The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
This "war on science" is getting insane. Feelings are getting hurt so badly that we can't handle certain words? Sorry, if you have to ban the words "evidence-based" in an effort to delegitimize your opponents argument, you have lost the argument. The absolute hatred of everything science because it disagrees with someone beliefs has got to stop. Scientific institutions have some of the most rigorous and accurate methods for determining and reporting on the truth. If Trump succeeds in politicizing the scientific community in our government, our best source of information will become untrustworthy. The worst part is that he is doing it because he chooses not to believe in the science, not because its "controversial". There is no defending this, it is absolutely ass-backwards. I don't understand why this administration hates trans-gender people so much. What they hell did they do to them? This is targeting a group for no reason other than bigotry. It also reminds me, remember when Trump talked to "top generals" to refuse to allow transgender people to serve? Yeah, the Pentagon disagrees. Either the "Top Generals" all changed their minds, Trump was lying about who he talked to and what he discussed, or he didn't know that he didn't get to make that decision.
Link to Article This "war on faith" is getting insane. Feelings are getting hurt so badly that we can't handle certain words? Sorry, if you have to ban the words "evidence-based" in an effort to delegitimize your opponents argument, you have lost the argument. The absolute hatred of everything science because it disagrees with someone beliefs has got to stop. Scientific institutions have some of the most rigorous and accurate methods for determining and reporting on the truth. If Trump succeeds in politicizing the scientific community in our government, our best source of information will become untrustworthy. The worst part is that he is doing it because he chooses not to believe in the science, not because its "controversial". There is no defending this, it is absolutely ass-backwards. I don't understand why this administration hates trans-gender people so much. What they hell did they do to them? This is targeting a group for no reason other than bigotry. It also reminds me, remember when Trump talked to "top generals" to refuse to allow transgender people to serve? Yeah, the Pentagon disagrees. Either the "Top Generals" all changed their minds, Trump was lying about who he talked to and what he discussed, or he didn't know that he didn't get to make that decision.
You should do something about this administration and our President if you are unhappy. It sounds as if you are unhappy.
I got nothing else. I am continually impressed with our President. He is surpassing many of his promises. Just blowing right through them with ease. I do not find all of his policies to my liking, but in general he is currently nailing it. By all Presidential standards he is appeasing the needs of this nation. I congratulate him for his hard work.
As perspective, I would be honored to shake his hand. Not one President since Clinton would I have said that. I was proven wrong about that one. I am a quick study. I voted Obama first round. Four months. It took me four months to see that Obama is a liar. Nothing from him was kept. Only made my life worse, and those around me with all of his regulations to regulate the regulations. No transparency. Race wars on the brink. Destroying cars for a quick buck. Continuous list...
If every thread that you start begins hating... Clearly the "cesspool" is due to me.
Every article I can find on this issue cites the Washington Post as the source. The WP cites only an anonymous source.
From the article:
quote
At the CDC, the meeting about the banned words was led by Alison Kelly, a career civil servant who is a senior leader in the agency’s Office of Financial Services, according to the CDC analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly. Kelly did not say why the words are being banned, according to the analyst, and told the group that she was merely relaying the information.
There is no source for the list of words and no explanation for the list. This is “circular reporting” and unsubstantiated. That is not to say that it is not true, but I have serious doubts.
I apologize for saying this to you, but I have politely noticed that you seem rather happy and upbeat lately. If I am incorrect in my observations of your character as of late, please tell me so that I may be a better person towards you and others.
For 40 years the left has rammed thought-and-speech-control up our asses by force, legislation, economics and every other means they can dream up because they are ofeeeeennnnded and their feeewwwiiinnngggsss are hurt.
NOW, they want to cry and when it might be done to them ?
Sympathy is in the dictionary.....about 1/2 way between sh*t and syphilis.
So, it is not evil Trump extreme right censorship, but rather a scheme of deception by some swamp dwelling bureaucrats to bilk the taxpayers out of as much money as possible. That is what I suspected. Thank you, jmbishop!
