EPIDLochness
191107
3974
223
When I saw the story released the other day by WaPo I thought something was a little fishy, as it was based entirely off what someone heard and no actual proof. The crazy thing is being part of the scientific world this story exploded within our community. Brenda Fitzgerald (CDC Director) just released a comment saying there are no banned words, which no one will spread because it doesn’t help the original motives of the story. I am fine with stories being told but make sure it is true before. This is the reason all news sources from all ends of spectrum are being much less credible. Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cdc-director-says-there-are-no-banned-words-at-the-agency
ljdw
Just change all mentions of "evidence-based" and "science-based" to "faith-based", then sit back and watch the money roll in.
Dionysus187
using these words could endanger our important work and essential funding = ban
CreepyPhlox
“The assertion that H.H.S. has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,”...
CreepyPhlox
...Matt Lloyd, an agency spokesman. He doesn't say there AREN'T banned words...just a lot of fancy words.
merdock379
It was easily believed since cowardly Republicans have been banning words for some time now.
Heavyoak
did she type that with a gun to her head?
PersonalityFire
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
todayok
So the story broke several days ago but there's only a denial (retreat) issued much later, on a Sunday. Hmmmmm... damage control.
Glasgowlight
Oh a CDC staff member has denied it, she must be telling the truth.
Dionysus187
If doing it can result in negative consequences then you are not 'free' to do it.
NoDamsel
They’re not banned at the CDC officially. They’re banned from being used in Budget line items for the 2018 Budget for CDC stuffs. It’s worse
rrlyrae
the IRS denied targeting groups with political names for scrutiny. do you really trust the CDC leader completely? WaPo article was sourced.
BluBoxx
Ok bear with me @OP. This is a common tactic of the current administration, and isn’t innocent as you suggest. The process goes like 1/
BluBoxx
Defunding and ostracizing of those who continue to use them. This process has already gutted programs at the USGS and EPA. I can 3/
BluBoxx
Personally attest to the impact it’s had on USGS researchers who study climate, as all but a handful who continue to study Global Warming 4/
BluBoxx
This: 1) internal memorandum in a government agency “banning” certain terms 2) public rebuke, denying terms are banned 3) gradual 2/
BluBoxx
Geophysical Union last week. Don’t take this type of tactic lightly, it has dire consequences 6/6
caramelballoffur
Dude you are spot on, but please put comments like these as replies to one another. It is freaking hard to follow if you don't
BluBoxx
And climate change were denied USGS approval to present their work that had already been accepted for presentation at the American 5/
DixonHillPrivateEye
But the part about our funding being slashed over the next ten years by 80%, totally true, and unnoticed by the public.
quickhand
The PBS article doesn't invalidate the WaPo article, just adds nuance. WaPo included HHS's non-denial response in their article.
devzzo
Can we as a society somehow transition from assurance to proof? Words are worth nothing. Prove it.
OkramTheBarbarian
So not a "law" rather a "suggestion" ?
FlintStick
Took you people a while
TheDreadPirateRobots
Considering she was appointed by Trump’s cabinet, I’m going to take this with a 3-square meal dose of doubt.
adadsupreme
We live in a world where people only glean information from headlines.
itsallup
The original article is accurate; others misconstrued it. People here swinging at the press based on this OP's post alone is the same issue.
maniacalmacaroni
Yeah, the original article was factually correct and sourced. The memes it gets turned into no longer count as news but many think they do.
tzahtman
Doesn't a de facto ban essentially have the same impact? Changing the language so it doesn't sound bad doesn't change the effect.
Ssssssssssss
It's a ban in written reports and proposals. They can be rainbowing it up verbally.
reallynotmikepence
The verbiage is a recommended internal change. If their boss told them to use cerulean instead of blue are they banned from saying blue?
MarcusRiedner
The grant writing process is entirely about what language to use. It is a voluntary process. Hence, not a ban.
MarcusRiedner
The legislative funding process is entirely about what language to use. It is voluntary language processes. Hence, not a ban. Better? MKTHX.
MarcusRiedner
(thanks for kindly illustrating the point.)
AxelBeingCivil
Oh, good. The administration didn't ban words; Republicans are just scared of things like "diversity" and "vulnerable" as to risk funding.
theonewhohuntschickens
Thats a little hypocritical considering liberals don't like words like "intellectual diversity"
AxelBeingCivil
Nah, people like intellectual diversity. They just don't like those words as a dog whistle for homophobes, supremacists, and other bigots.
soirailaht
Don't forget they're scared of "evidence based" or "sceinece based"
channelranger
Well reality does have a well-known liberal bias.
stiggypa
Except gun related deaths, we still aren't allowed to research those.
