←back to thread

CDC gets list of forbidden words

(www.washingtonpost.com)
382 points js2 | 3 comments | 16 Dec 17 02:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.695s | source
Show context
somebodynew ◴[16 Dec 17 03:33 UTC] No.15937313[source]▶
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.

replies(9): >>15937345 #>>15937372 #>>15937422 #>>15937434 #>>15937461 #>>15937625 #>>15938115 #>>15938125 #>>15938178 #
1. gajomi ◴[16 Dec 17 03:40 UTC] No.15937372[source]▶
"Diversity" may be an emotionally charged word, but also is a useful and common word in the biological sciences for a number of purposes. Of note especially is its common usage in ecology relevant to the CDC's goals of cataloging diverse bacterial and viral infections from clinical samples.
replies(1): >>15937439 #
2. somebodynew ◴[16 Dec 17 03:50 UTC] No.15937439[source]▶
I would argue that in a biological context the primary problem with neutral uses of "diversity" is vagueness. If a report indicates that they "collected a diverse range of bacteria for study", what is it that's different about them? Why not say "collected bacteria with various tolerances to extracellular ethanol concentration across three genera"? But like I said, an outright ban is silly, there are certainly places where it's the right word to use.
replies(1): >>15937566 #
3. gajomi ◴[16 Dec 17 04:07 UTC] No.15937566[source]▶
It is a problem, but a technical problem thats well understood within the relevant communities. A quantification of "various tolerances" is one notion of diversity, but as you have deftly pointed out there are many other quantifiable notions that are endlessly debated (some links in the context of ecology: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=%22...). Usually "diversity" is reported in terms of well defined quantitative metrics so that even if the umbrella term "diversity" is ambiguous it typically has well defined meaning(s) in the context of any particular study. All of which is to say, I would wager that the vast majority of scientific reports (and perhaps also those coming from the CDC) use the term "diversity" to introduce a general concept of a measure of heterogeneity which is quickly made precise within the study.