
CDC gets list of forbidden words - js2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html
======
tptacek
If I understand this well, and it's likely I don't, but for the sake of
argument assume I do? Then the most important thing to know about this story
is that it's about the President's budget document (which is assembled with
input from all the Executive Branch departments).

That budget is one of the more elaborate charades in Washington. Congress
controls the budget by passing laws allocating funds to departments. The
President can't not spend money allocated to those departments. Moreover, the
overwhelming majority of the budget goes to stuff that is effectively non-
discretionary; for instance, to Medicare and Social Security entitlements
spending.

Banning words, and these words in particular, is batshit. I'm probably not
alarming many people on HN when I say this is a batshit administration.

But this is about the words the administration is soliciting from a department
for an elaborate marketing document. Someone tell me why, apart from the
principles and precedents of it all, any of this matters?

~~~
eksemplar
Because words and the way we use them change the world. HN is probably mainly
a place of realism, but social constructs are playing an increasingly
effective part in the world of politics.

On top of that it's another level of bullshit that distracts you from all the
other terrible things the US government is currently doing. "They are
censoring words???" \- mean while the worst tax reform in US history is being
passed to increase inequality to revolutionary levels.

~~~
marcoperaza
> _mean while the worst tax reform in US history is being passed to increase
> inequality to revolutionary levels._

You may be putting too much credence in the hysterical propaganda that
sometimes passes as “news”.

~~~
eksemplar
Being Scandinavian I think I can safely say that I haven't put too much
credence into what Americans pass for news. :)

I have studied history and economics though, and typically you wouldn't want
inequality to grow too far unless you want a violent redistribution of wealth.
Considering America was already collectively crazy enough to elect Trump, I'd
hate to see what happens when things get even worse.

~~~
sstone1
I totally agree with your assessment and it will get much worse if we do not
impeach

------
somebodynew
I probably need to preface this comment by making it clear that I'm against
banning words and not a fan of Trump.

Banning "fetus" and "transgender" is completely indefensible as they're fairly
neutral words with no obvious replacement. But for the rest, imagine that
rather than a ban this was a style guide recommending against certain words.
The common theme in the rest of them is that they don't convey much useful
information but have a strong emotional charge.

You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence.
Coming right out and saying your position is evidence-based just sounds like a
way to shut down any objections, even reasoned discussion, by casting the
other side as being against science, evidence, or facts in general. This is
similar for science-based, vulnerable, and diversity. If you're seen as being
"anti-diversity" your argument doesn't matter because you're a misogynistic
racist xenophobe.

Entitlements is charged term because you've cemented your position on social
welfare pretty clearly just by referring to them as entitlements. It's not
quite as bad as Derry/Londonderry , but it's certainly not neutral.

I don't think any of these words should be banned, but I do think it would be
reasonable for government agencies to use neutral language and fully explain
their thoughts rather than using emotionally charged buzzwords.

~~~
justinpombrio
> You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence.

No, "evidence-based medicine" is a term of art. Maybe you could argue that it
took too generic of a name, but that's the word we have. From Wikipedia:

" _Although all medicine based on science has some degree of empirical
support_ , EBM goes further, classifying evidence by its epistemologic
strength and requiring that only the strongest types (coming from meta-
analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials) can yield
strong recommendations; weaker types (such as from case-control studies) can
yield only weak recommendations."

~~~
drcode
As a doctor, it seems to me that at one time (maybe 10 years ago) it had a
very specific meaning, but unfortunately the usage has degraded to the point
where everything is "evidence based medicine" now, just like everything in
business now is a "disruptor" or a "pivot".

~~~
smcameron
"If only all medicine were evidence based medicine..." Careful what you wish
for, I guess.

~~~
thanksgiving
I just assumed that was the norm and we had terms like "experimental cancer
treatment" for when the treatment is so new that we don't have enough evidence
to back it up.