DamnedAustin
Yes and no. The ban on gun research was lifted. Now it's just under-funded to the point of being useless.
SpecialAgentSmecker
Except, you know, that it never existed. A ban on advocating for gun control, yes. A ban on research, no.
DamnedAustin
It wasn't a ban in name, but it was in effect.
SpecialAgentSmecker
If it was, that's the CDC's fault. If they can't research without advocating for their political agenda, they needed the restrictions.
DamnedAustin
You're thinking about it from the wrong side. How are they supposed to do reliable research if there are some findings they're not (1)
popejubal
Wait, you're saying that Trump's appointed CDC director is saying that there isn't a ban and that it's just "gentle encouragement"?
AverySillyName
HEXADECIMAL
What I think? SCIENCE BE PRAISED! We must protect SCIENCE and its Holy Child INTERNET! J/K?
popejubal
Science isn't a holy word passed down from on high. It's a process that helps to ensure the stuff we believe actually matches what's real.
HEXADECIMAL
#Southpark
popejubal
1/ I was hoping it was a joke, but I do know people who think that science is just another source of received wisdom, just evil
HEXADECIMAL
I understand your meaning, but they dont understand science. EVERYTHING in science is a theory, there are no tru Laws.
popejubal
2/2 because it isn't Jesus
HEXADECIMAL
People who treat any theory as a law dont properly understans the sceintific method.
waitwasthatreal
Well it’s not good form to put word’s and phrases the benefactor might not like if you are gunna ask for money, that’s not new.
8hourgamer
Congress controls funding not the president
Dionysus187
this isn't some private company or someone collecting funds for a start up.
popejubal
If your "benefactor" doesn't like "evidence based" or "science based", then your benefactor sucks.
Imgurkoff69
Lot of leftists hate "Evidence based" and "Facts". As proven by how people are still thinking Trump is a Nazi.
waitwasthatreal
Sure, if Reps gave them the words, but they didn’t. It was an interval decision about how ask for money.
BluBoxx
“Internal decision” by the Trump administration appointed leadership of the agency....
Jusmar
They're pandering to the people who give them money. That's how research works.
risiblewilbury123456
context?
Pazuzu4All
The Washington Post article specified that the words weren't to be used in budget proposals. People thought it meant throughout the CDC.
olegh
My guess is that it's about Trump's decree to "avoid certain words"
5P4C3M4N
A tweet from the director of the CDC
risiblewilbury123456
i can see that, is there a reason for it? what's the story?
moonkin
are you trolling? click the link dude. we get 140 characters and you want a tl;dr on a nuanced story that made national headlines. god damn.
risiblewilbury123456
no. the url paraphrases the post, so i figure the post paraphrases the story. but ppl don't randomly tweet that there are no banned words...
risiblewilbury123456
somewhere. there's surely a reason for this? maybe there's a story? that's what i meant
MrJane12
Real news is dead. They print rumors and conjecture now and whatever the hell else they want. It's gross.
GaySocialistLiberalMuslimCommieAtheist
News always has been, and will be, business. It exists to make money, nothing more. It's not a charity.
imdonewithpickingusernames
They gotta make money somehow! Real news is sooo boring...
maniacalmacaroni
Have you read either of the articles? The Wapo article clearly stated that the words were not to be used in budget proposals. The meeting
maniacalmacaroni
Took place, and they were actually told this. No one is refuting that much from what I can tell. The rumors and conjecture came from people
maniacalmacaroni
Who probably read the title of the article and assumed Trump was going to start burning books and ran with it on social media.
PurityOfEssence
People should probably read beyond headlines before they go bashing journalism carte blanche
Skulties1
Or read beyond memes before they assume things...
maniacalmacaroni
Yeah, in my view WP did good reporting as they almost always do. They never claimed this was anything more than a list of words not to use
noscarletcoat
She, the director of the CDC, can't discuss cancer or opiates due to a financial conflict of interest she shows no intention of remedying
MistressLyda
Source?
noscarletcoat
Sorry, it's a long web address, but put washingtonpost in front of the .com for it
MistressLyda
Thanks!
noscarletcoat
WSHPOST .com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/12/11/new-cdc-head-faces-questions-about-financial-conflicts-of-interest/?utm_term=.1c52a8447d46
Freyja33
I'm trans, and even if the words aren't banned, but just discouraged in an internal memo this is still incredibly fucked up.
