Yes, I know there is a pit thread on this but I would like a civil discourse. It is abhorrent that the Trump administration would ban any words (free speech and all, right?) but “science-based”? I would love to hear a right leaning members justification of this.
One of the things I like most about Trump is that, unlike most wimpy Republicans, he is willing to use the same dirty tricks that the left uses. Manipulating language is a classic tool of liberals, and now he is appropriating it. Surrendering the moral high ground in favor of actually accomplishing his goals is a tough trade-off, and it’s rare to see someone doing it on the Right. I’m not defending it, exactly. Just happy to see someone on the Right fighting as hard and dirty as the Left does all the time.
As far as I can tell from the conservatives to whom I’ve spoken, Tim Mortiss has basically summarized their motivation. There is no policy goal, stated or unstated. There is just a desire to fight the enemy - enemy defined as some vague idea of “liberalism” - without any higher purpose. By this measure, the angry response that this move is receiving means it is objectively successful in their minds, since producing that response was the entire goal of the measure, and indeed of politics in general.
Another who agrees with the above posts. I am just a little surprised that it took this long for a Right-leaner to actually pull something like this off. I think we can look forward to more examples over the next two years.
RWPC?
I think this sums it up nicely. Conservatives are once again fighting an enemy that only exists in their imagination.
Do you mind giving some examples of liberal government action similar to this? I’m not talking about dumb college kids (or even dumb college administrators) banning non-PC (by your definition) words.
And do you equate “evidence-based” for example with disparaging terms for minorities?
No, they apparently see evidence based studies showing rising sea levels or the impact of coal on the environment as the same as racist taunts. And if liberals are against taunts, they are justified in being against science.
Don’t forget projecting like a chain of multiplexes.
So it doesn’t concern you that the president is, by your own words, is doing dirty tricks? Just as long as you think it’s what Dems have done, you applaud it? WTF?
(I suddenly feel like pressing my face into a pillow and screaming.)
Some of them are easily defendable.
Organizations of any type are vulnerable to mission creep. The CDC is not immune. Their purpose is to study and defend against contagious diseases. Thus they have absolutely no reason in the world to even consider “diversity.” It simply is not relevant to their mission.
The same with “entitlement.” That’s a political/social/psychological word, depending on context.
Unless there are contagious diseases that “fetuses” and “transgender” people are uniquely subject to, then those have no relevance either.
The other three are just more of Trump’s impulsiveness.
Politicians seldom take the high road, but IME Republicans take it far seldomer.
If they’ve been using those words, they must have had a reason. Explain why they shouldn’t use those words where appropriate.
While I disagree, I appreciate your response. I understand things like not agreeing with abortion or not understanding the facts regarding climate change but I’m baffled than anyone in this country, conservative or liberal, would condone ignoring fact based information for an important fact-rooted organization like the CDC.
Can you provide examples of something as egregious as this done by the left.
Bolding mine (if it worked via cell phone]. Fetuses are uniquely subject to diseases that are far less significant in the rest of us. Zika virus, rubella, toxoplasmosis, etc., just off the top of my head.
This is deeply and dangerously misinformed. Every decent study of disease - whether observational or interventional - should be considering the diversity of its study population and whether it accurately represents the clinical population dealing with that disease. If the sample is not sufficiently diverse, attempts need to be made to either correct for the possible bias or create studies that cover a more representative population.
And this doesn’t even consider dozens of other uses of the word “diversity.” Here’s an example: Gantner et al. 2017. Dolutegravir reshapes the genetic diversity of HIV-1 reservoirs. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017 Dec 13. While this study has nothing whatsoever with the kind of “diversity” you’re trying to make into the boogeyman, the ridiculous censorship of even the word hurts the reporting of this sort of research.
Useful in the context of mental health, as well as studies of large-scale non-acute interventions that might prevent illness.
Could you seriously be under the impression that there are no health and disease concerns unique to the fetal population (or to the population of women who are carrying fetuses)? There… uh… are. There are a lot of them. There are entire branches of medicine devoted almost exclusively to helping to control and prevent disease prior to birth. Researches in such branches should, I guess, stop using the commonly accepted word for the population. Because… uh… it’s… why, again? The transgender example is somewhat less stark, but there are certainly medical questions unique to those populations. Why would you think there might not be?
What is one to say to that?
This is why I dislike threads like this. Because it’s really hard to respond to a statement this thoroughly bizarre and do it justice. Let’s ignore the rather thorny question about which side does it more; the implicit idea here is that it’s a rarity that people on the right fight dirty. And that idea is just nuts.
Just off the top of my head, John Kerry lost in no small part in 2004 due to a right-wing smear campaign. This smear campaign was complete nonsense, but enough people believed it to turn a general who had earned a silver star for his valor into a fraud. Half your voter base believes that Barack Obama was not born in the USA. In 2009, the republican party held up the election of the 60th democratic senator and abused the filibuster to an utterly unprecedented degree. Opposition to Obamacare was based less on rational critiques of the effects of the law and more on crazy nonsense - in fact, the right-wing media has spread an awful lot of crazy nonsense over the past decade, with a clearly partisan bend. Hell, the list of right-wing dirty tricks in the 2016 election alone is pretty staggering. And let’s not forget how, when their candidate was faced with accusations of pedophilia, a right-wing media group decided the way to go was to try to discredit the accusations with a fake plant.
And that’s just the shit I’m thinking of off the top of my head.
Dude, I’m sorry, but if you think that the right doesn’t typically fight dirty, you have not been paying attention.
Easiest request I’ve ever received. The left has been manipulating language for decades, at least.
Not a bum - “homeless”
Not an illegal alien - an “undocumented worker”
Not a lawless zone - a “sanctuary city”
“Black Lives Matter” - you’re a racist if you try to imply that *all *lives matter.
BC and AD not allowed; now it’s “Common Era” or “Before Common Era”
No more Christmas Trees - now they are “Holiday Trees”
“Cripped” became “handicapped” became “disabled” became “differently-abled.” :rolleyes:
I could go on, but I imagine you get the idea. Orwell is smiling somewhere and saying, “I told you so!”