←back to thread

CDC gets list of forbidden words

(www.washingtonpost.com)
382 points js2 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[] No.15937484[source]
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?

replies(7): >>15937643 #>>15937673 #>>15937685 #>>15937696 #>>15937941 #>>15938204 #>>15938458 #
will_brown ◴[] No.15937643[source]
>Someone tell me why, apart from the principles and precedents of it all, any of this matters?

Like you, I feel I might not understand this in its entirety, but I think the answer is...face saving. It’s counterintuitive but I believe these words are being banned from the budget to allow both parties to pass a maximum CDC budget which may be controversial politically for the GOP to pass and they might otherwise not support.

For example, if these words were not censored than you would have an electorate/media (more importantly tea party/primary opponents) that would be able to point at the elected GOP and question why they would pass a budget that includes research for transgender issues, research on fetuses, supporting science based research (rather than faith based), etc...

My understanding is the money would still be allocated and budgeted to support all the same issues (which is good). If my interpretation is correct, it might not be so far off from a budget to combat extreme Islam (drones, intelligence, secret courts, etc...) but censoring that phrase publicly because it allows some face saving for political purpose.

replies(2): >>15937882 #>>15948393 #
colordrops ◴[] No.15937882[source]
This is an interesting use of the term "face saving". I typically understood it to mean trying to maintain perceptions rather than a way to execute an underhanded agenda.
replies(2): >>15938008 #>>15938033 #
smallnamespace ◴[] No.15938008[source]
As a person of Chinese descent who grew up in America, face saving has no general negative connotation in Chinese culture -- but the fact that you think it does is very interesting. (EDIT: misread your comment, but this applies to GP)

I've observed that face saving behavior at all levels of society in America, but very few instances of people willing to point it out or discuss it, except sometimes to accuse people of 'covering up bad behavior'.

When you visit someone's house and they serve you food and ask if you liked it, unhesitatingly saying 'yes' is face saving and also just simple good manners.

When your boss makes a bad decision but you don't call them out in the next team meeting, and instead first bring it up in private, that is face saving. You're trying to avoid openly embarrassing someone and reducing their social standing.

In this case, face-saving just makes sense -- let's get a budget deal passed (which is in everyone's best interests), and then mollify the crazies in the base who refuse to see it that way.

I guess pointing out face-saving in the US is itself potentially embarrassing, because it implies that person might actually be worried about their social standing, which can itself negatively affect their social standing?

replies(3): >>15938032 #>>15938130 #>>15946535 #
brazzledazzle ◴[] No.15938130[source]
Your conclusion seems fairly accurate. I think it's weighs more heavily toward a concern about the appearance of weakness rather than social standing though.
replies(1): >>15938327 #
1. lsc ◴[] No.15938327[source]
My perception is that the appearance of strength is intertwined with social standing in America. (I'm not saying it isn't elsewhere, just that it is here.)