This "war on science" is getting insane. Feelings are getting hurt so badly that we can't handle certain words? Sorry, if you have to ban the words "evidence-based" in an effort to delegitimize your opponents argument, you have lost the argument. The absolute hatred of everything science because it disagrees with someone beliefs has got to stop. Scientific institutions have some of the most rigorous and accurate methods for determining and reporting on the truth. If Trump succeeds in politicizing the scientific community in our government, our best source of information will become untrustworthy. The worst part is that he is doing it because he chooses not to believe in the science, not because its "controversial". There is no defending this, it is absolutely ass-backwards. I don't understand why this administration hates trans-gender people so much. What they hell did they do to them? This is targeting a group for no reason other than bigotry. It also reminds me, remember when Trump talked to "top generals" to refuse to allow transgender people to serve? Yeah, the Pentagon disagrees. Either the "Top Generals" all changed their minds, Trump was lying about who he talked to and what he discussed, or he didn't know that he didn't get to make that decision.
You completely jumped the gun and incorrectly accused Trump of a "war on science". Would you like some salt on your crow?
You completely jumped the gun and incorrectly accused Trump of a "war on science". Would you like some salt on your crow?
I would rather, just for once, redact his comments and apologize. We will get neither.
I find it annoyingly comical that I have to watch what I say to liars. Only here can someone enter a conversation or start one up willfully to pass such judgement without facts. At no point in any of my days do I encounter such blatant ignorance to facts. Only here, the internet, can a person be so rude, vile, untrue, semi hidden, etc., and flourish. The supposed anonymity gives those that are socially weak a tough guy online persona.
So, what words or phrases would anyone here like banned?
I would enjoy seeing a list of words that the republicans want banned, and a list that the democrats want banned. I am thinking that the R list will be empty, and the D list will never cement itself. Meaning that it will remain fluid, unknowing, and dispersed unevenly.
Carry on...
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 12-17-2017).]
Cdc has confirmed on Twitter, that there are no banned words, just more democrat fake news. I have a screenshot but no image hosting, so maybe someone can upload a screenshot.
Cdc has confirmed on Twitter, that there are no banned words, just more democrat fake news. I have a screenshot but no image hosting, so maybe someone can upload a screenshot.
.....people repeatedly call the information I posted "fake" and "lies" simply because they disagreed with it. How should I respond to that? I provided the information, they refused to believe it.
I said it in that thread and I'll say it again here:
Young man, you knowingly come to an overwhelmingly *conservative* forum and constantly poke your finger in the eye of folks here with your hyperbole and / or lies and then cry because you weren't warmly embraced.
You post wild claims and lies and then when your falsehoods are deconstructed you cry that "people repeatedly call the information I posted "fake" and "lies" simply because they disagreed with it..."
BULLCRAP.
They call it fake and lies because the drivel that you call "information" almost never matches your hyperbolic and false statements.
They call it fake and lies because the crap you call "information" is usually *opinion* and not objective fact.
They call it fake and lies because that's what it is.
Let's make this as plain as possible for you one more time: YOU ARE NOT A VICTIM OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOURSELF...
She doesn't say that the words are not banned, just that it is a "mischaracterization", then doesn't go on to explain how it is a ""mischaracterization", or that it is false.
Originally posted by Threedog: She doesn't say that the words are not banned, just that it is a "mischaracterization", then doesn't go on to explain how it is a ""mischaracterization", or that it is false.
Of course not. Except on that same page.
At least make a little effort to help yourself.
edit: I'm thinking of changing my signature to: "I am not responsible for your education or lack thereof" - williegoat
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 12-17-2017).]
She doesn't say that the words are not banned, just that it is a "mischaracterization", then doesn't go on to explain how it is a ""mischaracterization", or that it is false.
I see you foolishly chose option 3.
( "OR...dig your heels in and add more lies on top of lies just to be defiant.")
Do you understand just how stupid you look are?
Quite candidly, I knew that it would be impossible for you to MAN UP....to anything.
I'm mildly surprised that you didn't walk away again, but now that you've already played out the 3rd option......
Of course you could also try to play the 4th option that I neglected to mention:
The pathetic *VICTIM* CARD
.....but we've been down that same road with you several times before haven't we?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-17-2017).]
edit: I'm thinking of changing my signature to: "I am not responsible for your education or lack thereof" - williegoat
I only read the tweet you provided, I didn't go through her history. I am happy to admit that I was wrong about banned words, but there is a deeper level of analysis to take in. As quoted from another article:
quote
Put yourself in the shoes of a scientists trying to secure funding for a project. If you knew -- or had heard whispers -- that bigwigs up the food chain didn't want certain words in your budget proposal, what would you do? Most people would avoid using those words and write it off as the cost of doing business.
