General US Politics

[Shuuda]

"Vulnerable", "evidence", and "science" are identity politics terms now?

[Tryhard]

Well, they still can't use those words in official documents for the 2019 budget and maybe even further beyond, they're still restricting them from using certain words.

One, it seems pointless considering what's the implication of using rearranged or different words to describe the same thing - "based on science". It probably doesn't accomplish anything other than making the government seem more authoritarian and anti-free speech and the whole "fetus" thing seems like an appeal to evangelical religious types.

Two, there's no precedence for doing so. It's not like as far as I know Democrats banned the use of words in government agencies and if they did do you know the gravity of shitstorm that would be kicked off by Republicans? They were already calling tyranny.

Three, Trump supporters love identity politics when they are talking about the white race.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Tryhard

[Captain Karnage]

Like I said, I think that was the intention. 

Having just passed public budgeting 2 days ago, I would assume they just want to know the operating costs, and nothing more.

39 minutes ago, Shuuda said:

"Vulnerable", "evidence", and "science" are identity politics terms now?

I've seen papers that use outlier data to try and prove something that 99% of other sources say otherwise.

Like in sociology I read a paper on how there is no difference between young boys and girls prefernces in toys,it's sociatal conditioning that causes it, when when corporations such as Hasbro and Mattel who have spent decades and millions of dollars on research to conclude that there is a difference between the two.

People will always choose to believe in what they choose they believe, even if every one else says so.

 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Captain Karnage

[Dark Holy Elf]

35 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

I've seen papers that use outlier data to try and prove something that 99% of other sources say otherwise.

Like in sociology I read a paper on how there is no difference between young boys and girls prefernces in toys,it's sociatal conditioning that causes it, when when corporations such as Hasbro and Mattel who have spent decades and millions of dollars on research to conclude that there is a difference between the two.

People will always choose to believe in what they choose they believe, even if every one else says so.

What on earth does that have to do with the Tryhard quote you just posted?

There is going to be research that uses questionable methods but banning certain words does nothing to prevent that sort of research. That some people choose to ignore evidence does not mean we should stop using evidence as the basis for scientific study.

[Res]

To quote people who are better at words than me:

”Diluting the language to be more vague also dilutes the concepts, so it will make the attempts to advocate and study these groups less focused and less direct. Getting to these words in the first place probably took a lot of discussion to choose just the right word that was appropriate and expressed correctly. So it will be a barrier and delay to even settle on synonym-type words that people will recognize as “code words.” Then who is to say those will not be on the banned list in a month or a year from now? It is an attempt at a slow erasure of all of these concepts through language.”

If the CDC can no longer simply say that the efficacy of vaccinations is ‘evidence-based’ that’s a victory for anti-vaccinators. If writers have to find work-arounds and longer, more complicated way to explain certain concepts, then it confuses and muddies things for the lay-reader.

What will they substitute ‘fetus’ with? Something like ‘unborn baby’ isn’t accurate and is agenda-laden.

John Pavlovitch isn’t mincing words: “As a Christian and twenty-year pastor, one who’s served for much of that time in the American Bible Belt—the list is eerily familiar.

It’s the extreme Evangelical Christian Right’s signature mix tape, the careful curated playlist they’ve had on heavy rotation in their indie gatherings for the past 60 years—only now it’s getting wide release, thanks to the monster they’ve aligned with; one who’s perfectly happy to disseminate it to keep their union intact.”

 

 

[Captain Karnage]

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

What on earth does that have to do with the Tryhard quote you just posted?

There is going to be research that uses questionable methods but banning certain words does nothing to prevent that sort of research. That some people choose to ignore evidence does not mean we should stop using evidence as the basis for scientific study.

My response was written above the shuuda quote.

That was me trying to give an example of using an outlier to push against what research has found. Which is the same logic antivaciners, or whatever you call them, would do. (To put it on the record I think they're dumb and endanger themselves, their children, and society as a whole)

Edited December 16, 2017 by Captain Karnage

[Lord Raven]

3 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:

Like I said, I think that was the intention. 

Having just passed public budgeting 2 days ago, I would assume they just want to know the operating costs, and nothing more.

I've seen papers that use outlier data to try and prove something that 99% of other sources say otherwise.

Like in sociology I read a paper on how there is no difference between young boys and girls prefernces in toys,it's sociatal conditioning that causes it, when when corporations such as Hasbro and Mattel who have spent decades and millions of dollars on research to conclude that there is a difference between the two.

People will always choose to believe in what they choose they believe, even if every one else says so.

 

His question was how are they identity politics terms? "Evidence-based" "science" "vulnerable" "fetus". These aren't identity politics terms.

Those aren't identity politics; those are actual words used to describe things. You're ranting about research that contradicts what the corporations put out...  the corporation research probably says "this is true due to societal conditioning." Your argument is actually incoherent and largely irrelevant.

