It's 1984 in TRUMP'S AMERICA!
The Trump administration is prohibiting CDC officials from using these words or phrases in any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget: “vulnerable” “entitlement” “diversity” “transgender” “fetus” “evidence-based” “science-based”
In George Orwell's novel, "1984" …
Newspeak is the language of Oceania , a fictional totalitarian state in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949);
Newspeak is a controlled language , of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, a linguistic design meant to limit the freedom of thought —personal identity, self-expression, free will—that ideologically threatens the regime of Big Brother and the Party, who thus criminalized such concepts as thoughtcrime , contradictions of Ingsoc orthodoxy. [2] [3] [4]
In "The Principles of Newspeak", the appendix to the novel, George Orwell explains that Newspeak usage follows most of the English grammar, yet is a language characterized by a continually diminishing vocabulary; complete thoughts reduced to simple terms of simplistic meaning. [5]
RED BOX RULES
• NO INSULTS, PERSONAL OR GENERIC • STAY ON THE TOPIC
THE TOPIC IS …
AUTHORITARIAN TACTICS TO CONTROL SPEECH and to UNDERMINE the DISSEMINATION OF TRUTH: the MISREPRESENTATION OF REALITY VIA PROPAGANDA, SCAPEGOATING , STEREOTYPING, etc. .
Tags
Who is online
96 visitors
RED BOX RULES WILL BE RIGOROUSLY ENFORCED!
Both sides are guilty.
What's there to talk about?
That's what happens when the Democrats lose elections. Then they resort to using large fonts and bright colors to bring up lame and irrelevant points.
The winners then get to make their rules. Try to win some elections, left wingers!
What's next, banning books.
And skip over burning witches? Pffft....well you're no fun...
Most likely because trump is so stupid he doesn't know what these words mean... But seriously...
.
Trump screams "NON-PC!!!!", then turns around and bans these words because they are offensive... Who is the PC snowflake now, trumpy?
If a word is over two syllables, they use sock puppets to explain them to him.
Absurd comment.
It is not for the entire U.S., but for that one department.
Divisive should be thrown out? You think this is a new word pertaining to 2017? Well, it is not. We have always been a divisive Country from the beginning and before were the United States of America.
Fetus? Sure glad my mother didn't think I was just another "fetus", but her baby! Thank you, Mother.
Vulnerable. We are all vulnerable, so, is there a certain vulnerability?
Entitlement. You are not entitled to anything, except, the air that you breathe and the water you drink.
Transgender. Go to your nearest county mental health facility.
Show the evidence/science basis.
Why?
Most of us know both the denotations and connotations of the banned words ... their meanings are not the issue ... their being placed off limits by our government is!
Let us not equivocate.
While I am a liberal who is opposed to political correctness, government prohibition on certain words is a dangerous precedent.
It's also government censorship which violates the First Amendment
DIVERSITY:
the condition of having or being composed of differing elements : variety
DIVISION:
the act or process of dividing : the state of being divided
Can someone point me to these 'Red Box Rules'?
They are in RED at the end of the article.
Thanks.
It means someone will censor the narrative if it is not going according to ideology.
But we are all sure that Islam, radicalization, extremist, jihad, etc, was OK to be removed from US security documents, right, libs?
We were? Perhaps you can post a link that will prove your posit.
Where were you during Comrade Hussein Obama's presidency?
Obama’s scrub of Muslim terms under question; common links in attacks
Did you know Obama isn't POTUS anymore?
I we suppose you're demanding that we take Rowan Scarborough's word for it since there isn't one freaking link to even a hint of evidence to support his claim.
Right...he didn't do or say anything, did he? In reality, his every utterance and action is very relevant. This continual deflection will not work
He isn't the POTUS anymore, so bringing him up is deflection, pure and simple. Here is a fun idea...lets talk about the CURRENT POTUS! You know, the subject of the fricking article?
Very interesting that you say that. Tell me how come for the prior eight years all we heard when obama screwed up we were told all the time how one of the Bushes or how Reagan or other Republucan did it first and you felt that was OK. Now that you find the shoe is on the ither foot you have decuded you dont want to adhere to that rule any longer.
Dulay asked for a link to prove it and I provided it.