MerToo
I'm sorry, you're not allowed to say "fucked-up", you need to say "unsupported by community values"
Freyja33
It's really genuinely terrifying to me how many people ITT see no problem with this, just because it's not what they'd initially expected.
pilates4hotties
It's basic politics to avoid charging headlong into hot topics. I guarantee they have to do similar things when dems are in power.
Opportunist
If you increase the water temperature slowly the frog will not jump out and will sit and be boiled to death.
Freyja33
2017 in America in a nutshell
yourabigguy
I got downvoted to Oblivion for saying this. Sad - many such cases
bringbakfirefly
Same here. But I will not be deterred from speaking the truth.
NotTechnicallyIncorrect
Me too! On Imgur, publications from any anti-Trump news source counts as “science”, and any sort of skepticism is heretical. TMYK.
MerToo
found the Orange Idiot's Imgur account!
hardstuffdontgothroughwalls
Same
EnuffKatzAwlready
Imgur is becoming like Tumblr. If anyone suspects you aren't a lefty commie like them......Commence the downvoting.
wereSOlittle
But the word ban being true would make the cdc look republican. It being false would seem democrat. Did you not read the article?
IAmDrBanner
The problem is that too many people take politics like a good vs evil thing. Anyone right of them is a nazi, anyone left is a commie.
THRILLHOUSE69
Sad exclamation mark
IAmDrBanner
Actually fake news. People who pull this kind of crap and the people whoso quickly buy into it and have knee jerk reactions are the /1
IAmDrBanner
ones who end up giving credibilitiy to this administration and strenghtening his base. When they prove him actually right with /2
IAmDrBanner
"fake news" it just ends up making it easier for them to dismiss or discredit real news later. /3
TheCeilingIsLava
Was oblivion less than negative 40? Otherwise you good.
pyrrhlis
I mean Oblivion’s a nice place...
yourabigguy
Nice game, yes. Nice place - not so much
Optimixto
When we had the referendum crisis in Spain, back in october, lies were upvoted to the FP and my post with actual sources didn't get nowhere.
EPIDLochness
Yeah I figure it might get downvoted but wanted the truth out there! And good on you for trying too!!!
apcamanda
Ditto!
Deanscream
And this is why Trump is calling outlets fake news.
IamTheTeapot
He calls them fake news because they write unfavorable stories about him or friends. Even when 100% factually accurate. A propaganda tactic.
TheCeilingIsLava
Regardless of why trump thinks so, they are fake news. We just saw that none of them care about finding a real source.
MadDrDrillBit
but your propaganda arm is not telling you the truth, thay are not facts as of late. Darth Vader did not kill Annikin obwan, he became evil.
Skulties1
Where is this story from?
alexaCheeseMonster
Me too
IamTheTeapot
"not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words"
HeretiCorpHasAnDFAcannon
2017 Gib money for 'oranges'.2018 Gib money for 'biological edible vitamin juice conservers'. Making it on paper much more than it really is
FuzzyX
No one can save them if they dare mention global warming.
Freyja33
As a transgender person I still think that's incredibly fucked up, and it's terrifying how many people ITT think this is fine.
odraencoded
"He didn't lie, he just made a couple of false claims."
Dionysus187
so effectively a ban
byohzzrd
We're not saying you can't use them, but if you want your life saving research funded, don't use them.
IamTheTeapot
It's more like, "Our current bosses are stupid. If we want funds, I suggest avoiding these trigger words. Maybe use puppets and small words"
nakedvibe
That's double plus good to hear. You had me worried for a second
SteveMND
Which was noted in some form in virtually all of the original articles; just no-one ever bothers reading past the click-baity headlines /1.
SteveMND
2/ down to the actual meat of the article. That said, the fact that this meshed so well with what we've come to expect out of this /2
SteveMND
3/ administration by this point is disturbing in its own right.
awesock
I will attest to the fact that some of them didn't have that clarification, as this is news to me and I did read a few of em.
SteveMND
I suppose there may have been some that didn't refer to the word choice being for the Budget Proposal, but I haven't come across one yet.
LosPer
So, it's about selling ideas to a diverse group with lots of different opinions and not a ban...my guess is those same words were words >
LosPer
IamTheTeapot
Pretty much, yeah.