Weren't you the guy who said that your econ class said free trade is bad for the economy contrary to every single study done?

[Captain Karnage]

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

His question was how are they identity politics terms? "Evidence-based" "science" "vulnerable" "fetus". These aren't identity politics terms.

Those aren't identity politics; those are actual words used to describe things. You're ranting about research that contradicts what the corporations put out...  the corporation research probably says "this is true due to societal conditioning." Your argument is actually incoherent and largely irrelevant.

Weren't you the guy who said that your econ class said free trade is bad for the economy contrary to every single study done?

No one is mentioning that this is ONLY FOR THE FINANCIAL REPORT.

"Analysts are reportedly prohibited from using the phrases in official documents they prepare for the 2019 budget, which is expected to be released in February."

_____________

please show me where I said that about free trade

[Lord Raven]

5 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:

No one is mentioning that this is ONLY FOR THE FINANCIAL REPORT.

"Analysts are reportedly prohibited from using the phrases in official documents they prepare for the 2019 budget, which is expected to be released in February."

Explain to me how this is identity politics, then, and how it's countering identity politics. It sounds like you're taking something that's a legitimately a dumb idea and throwing a buzz word at it. Please stop dodging this question. You've been asked this before.

5 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:

please show me where I said that about free trade

I'm mainly saying you've been unreliable with interpreting conclusions from scientific journals in the past, so I'm not sure it's worth trusting your interpretation of any sort of factual research data in the first place.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

On 12/17/2017 at 1:18 AM, Captain Karnage said:

No one is mentioning that this is ONLY FOR THE FINANCIAL REPORT.

"Analysts are reportedly prohibited from using the phrases in official documents they prepare for the 2019 budget, which is expected to be released in February."

For what it's worth, I don't really think that matters. It's not like "vulnerable", "entitlement", "science-based", "evidence-based" especially can't come up in a budget for disease prevention. What's the point of the first, anyway? Is it because of healthcare?

[Zasplach]

15 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

For what it's worth, I don't really think that matters. It's not like "vulnerable", "entitlement", "science-based", "evidence-based" especially can't come up in a budget for disease prevention. What's the point of the first, anyway? Is it because of healthcare?

I think the article that @Res linked to is pretty spot on really.  Those are the kind of words that the likes of Billy Graham Jr and James Dobson want removed from the lexicon of the Federal government so as to 'murk' up the waters.  Language is precise and powerful, people who consider it know this. Thoughtful Christians have known for this at least centuries, you should see the theological essays about single, yes single, words translated in the Bible and how a slight change can alter its whole meaning.  These words give clarity to what they mean and not using them makes takes power away from the reports.

[Lushen]

Just so people know.

If democrats continue to push this false narrative its only going to push CDC employees to jump on the "fake news" bandwagon. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

19 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Just so people know.

If democrats continue to push this false narrative its only going to push CDC employees to jump on the "fake news" bandwagon. 

"Instead, several sources have tried to clarify that the language changes were merely suggestions to help make the agency’s budget more palatable to some Republicans and ease its passage.

...

 In some cases, CDC policy analysts were given alternative phrases and ways of, essentially, writing around the terms but conveying the same meaning. For instance, instead of “science-based,” the agency could write: “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.”

 

Basically, they seem to want to coddle Republicans by refraining themselves from using certain conveyances. That's not a whole lot better.

Granted, it's dumb that they would offer conflicting reports to begin with, but it also took several days for her to come out and clarify. Just why? I can't say for sure but that seems very much like a back peddle because they saw how ridiculous it was.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

7 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

"Instead, several sources have tried to clarify that the language changes were merely suggestions to help make the agency’s budget more palatable to some Republicans and ease its passage.

...

 In some cases, CDC policy analysts were given alternative phrases and ways of, essentially, writing around the terms but conveying the same meaning. For instance, instead of “science-based,” the agency could write: “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.”

 

Basically, they seem to want to coddle Republicans by refraining themselves from using certain conveyances. That's not a whole lot better.

Eh, I was mostly talking about Democratic figures like Nancy Pelosi who tried to say the Trump administration is trying to censor them which is quite a stretch.  And I found it incredibly ironic because democrats are consistently the ones trying to ban words from our vocabulary or make us refer to certain people by certain terms.  I honestly don't have a clue what's going on here.  I feel like it was probably just some rouge agent in the Trump admin.  If it was something Trump himself ordered or believed in we all know we'd have heard about it on twitter.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

11 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Eh, I was mostly talking about Democratic figures like Nancy Pelosi who tried to say the Trump administration is trying to censor them which is quite a stretch.  And I found it incredibly ironic because democrats are consistently the ones trying to ban words from our vocabulary or make us refer to certain people by certain terms.  I honestly don't have a clue what's going on here.  I feel like it was probably just some rouge agent in the Trump admin.  If it was something Trump himself ordered or believed in we all know we'd have heard about it on twitter.

