Feelings and responsibility

[Aeghiss]

Though I wonder whether the PS forum is the right place to talk about such things, I can only agree with Gonger and LigH... So, two Germans and a French one.

Oh, and an American throwing out clichés and/or prejudices too. Btw if there really were only two Germans and a French person here, then they wouldn't annoy anyone. If you react, then that means you feel concerned with the thread.

[Volki]

I'm meeting them in kind.

Those words are used for propaganda. That's why they're banned or whatever. They are not words that you would use in research or anything useful, really. Except fetus? That's related to the abortion controversy, I guess. Do any of you know what the CDC is?

As I said: context. Worry about your own countries until you're willing to put in the effort to understand ours. Especially because your own states are far more Orwellian at this point.

edit: There are several others annoyed by this thread. I really have no idea how you could think otherwise given the statements being said. But, again, could be lack of context.

[LigH]

Talking about the development of a fetus in the uterus is "propaganda"? I used to believe it's science... 

Belief is vulnerable to science-based arguments. Science means: theory, doubt, verification, proof or disproof, possible revision, etc.; belief can't afford any doubt, science develops out of it. (The German scientific comedian Vince Ebert explained it nicely: Science means looking into the fridge whether it contains a beer or not; belief means not looking in fear there might be none.)

By the way, I am seeking for a linguist to debate a theory about the existence of words with a "weak semantics" (semantics = the meaning of a word or phrase). One example is the word "freedom". It has little meaning on its own, IMHO, you always have to add a more specific context, explaining what you want to be free of/from. Prisoners want to be free from their containment. People in a dictatorship want to be free from the oppression of their government. Liberal economist want to be free from governmental regulations limiting their profits. In general, freedom is seen as a positive term ... until it is given to one party by taking it from another.

People getting annoyed by this thread are not forced to read it further on, once they found it annoys them.

[Aeghiss]

@volki If you want to avoid saying any word used in propaganda, you should basically give up talking at all.
Oh, and saying that "evidence-based" would in no way be used in a research context... Well, you made me laugh at least.

@LigH : I wouldn't say that "freedom" has a weak semantics. On the contrary it's extremely broad, and that's what makes it impossible to figure out its meaning out of a given context.
If you want to talk about semantics further on, we should consider opening a new thread.

[Mairon]

Let's ban the word "multiculturalism", m8s. My sense of entitlement feels quite vulnerable when I hear it and it doesn't bring any actual diversity as well. Don't know anything about transgender fetuses, to be honest, but as far as I know, science-based approach is always evidence-based in the first place.

[Mairon]

How to scare Germans to death: express a tiny shred of doubt in Merkel's and EU's policies and have them run away in fear.

[gonger]

How to scare Germans to death: express a tiny shred of doubt in Merkel's and EU's policies and have them run away in fear.

Certainly not. I strongly disagree with her on many points (and agree with her on some points).
And the EU is far from being perfect, so I am in favour of people like Macron who want to change and improve it, without destroying its foundations. Let's not forget that Europe has never known more peace and stability.

[LigH]

The German mob yelling "We are the people!" on PEGIDA demonstrations may be the loudest, yet still a minority. But they are mostly "contra Merkel" and "contra European over-regulation" — without any consistent "pro" visions, though.

And the "majority" voting for Merkel ... sometimes I wonder if a significant part of her "core voters" is still capable of exercizing free will (I remember reports how pensioners' mail ballots were handled by their official guardians in bulk).

The strongest ally of the "Christian" "Union" faction is probably the faction of the non-voters; would they vote for any other party, instead of forfeiting their vote, no coalition could have less than three parties. In our last election we had plenty of candidates, >40 parties. Most of them were excluded by the 5% threshold. A pity for all the progressive democratic ones...

[Volki]

@volki If you want to avoid saying any word used in propaganda, you should basically give up talking at all.
Oh, and saying that "evidence-based" would in no way be used in a research context... Well, you made me laugh at least.

