←back to thread

CDC gets list of forbidden words

(www.washingtonpost.com)
382 points js2 | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.749s | source
1. propman ◴[] No.15937572[source]
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

replies(1): >>15938189 #
2. grigjd3 ◴[] No.15938189[source]
You don't think being able to describe diversity in bacteria cultures is something the CDC might want to do?
replies(1): >>15938389 #
3. propman ◴[] No.15938389[source]
"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.