Here is another source the liberal Haaretz in Israel
But you and many like you thought bringing up Bush in almost every thread about Obama for an entire 8 year period was just fine, too, huh? I don't remember you ever saying "guys, Bush is not President anymore". Why is that?
You do understand that no matter how many links you provide to prove the point, they are still going to call you a liar. They know no other way.
You constantly tried to blame Obama for Bush's colossal screw-up. Bush crashed the economy, Obama took the necessary steps to repair it, and what he did, worked. The money Obama spent on stimulus was necessary because of the Bush crash, and agreed to by most economists and both parties. Much of the money Obama spent, he was forced to spend because of the Bush disaster. Reality sucks, don't it?
I never blamed Obama for any Bush screw up, as there was many.
The rest of your post is pure gibberish. Only a liberal would say spending trillions of dollars is a necessity. Here is a though. Maybe a reduction in spending would have been a better deal.
How about showing a link that says economists on both sides that say spending trillions to pay off your donors and line pockets of of backers was a necessity, because that is what the "bailout" really was. This outta be good.
Actually, as I pointed out, your link didn't PROVE anything.
Another link that PROVES nothing.
Oh BTFW, the 2010 National Security Strategy report contains every word that bugsy and your linked article claimed was banned except jihad.
EPIC FAIL.
Hey at least he tried [and failed] to support you posit. It's more than you did.
BTW, calling a member a liar is verboten. His links don't prove what he claims they do though...but at least he tried.
BS- there is not a single teaching by Jesus or the Apostles for violence against others except in self defense.
Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon you."
Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
If they ( some Christians) would practice what they preach the world would be a better place.
God killed every human on earth, save for Noah and a few others. But no violence against others eh? Um, yea, ok. lol
It seems to me Jesus said the opposite.
Again, that only applies to the nation of Israel. Christians are under a NEW Covenant with God through Jesus
Does the 2006 opening statement by the Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division Federal Bureau of Investigation count? I was placed in the record of the hearing.
How about a report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate from the GAO in 2012? It has ALL of the words you claim were removed.
Want me to keep on going or will you just capitulate?
Right....Obama said that Ft. Hood shootings were just workplace violence and was never heard to speak the words "radical Islam".
Well, I guess "Muslim Extremists" are coming from Spanish heritage now? Maybe we should look at the shooting in Texas again and, the shooting in Las Vegas again, maybe those were Muslim Extremists as well.
Wow...talk about deflection on a massive scale. As Spock would say.... unbelievable
It's this shooter I was talking about! You know, the one who killed 13 and injured 32 who was a radical Muslim, and who now is on death row.
EVERYONE … Back on track!
I realize that some deflections are unintentional and begin as a tangent … then responses take discussion completely off the rails …
REMINDER …
after 8yrs of that BS under obama the result was trump/
Cheers
Another Jess Willard devotee heard from.
OFF TOPIC PRONOUNCEMENTS NOT APPROPRIATE RE:TOPIC!
Maybe you should read the reason behind that decision before spouting off at the fingers.
this is ignorant. 1984 is about collectivist government making individualism the enemy of the state. That matches perfectly with the Democrats who demand everyone submit to the collectivist "good".
Um, no. It's the right wing that is constantly trying to force everyone to conform to their own version of sharia law. Hell, even Mike Pence said the country should scrap the constitution and use the Christian BuyBul instead.
You must have read the Steve Bannon version.
What's ignorant is a pronouncement that begs the question.
It's about an authoritarian state. You might want to read it again
My opinion.....
There is no need to ban words to undermine the dissemination of truth, Truth as practiced on this board and a lot of boards is the ideal that what one individual or group of individuals claims as fact is fact. When it is only fact for them.
The truth of the matter is truth is only truth to those that wish to believe..... Everyone else can and may have a different truth, depending on how they choose to believe. And as a result some, not understanding what truth is confuse it with facts of which everyone has their own facts.....
Science is built upon the challenging of such individual facts based upon beliefs to come up with actual facts.
Religion is built upon the challenging of individual beliefs based upon individual perceived truths to come up with actual truths.
Scientific Religion is using facts to establish truths. Except most take a shortcut, they use individual facts multiplied by individual beliefs to come up with an individual truth. Which they then insist that everyone should bow down and just accept without challenge.
There can be no truth without challenge. Words only outline understanding, it is when words are given meanings in a belief system much like religion, (or it's secular competitor), politics, where they run afoul of fact and by extension truth.