------
beebmam
Censoring the CDC, of all organizations. What a travesty. The entire world
looks to the US CDC for guidelines.

Let's be clear: The political right in the US pretends to care about free
speech until they get serious political power.

It wasn't too long ago that conservatives were strongly against the depiction
of violence and sex in video games.

~~~
evan_
> Censoring the CDC, of all organizations.

This isn't the first time it's happened. The Dickey Amendment in 1996 forced
the CDC to stop research on gun-related injuries because the NRA was upset.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_\(1996\))

~~~
thrden
Interestingly that seems to be a result of the CDC's own political leanings.
They seemed to pursue the research with an explicit political goal, rather
than research the effects of gun violence, and then find a goal[1]. Further,
the Dickey amendment doesn't actually force the CDC to avoid researching the
issue but rather preventing it from using federal money . to promote gun
control:

"none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or
promote gun control"[2]

[1][https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-
tr...](https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-
cdc-with-gun-research-000340)
[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_\(1996\))

~~~
jogjayr
What if it turns out that research suggests gun control is effective in
reducing gun violence? Note, I'm not saying that it is effective; I have no
dog in this fight and don't know enough. But the law effectively says to the
CDC "You're allowed to research this health issue, but if you come to a
conclusion that's politically unacceptable, you can't share it."

The result is that the CDC now believes _any_ gun violence research to be
likely to result in political reprisal against them come budget time.[1]

1\.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-
the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-
years-ago/)

------
WhitneyLand
Comments saying some of these words could be used inappropriately are missing
the point.

Fuck, rat bastard, and many other words may not be appropriate for use either.
We don’t start surgically censoring non-elected, non-party affiliated,
government staff for theoretical transgressions.

Let’s be evidenced based (sorry), and ask how many times in the past this
approach would have helped a CDC situation? At least, a situation that does
not divide along political lines.

~~~
gizmo686
>Fuck

Not the best example. The government censors this word for non government
employees (radio, TV).

~~~
djsumdog
No no no. Fuck is not censored by the US Government. TV and Movie studios
censor words themselves with their own Standard and Practices. The idea that
there are seven dirty words is a total myth.

There are some FCC standards around TV programming before prime time and safe
harbour laws, but in general the reason we don't see tits and hear 'fuck' is
more to do with the industry than the government.

~~~
gizmo686
>Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464, prohibits the utterance of
any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication.
Consistent with a subsequent statute and court case, the Commission's rules
prohibit the broadcast of indecent material during the period of 6 a.m. and 10
p.m. FCC decisions also prohibit the broadcast of profane material between 6
a.m. and 10 p.m. Civil enforcement of these requirements rests with the FCC,
and is an important part of the FCC's overall responsibilities. At the same
time, the FCC must be mindful of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Section 326 of the Communications Act, which prohibit the FCC
from censoring program material, or interfering with broadcasters' free speech
rights.

>Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are
prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any
time.

>The safe harbor refers to the time period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., local
time. During this time period, a station may air indecent and/or profane
material. In contrast, there is no safe harbor for the broadcast of obscene
material. Obscene material is entitled to no First Amendment protection, and
may not be broadcast at any time.

To your point:

>Are there certain words that are always unlawful? No.

[https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/obscenity-
indece...](https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/obscenity-indecency-
profanity-faq)

------
roywiggins
That's an unusual way to fight for "free speech" and against "political
correctness".

~~~
Balgair
6 months ago:

"Liberal snowflakes on college campuses need safe spaces, what babies! Haha"

Today:

"Hey, so don't use these words specifically, it _may_ upset some people"

The bald-faced hypocrisy is staggering, not surprising, yet still it makes me
trip.

------
jimjimjim
How can anybody actually support the current administration if this sort of
thing is what is being pushed. how is this improving the world? how is this
better? how is this good?

anyone?

~~~
ryanx435
If I answer truthfully I'm going to be down voted and shamed, so I won't
answer.