1) source on nancy pelosi calling it censorship? Because it was first reported as such, but later on it was "republicans need kiddy gloves to reason with" which is arguably worse.

2) Democrats are not trying to ban free speech. Source? They may view that saying epithets and being a racist is bad, and also saying shit that is racist or veiled racism is bad, but they don't advocate for revocation of first amendment rights. They advocate that people take more social initiative and call out bad speech as they see it and not say dumb and terrible shit.

3) You don't have a clue what's going on because you're fitting the news to what's in your head, you're not wrapping your head around the news.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

18 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

1) source on nancy pelosi calling it censorship? Because it was first reported as such, but later on it was "republicans need kiddy gloves to reason with" which is arguably worse.

2) Democrats are not trying to ban free speech. Source? They may view that saying epithets and being a racist is bad, and also saying shit that is racist or veiled racism is bad, but they don't advocate for revocation of first amendment rights. They advocate that people take more social initiative and call out bad speech as they see it and not say dumb and terrible shit.

3) You don't have a clue what's going on because you're fitting the news to what's in your head, you're not wrapping your head around the news.

 

Spoiler

1) "word and thought control" classifies as censorship.  Probably even more than that. 

2) I should have said "the left" and not democrats.  Either way, all kinds of words are being banned from college campuses by left-leaning administration members.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

1) "word and thought control" classifies as censorship.  Probably even more than that. 

Yeah, well, you'd be surprised at how much Democratic voters really don't like Pelosi, so don't pretend she speaks for all Democrats.

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

2) I should have said "the left" and not democrats.  Either way, all kinds of words are being banned from college campuses by left-leaning administration members.

Good, but do people go to jail for them? If you're talking about social interactions then a few bad cases slip through the cracks. Otherwise, "the left" is a very broad thing, and considering I am a leftist and I'm wholly against government bans on free speech, be it hate speech or otherwise, it's not something I personally advocate for.

Now, social consequences are what I advocate for, and there is very little evidence that exaggerated social consequence is a widespread issue. The college campuses point is basically Berkeley and a handful of other schools. Either way, people said something offensive, it offended people, protests happened, the university agreed with the protests and did what they had to do.

If you believe censorship of free speech is truly an issue in the US to the extent where you claim it, then I'm convinced that you probably believe we live in the matrix as well. You provide no source as to this problem being widespread, so I deem your claim bullshit.

Please stop referring to "the left" and "the right" or whatever the fuck in generalities. When people in this thread refer to Democrats and Republicans, they're referring to politicians and not universally held viewpoints, and they tend to categorize right-leaning politicians due to their near-unanimous support of policies put forth by republicans or near-unanimous opposition of policies put forth by democrats.

I'm not saying the Democrats are great, but they've shown even during Obama's administration that they're less likely to tow party lines than their counterparts. Note that I am not grouping people or specific movements into these politicians; I am strictly speaking on politicians themselves. You're part the reason why people view politics as a sport, and you continue to peddle this left vs right narrative. Please cut this out.

[Zasplach]

6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Please stop referring to "the left" and "the right" or whatever the fuck in generalities. When people in this thread refer to Democrats and Republicans, they're referring to politicians and not universally held viewpoints, and they tend to categorize right-leaning politicians due to their near-unanimous support of policies put forth by republicans or near-unanimous opposition of policies put forth by democrats.

This has already happened for millions of Americans, the predictions of Federalist #10 have to come to fruition, people have factionalized themselves into two tribes.  The whole cold war era joke of 'better dead than red' has turned into better dead than republican or better dead than a democrat and people carry out those ideas by its most extreme logic.  Half a million people showed up to vote for Roy Moore, a man accused of having sex with fourteen year old, most of them didn't believe it, but there wasn't any credible reason not to except it clashed with their political beliefs.  I see no reason, but hope, to not expect Democrats to not do the same.  Our society is fractionalizing while we speak. 

The whole thing with President Trump's judges brought this to the forefront of my mind, when the Republicans won control of the Senate they stopped having hearings for any of President Obama's judicial nominees; it didn't matter if they were incompetent political hacks who didn't deserve the job or perfectly qualified decent humans who had the right to sit on the bench.  Now President Trump is nominating everyone left and right (only half of it is a pun) to the federal judiciary whether they be qualified or unqualified, like the gentlemen who couldn't answer basic legal questions because he knows the Dems will get the Senate soon and when they do, they won't hear any of his nominees, whether they be qualified or unqualified.  It's an unending fight of escalation.  Sometime, I pray to the Lord soon, some of us are going to have to unilaterally disarm, unilaterally deescalate from this conflict with each other. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-judicial-nominee-who-struggled-to-answer-basic-questions-pulls-out/2017/12/18/eadf1326-e424-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.8a8777860759  

[Shoblongoo]

FYI to the grad students in the thread who were worried about the tax bill removing their tuition deduction a few pages back. That provision has been stripped out in the latest redraft (which looks like it has the votes to pass now). It will not be in the final bill. Unless there's a last-minute reinsert, your tuition deductions are safe.

