Almost added this to "The Memory Hole" (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14885.0) thread, but it's a somewhat different approach to throttling science that Trump and his fellow kakistocrats don't like.
The Trump administration has determined that certain words will be forbidden from use by the CDC.
"CDC banned from using 7 words, including 'science-based,' in budget documents" |
Vox (https://www.vox.com/2017/12/16/16784498/cdc-seven-words-science-transgender-fetus)
QuoteThe Trump administration has reportedly banned officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using these seven words in budget documents — a move that some are calling downright Orwellian:
- evidence-based
- science-based
- vulnerable
- entitlement
- diversity
- transgender
- fetus
[Continues . . . (https://www.vox.com/2017/12/16/16784498/cdc-seven-words-science-transgender-fetus)]
Yeah, this is horrifying. I haven't gotten much further than that yet.
This is getting more and more like a satirical and farcical novel or movie every week.
I wish George Carlin were still around to do a monologue on these 7 dirty words.
"Fetus. Why can't we say 'fetus'? Maybe because it will remind us of the size of Trump's hands?"
An exercise in stupidity. How much of the OED shall we place out of bounds? One must wonder about the identity of the dumb fuck who dreamed up this idiocy. Maybe Roy Moore or one of his acolytes???? Pence? He actually is a super sensitive goober. Surely not the Trumpster. He has a foul mouth that has been well demonstrated. ......Please tell me that this is a colossal hoax initiated by Saturday Night Live comedians.
Quote from: Dave on December 16, 2017, 06:57:21 PM
This is getting more and more like a satirical and farcical novel or movie every week.
Yes, an Orwellian pastiche.
Quote from: hermes2015 on December 17, 2017, 07:52:53 AM
Quote from: Dave on December 16, 2017, 06:57:21 PM
This is getting more and more like a satirical and farcical novel or movie every week.
Yes, an Orwellian pastiche.
The trouble is it's real.
I doubt Trump has read 1984 though, he doesn't seem like much of a literary buff.
I don't understand how this can even be Constitutional. Of all the things that people call violations of free speech, it seems to me this actually is one.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 17, 2017, 07:07:41 PM
I don't understand how this can even be Constitutional. Of all the things that people call violations of free speech, it seems to me this actually is one.
I guess that depends on what actually happens if they violate the directive? I don't think it's illegal to say "we don't want you to use these words" but if they back that up with any action, it's definitely a violation.
I am ready to get out the pitch forks for physically disposing of the incredibly ignorant fool, or group of dimwitted fools, who dreamed up this absurd word game. I do believe that this stupidity has come close to violating one of our most revered amendments.
Quote from: Pasta Chick on December 17, 2017, 07:26:07 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 17, 2017, 07:07:41 PM
I don't understand how this can even be Constitutional. Of all the things that people call violations of free speech, it seems to me this actually is one.
I guess that depends on what actually happens if they violate the directive? I don't think it's illegal to say "we don't want you to use these words" but if they back that up with any action, it's definitely a violation.
I don't see how that's the case. Does a government employee have free speech rights when writing budget documents? If the employees were banned from ever using those words and phrases the point would be well taken but in the context of official documents which are subject to review by the administration I don't think that the 1st Ammendment applies.
Quote from: jumbojak on December 18, 2017, 05:58:18 AM
If the employees were banned from ever using those words and phrases the point would be well taken but in the context of official documents which are subject to review by the administration I don't think that the 1st Ammendment applies.
I expect you're right -- still damned high-handed tho and an unnecessary interference in the job of writing a report.
And then there's this which is going around FB. I can't see it without thinking "and a partridge in a pear tree".
(https://i.imgur.com/i6gua0q.jpg)
It has to be possible to construct a single, (more or less) logical sentence (if a long one) that contains all these words.
"It is possible to conclude, from science-based research and evidence based data, that transgender people are "born" as such in the fetus, but they are vulnerable to the bias of those lacking diversity of mind whilst still having every legal entitlement under the constitution!"
(Since this might be a speech, rhetorical, by a politician a certain level of the abuse of words is to be expected.)