Instead, I'm going to continue to be part of the silent majority that supports
him, but doesn't speak out because we are often falsely labeled as deplorables
or worse.

Edit: people like me are what you get when society stifles free speech:
unwilling to engage and so continuing in our beliefs silently. maybe you
coastal elitists should stop shaming people for having different opinions and
mental models of how the world works.

And if you dummies think that speech isn't being stifled, look no further than
James Demore being fired for trying to figure out root cause analysis of why
there aren't more women in tech

Edit 2: someone is going through my post history and downvoting. Good job,
ladies, you're proving my point.

Edit 3: and now I'm not allowed to respond to people because I'm posting "too
fast". Great.

~~~
scrollaway
You're going to be downvoted either way, because a post that just complains
about theoretical downvotes gets downvoted on this site. So you might as well
take the opportunity to explain.

It's also worth mentioning that the question GP is asking isn't really "how
can people support the administration", as there's many, many answers to it.
The real question is "how can people support _this_?".

And frankly, enlighten me. Do you support this?

Edit: I should also remind you that Trump is not supported by a "silent
majority". Quite the opposite: Trump is supported and was elected by a vocal
minority. His approval rating today is the lowest it's ever been according to
538's aggregations. It's time americans get their head out of the sand on this
topic.

------
wnevets
If your position is righteous and based on facts why would such measures be
required? Can someone explain to me how these are actions of well intention
and intelligent people?

~~~
craftyguy
Well, because their position is none of those things.

~~~
grigjd3
yep, more like a puerile attempt to win the culture wars.

------
jasonkostempski
For fuck sake. What is this? Is there a precedent for this? Have words been
banned like this before? If this is legal, I am completely baffled. If it was
the standard list of "7 words", I could understand, but this is nuts.

~~~
CalChris
Yes, on the state level. Florida banned _climate change_.

[http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article1298372...](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html)

------
propman
Useless bureaucracy and admin making up their own rules to shove down an
agenda down our throats. Right or left, this is wrong and I hope the
conservatives and libertarians on this board oppose this. I understand
excluding diversity because it gets paraded around everywhere and perhaps is
not related to the CDC's budget proposals but the rest are very science based
and I'm 90% sure diversity is the most accurate term to describe a lot of
health related information.

Linguistics is important, words are important and there is a culture war
happening around words politically from both left and right. The left has been
far more aggressive, but the last year the right has been doing the same.
Diversity, feminism, multiculturalism, globalism, transgenderism have now
turned from something neutral/positive to something negative now and
synonymous with a negative connotation.

That being said, I'll wait and see why the CDC is doing this. The only word
that seems glaringly alarming to me is fetus. Pro or anti-abortion, being able
to describe a fetus is mandatory and excluding that might force the CDC to not
discuss that aspect with as much detail or even a more nefarious purpose.

Transfenderism is something the left has completely banned any debate about
and the right have coined with mockery and derision. Gender dysphoria may be a
better word to use, but I wouldn't know because of the extremely politically
charged environment. This is also pushing an agenda, but might be the correct
term, at least historically in the medical sense, but I'm almost certain it's
still pushing down political agenda even if transgenderism is not the correct
term to use.

Entitlement, evidence and science based don't make sense to me. Maybe it's too
vague sounding and leads to credibility to the layman when there is little? I
guess you could make anything sound factually true by using those words but it
doesn't make sense why they'd exclude them.

Basically, freedom of speech isn't a left or right issue. Both are guilty and
we as Americans should call out any bullshit on both sides because it's a
very, very dangerous, slippery slope and I'm glad tbere's an uproar rightfully
for this

~~~
grigjd3
You don't think being able to describe diversity in bacteria cultures is
something the CDC might want to do?

~~~
propman
"I'm 90% sure diversity is the most accurate term to describe a lot of health
related information."

