Do we even need that ounce of cleverness?
As per the article, the suggested phrase used to replace “science-based” for a CDC recommendation is one where the CDC – based its recommendation on science.
That’s not even really trying, is it?
Like.
Doesn’t the CDC hold samples of all of the worlds most dangerous pathogens?
I’m just saying - I wouldn’t want to be the one who pissed them off.
If they can’t say “evidence-based” and “science-based” are they allowed to say “pulled out of my ass”?
The new standard that replaces evidence and science is “I saw this on Fox News”.
Doubleplusungood. :mad:
The american idiots made their decision, now the rest of us have to suffer.
Is there some sort of precedent for this? Can a government department legally ‘ban’ words at all? Seems rather like this would be a violation of the right to free speech. What am I missing here?
As I understand, the government doesn’t has the same power as a private employer to discipline an employee for their speech as a private citizen, because that would violate the First Amendment rights of the employees. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) that this protection didn’t extend to statements that were made “pursuant to [their] position as a public employee” (I’m quoting the Wikipedia summary there – I haven’t read the text of the decision. Also, I’m not a lawyer.) This was a 5-4 decision by the Court’s conservative majority (Kennedy joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito).
Since this rule is about what CDC employees can say in CDC documents – not in their personal life – I suppose that it is legal under that precedent. Which doesn’t change the fact that it is both terrible policy and frankly a laughable embarrassment.
Not a bad idea, but they’ll probably want to save at least a few of Carlin’s dirty words for referring to the administration diversities responsible for this vulnerable policy.
It’s almost as if the whole effort was designed to produce maximum liberal outrage as a distraction from other issues, but with zero cost and no real net effect.
Perhaps.
Or perhaps it just reveals the Right as delicate snowflakes, who need a Safe Space where they won’t have to see the words “transgender” or “diversity” (etc.) Poor fragile little things!
Sorry, you’re not allowed to say ‘pathogens’. they’re demons.
Thanks. Ignorance fought.
Ok, but doesn’t it seem as if this fresh bit of asshattery is motivated by the very dumbest forms of religion? Demonstrate that and this moronic yet utterly Trumpian rule would amount to an establishment of religion. Wouldn’t it?
I thought that already with accepting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel—something guaranteed to generate lots of media coverage/outrage at nearly zero cost (to Trump, that is; and that’s all the cost that matters to Trump, I mean, really, what’s a few more suicide bombings :mad:). But what is it a distraction for?
As (poorly) written, I’m not getting the outage. Avoiding certain words and wording in your budget requests to avoid triggering idiots in OMB and Congress is hardly a new game played at executive agencies. I was involved in very similar discussions when Obama was president. Unless I missed something, the reported behavior is consistent with people trying to get their jobs done while staying off the chopping block.
I don’t buy it.
Then by all means explain to us what you do buy and what evidence you are using to draw your conclusion. A career bureaucrat told her staff to avoid certain wording in documents that will eventually go to OMB, and then to Congress to justify your existence. These are two organizations with the power to fuck with you doing your job if they take the wrong sort of notice. As written, this isn’t even news.
If I understand Steve correctly he’s saying that Trump isn’t ‘avoiding’ certain words, he’s banning them. There’s a difference. He’s also calling BS because you didn’t provide any examples. Simply saying ‘obama did it first’ and leaving it at that isn’t helpful.
And if steve isn’t saying that, I am.
Also, can we not do the thing where you make a claim and ask for the other person to prove you’re wrong, cuz that’s not how it works. You made the claim, you back it up.