Remember everyone, any article coming from the Washington Post is fake news. ThreeDog (not for sure a Fiero owner), posts any article from the Washington Post, it should be treated as fake news. Which again and again and again the Washington Post always proves itself as Fake News for leftist sensational propaganda.
I only read the tweet you provided, I didn't go through her history. I am happy to admit that I was wrong about banned words, but there is a deeper level of analysis to take in. As quoted from another article:
"Put yourself in the shoes of a scientists trying to secure funding for a project. If you knew -- or had heard whispers -- that bigwigs up the food chain didn't want certain words in your budget proposal, what would you do? Most people would avoid using those words and write it off as the cost of doing business."
Your quote is from an opinion piece by a former Washington Post blogger. You really should cite the source of such things.
His "deep analysis" is nothing more than an excuse for deception. It's the difference between the beggar on the street corner saying, "I'm hungry, can you spare some change?" and the guy on the other corner with the sign that says, "Why lie? I need a beer". Both want to talk you out of your money, only one is honest.
At least Emily knew when to stop.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 12-18-2017).]
I only read the tweet you provided, I didn't go through her history. I am happy to admit that I was wrong about banned words, but there is a deeper level of analysis to take in. As quoted from another article:
quote
Originally posted by randye:
They call it fake and lies because the crap you call "information" is usually *opinion* and not objective fact.
An “evidence-based”, “transgender”, “fetus” feels that it should have “entitlement” through “diversity” but in truth, it is a “science-based”, “vulnerable” pussy.
2 AM here. Got my sleep schedule messed up after an all nighter running a laser engraver yesterday. It's a shared machine so the only way to guarantee enough time on it this close to Christmas is to go in late.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 12-20-2017).]
Uh, all I want to know is why the hell are you guys are posting at 3AM?
Me?
Got a very rare case of insomnia but I'm retired so a nap will straighten me out.
All you working stiffs need to go to bed.
Especially if you work for AMTRAK.
Well it is “evidence-based” that celebrity “transgenders” come out at night (clubs etc..) to show off their “diversity”, and using their “entitlement” with made up “science-based” BS, they go after “vulnerable” “fetus”es (Madonna), so... some one has to stay up to protect them.
BTW west coast here, so not late.
[This message has been edited by sardonyx247 (edited 12-20-2017).]
Your quote is from an opinion piece by a former Washington Post blogger. You really should cite the source of such things.
His "deep analysis" is nothing more than an excuse for deception. It's the difference between the beggar on the street corner saying, "I'm hungry, can you spare some change?" and the guy on the other corner with the sign that says, "Why lie? I need a beer". Both want to talk you out of your money, only one is honest.
At least Emily knew when to stop.
I never said that the article was a deeper analysis, I said there was a deeper analysis to be had. As in, there is more to think about than an outright ban.
quote
Originally posted by Wichita:
Remember everyone, any article coming from the Washington Post is fake news. ThreeDog (not for sure a Fiero owner), posts any article from the Washington Post, it should be treated as fake news. Which again and again and again the Washington Post always proves itself as Fake News for leftist sensational propaganda.
I love how instead of responding to an argument, you just try to claim I am "not a fiero owner" in some weird attempt to discredit what I say. Search my name on the forum, you find plenty of pictures, projects, and questions.
I never said that the article was a deeper analysis, I said there was a deeper analysis to be had. As in, there is more to think about than an outright ban.
That was the implication, when you wrote:
quote
I only read the tweet you provided, I didn't go through her history. I am happy to admit that I was wrong about banned words, but there is a deeper level of analysis to take in. As quoted from another article:
You should strive to be more clear.
But nonetheless, why don't you provide us with your deep analysis of the erroneous article on which you based your original post. Enlighten us with the truths you were able to glean from the falsehoods reported.
Originally posted by Threedog: I love how instead of responding to an argument,...
One, why are you arguing?
Two, if you have not received the notice, this is some BS news. Lighten up bro. You should not be so confrontational with your fellow forum members during this wonderfully beautiful and glorious holiday season young man.
Clearly the "cesspool" is due to me.
To be honest, I've got other more important things to address than minutia. 
when it might be done to them ? 