What makes me laugh is that you're so ignorant of the context that you think these words and phrases are not strictly for propaganda. No one says these in research, except "fetus", and I'm getting the feeling that all of this is in reference to the CDC's public work, which makes 100% more sense than what you and LigH are suggesting. We have an issue with taxpayer-funded organizations and programs becoming politically biased.

Maybe try living here for a bit and get to know our country, people, and what words we deem to be politically charged before calling it Orwellian to tell the CDC to stop using Orwellian tactics.

Where are the mods?!

[gonger]

What makes me laugh is that you're so ignorant of the context that you think these words and phrases are not strictly for propaganda. No one says these in research, except "fetus", and I'm getting the feeling that all of this is in reference to the CDC's public work, which makes 100% more sense than what you and LigH are suggesting. We have an issue with taxpayer-funded organizations and programs becoming politically biased.

Maybe try living here for a bit and get to know our country, people, and what words we deem to be politically charged before calling it Orwellian to tell the CDC to stop using Orwellian tactics.

Enlighten us, then. But not only with your own words, but with some reliable sources, if you please.
All I was saying is that it is both Orwellian and censorship to forbid certain words / phrases to be used. I was not saying that otherwise the CDC ("the nation's health protection agency", quoted from their website) is right or wrong or whatever else.

Where are the mods?!

Why mods? Except for laughing at each other, nothing bad is happening in this thread.

[Volki]

Are you asking that I prove the non-existence of something? LOL

From my recollection, politics and religion were not allowed on this forum. Seems that they're not. This forum is toxic.

[gonger]

Volki, you said that we are ignorant of the context, and therefore I asked you to enlighten us (about this context).
My apologies if that was really too hard to understand...

[Geoni]

I'll too lazy to catch up on 12 pages of this thread. Why are we talking about transgendered fetuses?

[Jilerel]

Time is up.
People start talking about Macron and stuff, wtf.
Sure he has a nice project, though he's still under German influence. I digress.

About that whole "CDC" thing. I took my glasses and done my research. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-trump-banned-words.html

First things first, it wasn't a ban. CDC officials don't say a meeting never happened though. It is definitely a strong recommendation.

Now, that recommendation is only used in budget reports.
Is that bad ? Not really. Is it okay ? Not the slightest.
Actually, it is a fact that you can't escape politics. Even a doctor can't.
If you want to help people, you will need funding. If you start telling your banker that you're leaving your job, you shouldn't expect that shiny loan. Same goes for everyone, every investor. (and yes, the State and the population IS an investor.)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/16/trump-administration-reportedly-prohibits-cdc-from-using-words-like-transgender-fetus.html

In the case of “science-based” and “evidence-based,” the analyst said a substitute phrase was: “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.

So the "complete-ban" is already debunked, but is also shows one thing. All words are not treated the same.

Okay so. We can ask ourselves, why this recommendation ? The recommendation is for budget reports for the Congress, and I think it might be useful to consider what would be the worst case scenario.
Let's say the CDC puts up a thing in the report about transgender stuff. They vote to approve it. Now conservatives are pissed off and republican congressmen aren't going to be reelected (it might be important to realize that the elections are happening next year, the majority of the House is republican, and with the brutal surprise Trump, it will be a very important thing to follow).
These words are risky for economic and political reasons. It is far from being Orwellian. It is business.

Now the question for debate is : "Is it okay that an organization such as the CDC has to follow politics and depend on public opinion for funding ?"

[Rigwyn]

I wish we had a like button  --^

Keep in mind, the CDC is funded by US taxpayers and is not a private organization. This isn't the same as if Trump told a private organization with no government funding what language they can and cannot use. In the case of a private organization, the organization would still need to obey whoever is funding it , or it's revenue generating side. That's just how shit works.

If you are reading American news, keep in mind that our media is VERY biased right now. Most news outlets are heavily biased against the Republican party, hence Trump and his family.  You should look for the same information in news sources that have a Pro-Republican bias and then try to extract the truth from the two sources. We don't have any news sources that are unbiased.