:12 · Score: 1

Just another word on the Republicans' Shit List.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Stop frothing at the mouth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 23:31 · Score: 0

Do your kind of people even finish reading the summary before ranting and raving you conspiracy theories? It's all in there, if in doubt you could try reading the story or look for, oh I don't know, evidence another opinion, anything but a knee jerk conspiracy response after reading half a headline.
Re:FAKENEWS! MSMASH IS FAKENEWS! BEAUHD IS FAKENEW by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-18 23:40 · Score: 0

And how about the Russians?
Heh, they now have bigger rotten fish to bury.
Did you see the Politico articles about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's (and many other top DNC leaders in Congress) IT guy th they all used was a Hezbollah money-laundering front guy. DWS and many top DNC leaders used this guy and his family as IT consultants when none of them had *any* IT experience whatsoever*. To top it off, they used a used-car dealership they laundered money through that they bought with a loan from a wealthy Hezbollah backer from Iran who is already wanted for terrorism and fraud related charges in the US.
There's a whole laundry-list of serious criminal charges pending against DWS's "IT guy" and his family, and they appear to have been neck-deep in some very, very bad shit, bank fraud being among the least of it.
https://www.politico.com/story...
https://www.politico.com/story...
https://www.politico.com/story...
The entire affair stinks like last week's fish.
Of course, the MSM is trying their best to ignore it and give DWS and the DNC cover hoping it will go away. Far too late for that, methinks.
This should be interesting.
Haha, they're not 'banned words' silly. by Maritz · 2017-12-19 01:39 · Score: 1

They're just words that, if you use them, ensure you won't get funded. That's all.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Here's the real takeaway by RogueWarrior65 · 2017-12-19 02:38 · Score: 1

Don't be too quick to pass judgement when a "news" story appears. There's a high probability that your snap judgement will be wrong a week or two after.
So, not a ban, but by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-19 06:58 · Score: 0

It’s not a ban. It’s just a strategy for not triggering the fundamentalist Christians who rule our country.
Well, I fell so much better then.
We all know they do ban words by Digital+G · 2017-12-19 07:56 · Score: 1

I mean common when was the last time you've see the CDC use the work Zombies, Walkers, or in-corporeal brain eaters?

--

End Transmission....
Re:FAKE NEWS!!! by nwaack · 2017-12-19 08:40 · Score: 1

Soooo, this is modded as troll? But it actually IS FAKE F*CKING NEWS!!!! Holy crap, the stupidity of some people on this site amazes me.