[Lord Raven]

58 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

FYI to the grad students in the thread who were worried about the tax bill removing their tuition deduction a few pages back. That provision has been stripped out in the latest redraft (which looks like it has the votes to pass now). It will not be in the final bill. Unless there's a last-minute reinsert, your tuition deductions are safe.

Yeah, I saw that, I forgot to post in here because I was still in small brain mode due to passing my orals.

Does it have the votes to pass? I've read that Rubio's not going to be voting on it unless they add more tax breaks to the lower class (which is still an empty gesture - it's something like 2000 per kid as opposed to 1000 per kid).

[Lushen]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

FYI to the grad students in the thread who were worried about the tax bill removing their tuition deduction a few pages back. That provision has been stripped out in the latest redraft (which looks like it has the votes to pass now). It will not be in the final bill. Unless there's a last-minute reinsert, your tuition deductions are safe.

Ted Cruz also made an amendment to the bill that passed.  You can now use 529 accounts (how my college was paid for) for K-12 education and other things beyond just college.  For those who aren't aware, 529 accounts were previously just for college.  Apparently one democrat voted with the republicans on this and then was smothered by his colleges until he changed his vote.

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

Yeah, I saw that, I forgot to post in here because I was still in small brain mode due to passing my orals.

Does it have the votes to pass? I've read that Rubio's not going to be voting on it unless they add more tax breaks to the lower class (which is still an empty gesture - it's something like 2000 per kid as opposed to 1000 per kid).

Republicans are very confident that it will pass.  Even Bob Corker is on board this time around.  I think there's only one undecided in the senate and the house is expected to pass.  McCain is still out but republicans are confident it will pass without him.  If not, they can always shovel him in the room on a hospital bed which Congress has done before.

For those who arent aware, they also sneaked in the removal of the individual mandate for Obamacare, if Obamacare even really exists anymore.

 

Regarding the CDC story, it has now been corrected TWICE. 
- The CDC prepared the list, NOT the Trump administration
- The CDC also prepared a similar list for the Obama administration and others before him
- The list is not to protect Republicans feelings but rather make the budget reports look the best to Republicans since they're in charge of their budget.  
- The list was not banned words, but rather words to avoid unless there are no alternatives.

These fake media reports are getting so much worse.  It was fine before Trump ran, bad while he was running, and terrible now that he's in office.  I can't believe how many times these well respected media outlets have had to retract their statements.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

- The list is not to protect Republicans feelings but rather make the budget reports look the best to Republicans since they're in charge of their budget.  
- The list was not banned words, but rather words to avoid unless there are no alternatives.

I mean, this is still purposely steering away from words like "transgender" because Republicans don't like hearing them. That's absolutely protecting Republican feelings.

[Lushen]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I mean, this is still purposely steering away from words like "transgender" because Republicans don't like hearing them. That's absolutely protecting Republican feelings.

Like I said there was the same kind of thing for the Obama administration.  Perhaps during the Obama administration they were told not to use words like "abortion".  This story has lost all credibility after being corrected on two different occasions and having nearly every part of it disproved.  

This is a persuasive effort to get Republicans to keep paying the bill.  They had the exact same thing for democratic presidencies.  It's also the CDC doing this and not the Trump admin despite what was previously reported.

 

edit:  Tax bill passe in the house.  Expected to vote in the senate this evening.  

Senate already voting.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

Can you hop off this CDC story? AFAIK you’re not seeing the issue because now it’s basicallh being politically correct for the Republican Party, instead of censorship, which is almost as bad. Like Jesus Christ you cannot get over this Democrat or liberal hate boner because you’re some spoiled rich kid who just wants to be right about something for once. Like seriously that’s always half your content, since you were shockingly silent over the Alabama elections because you probably would’ve voted Moore if you had the chance. You didn’t even respond to my point about how you’re always insistent on partisan bickering — you demonize anything vaguely left leaning (colleges, some democrats, quite a bit of this thread).

In fact they did it to abortion MAYBE to appease republican senators who still need kiddy gloves to talk about LGBT+ and women’s issues.

Regardless, the 529 amendment seems meaningless unless you’re in the upper middle class or in the upper class. There is no way that benefits elementary education for working or middle class people, and it’s not even relevant that a democrat was on board with a single amendment when the bill is still a catastrophe if you’re not rich.

[Lushen]

Triple post...

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lushen