I was just posturing on possible reasons for this insanity and that's the best
I could come up with which is why I call this BS and completely unacceptable.
If anyone had any doubts that this is a "libtard conspiracy" or whatever they
say these days, then I outlined possible reasons to support this and then
hopefully emphatically repudiated that.

------
moonka
And here I was under the impression that Silicon Valley was the real threat to
free speech.

~~~
w-ll
They're many fronts attacking the first amendment, both government and
corporations. Silicon Valley does not share the idology it once did.

Undoing Net Neutrality is a clear sign of this. It will hurt startups that try
and compete in the spaces that Google/Netflix/Spotify occupy before it really
hurts consumers. NN cements the current leaders in their position as they can
pay the tolls and blocking them would be mass outrage. But gives very little
room for a newcomer to compete.

------
berbec
“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” ― George
Orwell, 1984

------
smsm42
Turns out this is all a complete fiction, as far as "forbidden" goes:
[https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/19/fake-
news...](https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/19/fake-news-no-
trump-admin-conservatives-at-the-cdc-didnt-try-to-ban-words-like-fetus-and-
transgender-n2424580)

There was no ban coming from the administration, but a strategy coming from
inside CDC to avoid these words so that their proposals would go more smoothly
with Republican congressmen.

------
grigjd3
I think what strikes me most about this is how incredibly dumb it is. This is
clearly meant to be a strike in the culture wars, but has really awful
repercussions. Imagine not being able to use phrases like "experiments done in
mice fetuses", "effects of entitlements on disease propagation", or "diversity
of bacteria found in culture samples". This is ridiculous and borders on
inhibiting the CDC from being able to do its job.

------
JVan27952
Banning a word like "evidence-based" implies - don't look at the evidence -
just believe what I say. Thats the Trump method. It's not the scientific
method. This ban goes against freedom of speech.

------
yesenadam
Wow. Another ever-more-crazy story out of the US. As the page was loading, I
first thought the story's title was "Democracy Dies in Darkness" but then
realized that's the Washington Post's motto...

------
ryanwaggoner
_The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,”
“transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”_

This administration is using _1984_ as a how-to manual.

~~~
djsumdog
We've been in 1984 for much longer than this administration and the previous
and the one before that. We've been in Orwell's world longer than I've been
alive and longer than my parents have been alive.

Obama spent ever day of his tenure at war and bombing people with drones. Bill
Clinton was very anti-immigration. Web and Rupert revealed how the CIA was
funneling cocaine into the US from South and Central America.

This has been happening a long time. President Twitter's idiocy is just
batshit insane enough that people yell about it now, but it's all there to
make us angry and mad at one another. This is just another thing to make us
angry. We are in the 24/7 hate.

------
cs702
Wow.

Scientific censorship in the US.

I'm speechless.

------
booleandilemma
This gives me ungood bellyfeel.

------
dctoedt
FTA: "Instead of 'science-based' or 'evidence-based,' the suggested phrase is
'CDC bases its recommendations on science _in consideration with_ [sic]
_community standards and wishes_ ,' the person said." [Emphasis added.]

Assuming this is accurate, we should contact the Nobel Prize committee,
because clearly the Trump administration has figured out how to make viruses
and bacteria also take "community standards and wishes" into account.

------
userbinator
All that I can see as a result is that people will just get out the thesaurus
and find equivalents/"euphemisms" \-- not exactly the same, but "close enough
for government work" (no pun intended)... I see mentions of 1984 in the
comments, but realistically, if you look at history it seems that attempts at
controlling what thoughts people can express have only been met with opposing
creativity to great success.

~~~
Sylos
Which does not slim the imbecility of this ban in any way.

------
froo
If only George Carlin were still alive. I’m sure he’d have seven words to use
to respond to this...

------
Sylos
Announcing moon missions and starting to ban reasoning with science within one
week...

------
tzahola
Haha! I’d appreciate such regulations for startup pitches by blacklisting
phrases like “deep learning”, “blockchain-based”, “disruptive”, “fast-moving”,
“lean”.