It is said that what truth is, is in the eye of the beholder. A very limited view in my opinion.
I say what truth is, is whatever those that seek truth, find......
Banning words doesn't accomplish much, just obstructs the road to finding truth....
something we agree on
Cease and desist all forms of defamation and name- calling; there is enough in the way of substantive content to debate ...
If something in the article content is disagreeable, explain why and make a case against it ... denigrating individuals rather than repudiating with specifics, the errors of their actions or words, is degrading to the site.
Meh, just another assault on the 1st Amendment by rightwing fascists.
So WHY the 'alternative phrases'? What is behind their censorship?
The insertion of 'consideration with community standards and wishes' seems to be the key.
Exactly WHAT 'community standards' and/or 'wishes' would cause the CDC to tweak their recommendations? Are 'community standards and wishes' what the CDC should be basing their recommendations on in the first place?
Oh and BTFW, what studies has the Trump Administration done to validate the need for 'alternative phrases' for the CDC's recommendations for the American people. We're talking about the effect of disease and the environment on humans. When it comes to environmental threats to their health, will the CDC be telling people in Texas something different than they tell the people of Oregon?
Snowden let us know all about 1984 and now and many want him locked up for it. Big brother is watching and nobody cares. Trump inherited the 1984 government and he has a big job ahead of him dismantling it. Tackling the FBI, CIA, NSA, and bringing them back into control will be no easy feat.
Snowden had NOTHING to do with altering budgetary language or agency directive to use 'alternative phrases'.
I do not agreed with the decision to block these words from being used
I can possibly see the use of evidence based, and perhaps science based ... I do not understand why the others would be used in a CDC budget proposal.
P.s .. Although I do not understand the Presidents reasoning ... words have been censored for decades .. everyone has heard of the FCC correct? The blocking of word use in certain situations is not creating:
*my opinion
So let's just take one subject that the CDC is responsible for right now.
Ever heard of the Zika virus?
Do we want the CDC to make recommendations and budget decisions for fighting Zika to be 'science and evidence based' or should they be based on 'community standards and wishes'?
Are certain populations 'vulnerable' to Zika?
What effect does Zika have on a 'fetus'?
Are there a 'diversity' of threats and preventative measures?
Is the information on Zika and recommendations on the best use of preventative measures an 'entitlement' or should people and neighborhoods be left to their own devices?
Thanks ...
Nope. That's just yet another fail that the liberals WANT you to believe in their smear campaign.
Not necessarily … from the lined story …
The CDC also included a statement from the department of Health and Human Services Department, who called the report a “mischaracterization.”
The word "mischaracterization," as opposed to an outright denial, tells me there's more to this story; I will follow the various "accounts, " and, if it becomes definitive that the story is bogus, I will state that in large type, after which, I will take down the article.
Fair enough?
I don't know. 1984 was a pretty good year for me. It was...
the year I graduated HS
The year before I joined the Navy to begin my rewarding 20 year career.
The year I did one semester of college and dropped out of history and failed English. Good thing I went back years later and received my degree.
The year when big hair bands really got started.
The year I saw "Purple Rain" in the theater and, at the time, thought it was one of the best movies I had ever seen. It was good, but I don't think I saw many movies before then.
The year the first Ghostbusters came out. A hell of alot better than the remake a year or two ago.
The year Michael Jackson's hair went poof in a Pepsi commercial.
Ahhhh. such good times
Whoops!
Fake news. Again.
Still waiting for the retraction....
I'll wait and see what the actual language looks like in CDC documents going forward and retract if wrong … or … wait for apologies if correct.
Amac,
(1) The words were not banned.
(2) Those who suggested not using the words were not Trump appointees, they are career bureaucrats (read democrats) who thought avoiding those words would help them obtain funds from a Republican Congress.
The entire premise of the article is simply false. No words were banned, and Trump and his appointees had nothing to do with the suggested words to avoid.
But thanks for showing how the 1984 works today. The Post authors a fake news story that completely misrepresents what happened in the budgeting process to manipulate the minds of its uninformed readership in favor of it's partisan agenda. On cue, the uninformed readership freaks out and makes all sorts of baseless claims that ignore reality. By the time the truth comes out, the Left wing outrage brigade has already moved onto it's next manufactured outrage of the day.
Your source?