←back to thread

CDC gets list of forbidden words

(www.washingtonpost.com)
382 points js2 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.381s | 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 #
1. sstone1 ◴[] No.15948393[source]
What does either of these words have to do with face saving or combating extreme Islam groups these are words used to describe things such as medical research and cures and programs to help people in need these words have nothing to do with combating extreme Islam groups you make absolutely no sense at all. Vulnerable Entitlement Diversity Transgender Fetus Evidence-based Science-based