LosPer
Cons and libs use different words to describe what they care about. It's only natural that selling to them will require different language
IamTheTeapot
everyone does. cons libs, whatever. There's always a demographic to play to when trying to get grant funds.
Heywhatcouldgowrong
Sounds like a ban to me. Also sounds like like the GOP is a bunch of snowflakes.
735824
Snowflakes with nukes led by the Fascist and Chief.
IamTheTeapot
Not a ban. Manipulative wording. Banning means forbidden on pain of punishment. this is just heavily suggested words to avoid.
Heywhatcouldgowrong
In edu and govt, strongly suggested words to avoid is the same as a ban. And worse for democracy.
IamTheTeapot
Not the same. Not even close. It's playing politics. They can and probably will still use em, likely. You just won't see them as frequently.
ScruffyThePirate
It's like advertising
annibe11e
I'm in MN, so I'm down voting any comment that mentions snowflakes. Nothing personal.
Heywhatcouldgowrong
Fair enough. I’m in SD so I understand the feeling.
DonaldTrumpsFlaccidHairpiece
Scientists know gop wont fund things with key words due to their voters, so this is a way to get funding from gop congress, thats all.
Dionysus187
scientific agencies have to lie and engage social engineer to get proper funding, thats all.
DonaldTrumpsFlaccidHairpiece
This likely happens regardless of who is paying. We all know not all humans value everything the same.
NotTheSharpestSpoonInTheDrawer
That's a horrible state of affairs, that's all.
DonaldTrumpsFlaccidHairpiece
nobody said it was a good thing.
thdudedude
When you ask someone for money, you consider who they are, and choose your words carefully. You don’t piss them off in the process. Sounds
thdudedude
smart to me.
itsnotaraisin
If it's Grandma, yes.
popejubal
When you ask congress for money, you shouldn't have to avoid using the term "evidence based".
thdudedude
Why wouldn’t you present your request to give you the highest chance of getting funds?
popejubal
And because there's just something FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with researchers pretending to research something they aren't just to get funding.
popejubal
Because you want to present evidence based research that is credible and reliable and has less chance of being perverted by political agenda
Beleg7
Which is a different, but still quite significant, problem.
QuitLookinAtMineAim
It's more like just knowing your audience. You have to ask people for money, it's best not to push their buttons
chuckles11
"libtard snowflakes are so easily triggered" *sees the word 'fetus' in research grant proposal* "WHAAARRRRRGARBLEGARBLE"
IamTheTeapot
It's being realistic. It's more of an indicator of what the CDC thinks of the administration than anything
Beleg7
Yes, it's acknowledging the horrific realities of the current situation.
DorMin2
And the fact that it is a realistic opinion of the administration is a Not Good Thing.
AlexisActually
I mean... Maybe the republicans just really wanted weak central government, that's why they elected a weak-ass bitch.
IamTheTeapot
Agreed.
IamTheTeapot
the tl;dr: The list was not by the administration, but internal. Trying to obtain funding. As a heavily suggested method, not outright ban.
EPIDLochness
Yeah which I understand. It is like when applying for grants you cater to who will be in the review committee.
iPretend
Which kinda sucks cuz it already primes scientists not to challenge existing theory.
CptRobotNinja
So like, theyre gonna have to do their budget in crayon for this committee?
LawmanLata
Doesn't speak well of the committee when they disapprove of hearing the words "Science/evidence based"
IamTheTeapot
Exactly. Wording in reports and proposals like that are often done by the scientific community when reharding politics. It's telling that
IamTheTeapot
they chose THOSE words, in that they are afraid of unduly triggering a bad reaction, but... it's not some anti-intellectual policy.
MadDrDrillBit
not anti intellectual, those are the dog whistles of the left crowd.those words have been weaponized and are practicality useless now.
Barronvonburp
An evidence based study has determined that you are a cunt :)
darkklad2000
Ah I see, like when your talking to a baby to get it to take it's medicine, you don't use the word medicine.
IamTheTeapot
Exactly. It's verbal peanut butter.
FixinYou
And we're all dogs lured into licking their brown, chunk covered junk?
unnecessaryredarrows
Comment stolen.
DrPepperWho
Oh my. Verbal Peanut Butter....I kind of want to change my username to that.
shinyRK9
is... is that any better?
