Page 3 of 3
Re: Forbidden terminology
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:17 pm
by KingdomBuilder
Of note is that our beliefs encompass Biblical teachings that would offend the Dem political platform:
Uhh.... I find that I often offend Republicans even more.. and they're, supposedly, the "Christian party". Eeek... Meshing those together makes me nauseous
Re: Forbidden terminology
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:40 pm
by Bootstrap
KingdomBuilder wrote: Of note is that our beliefs encompass Biblical teachings that would offend the Dem political platform:
Uhh.... I find that I often offend Republicans even more.. and they're, supposedly, the "Christian party". Eeek... Meshing those together makes me nauseous
If you think that either party is not offended by sound biblical teaching, you aren't listening.
At least nobody is pretending that the Democrats represent the Kingdom of God. Explaining the Evangelical voter is always puzzling ...
Re: Forbidden terminology
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:34 am
by ohio jones
Bootstrap wrote:Back to the Centers for Disease Control ...
The
National Review says that the story is oversensationalized and misrepresents the context:
First, the question of these terms ... relates only to a distinct subset of budget documents and not to the general work of the CDC or other agencies. No one is saying people can’t use these terms at HHS, though some people clearly think they shouldn’t be used in budget requests sent to Congress. And second, the most peculiar and alarming of the reported prohibitions on terms were not prohibitions at all and did not come from higher-ups in the department but emerged in the course of an internal conversation at CDC about how to avoid setting off congressional Republicans and so how to maximize the agency’s chances of getting its budget-request approved.
In other words, not "thou shalt not ever use these words" but "if we want to make our best case for funding, let's be careful how we present it." Which is hardly news at all.
Re: Forbidden terminology
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:14 pm
by Bootstrap
ohio jones wrote:Which is hardly news at all.
Par for the course.
Re: Forbidden terminology
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:42 pm
by PetrChelcicky
Well, the CDC is an office and they are probably used to apply standard terminology as defined by their superiors. In a lot of cases they will do better by describing exactly what they want to say. For example "science-based" - what's that? Is the assertion confirmed by experiments or is its negative refuted by experiments or is it simply compatible with our empirical knowledge as far as we know or whatever does this mean?
Re: Forbidden terminology
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:33 am
by temporal1
.. because .. lesterb .. 
lesterb wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:41 pm
So the Center of Disease control has been forbidden to use the following words: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
See this Washington Post article.
This has created a big uproar amongst the elite, apparently. But you'd be hard put to put together a better list of politically correct vocabulary. These are the buzzwords of the "inner circle".
I'm not a Trump fan, but this has got to be a good thing. If you have to assert that what you are saying is evidence-based or science-based it probably needs to be propped up. Truth should be self-evident. Fetus is a term that removes the human aspect of an unborn child. A fetus is just a tumor in a woman's womb and within her power to remove if she considers it "malignant". Call it what it is--a BABY! Transgender is technically impossible in most cases, and is only a product of people's wishful thinking. Vulnerable? Those poor people need MY help--just another way of degrading part of the population. Entitlement? I have my rights. It may be at the cost of everyone else's rights, but I'm entitled to them. Diversity? I'll tolerate anything except intoleration. Don't try to take a stand for Truth around me, because that isn't politically correct anymore.
So we are being dragged back in time 150 years according to one commentator. Well, it might do a lot of people a lot of good to regain some old fashioned values.