IamTheTeapot
It's more accurate. Which is better. It's also showing that they're taking a realistic approach to obtaining funds. more science funds=good
AxelBeingCivil
It's not really better in the sense of having any hope or faith at the Republican commitment to reality, though.
PhysicistInHiding
From the standpoint that our government is being run by a bunch of science-illiterate egotistical tools? .... no, no it is not.
questionableanswers
Self-censorship because you fear that your project will get defunded (which is essentially a form of censorship). Depends if you're 1/2
questionableanswers
an 'end justify the means' person or not. 2/2
yourabigguy
The CDC and most federal organizations do this for every admin. To insinuate that it came from the admin or that it is unique is fake news
[deleted]
[deleted]
yourabigguy
Goodsell (2011) "Mission Mystique"
iAmLordBeer
What happened to the word "inaccurate"?
javer80
Too many syllables.
igivetheinternets
The whole "fake news" label is being used just like "nazi." It's an excuse not to think.
iAmLordBeer
Yup! Also to discredit legitimate news outlets that occasionally make mistakes. "Fake News" is made up propaganda, not news with an error.
HEXADECIMAL
NO WORDS CAN BE BANNED THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY OR IT WILL CAUSE MASSIVE HARM. Yes I am yelling.
HEXADECIMAL
I stand by my statement despite your votes. SCIENCE MUST BE FREE OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE, or it will CEASE TO BE SCIENCE.
IamTheTeapot
Should be and is are two different things. Thing are not always as they should be and we must ground ourselves with realistic expectations.
IamTheTeapot
I agree with you that it SHOULD be free of political influence. But merely politicizing budget proposals doesn't eliminate the science.
thdudedude
At that point you are going to have to stop asking for someone else’s money if you don’t want their input.
SanshinDojo
Not funding vital research because a legitimate science word makes baby Jesus cry is already the death of actual science.
IamTheTeapot
I agree it shouldn't be necessary and is a greatly worrying path. But no, it's not the death of science. Politics is merely an obstacle.
thdudedude
This is simply asking for money. Not changing what scientific experiments you are doing. Got work smarter, not harder. Or not at all bec
thdudedude
ause you piss the people with the pocket books off.
MadDrDrillBit
so can scientists ues BABY for a fetus INSTEAD?
popejubal
I think that's kind of the point of that one.
MadDrDrillBit
1)Latin for offspring i know. its about the euphemistic degradation of language. its pc. its softening words to deprive them their power
MadDrDrillBit
2) its bathroom tissue instead of toilet paper, vertically challenged instead of short, oversees kinetic engagement instead of war.
thdudedude
Unborn child. If thats what the donor with money wants to call it, cool. Lets get on with science.
asquiiiiiiisha
It’s not accurate or scientific.
igivetheinternets
You're playing with definitions that have been politicized. I say kill the babies if you want and by baby I mean fetus as most people do
asquiiiiiiisha
A baby and a fetus are developmentally different and have different needs. A 3-mos fetus and a 3-mos baby are *not* the same.
MadDrDrillBit
Depends on when ya cut it out. in reality, we all know. jus makes is sit better in our lives to say fetus right. like slaves weren'tpeople
asquiiiiiiisha
The same as an embryo is a separate stage from a fetus proper. Words really do mean things, especially in a medical/scientific context.
asquiiiiiiisha
In medical context I want people to use the correct terms. A fetus is a different developmental stage from an infant and has different needs
IamTheTeapot
LOSS OF FUNDING TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CAUSES EVEN MORE HARM. MANIPULATIVE PHRASING TO SECURE FUNDS IS A LESSER EVIL.
HEXADECIMAL
It is this sort of thinking that made common people think the world is flat when astronomers knew the world is round.
thdudedude
No its not
IamTheTeapot
I am not yelling, though. Just using caps to be snarky.
popejubal
MANIPULATIVE PHRASING TO SECURE FUNDS UNDERMINES PUBLIC TRUST IN EVIDENCE-BASED RESEARCH AND SCIENCE IN GENERAL.
thdudedude
Pay for it yourself then.
popejubal
I do. With my taxes. And it's one of the many reasons why I pay attention to off-year elections.
IamTheTeapot
BETTER LESS TRUSTED SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS THAN NONE AT ALL OR NO FUNDING FOR GOOD SCIENCE. POLITICS VS. SCIENCE SUCKS BUT THAT'S LIFE ATM.
popejubal
1/ No. Better for research to be done with the reduced funding that will still exist than to undermine public trust in the CDC because that