If you missed it, apparently those crazy Religious Right folks are trying to ban Experts and Scientists from using certain words that they deem offensive. And what are these terrible words... On the list: "diversity," "fetus," "transgender," "vulnerable," "entitlement," "science-based" and "evidence-based." I just don't understand how the GOP who is supposed to be the party of fewer rules seems to keep making more... Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
"I just don't understand how the GOP who is supposed to be the party of fewer rules seems to keep making more."
This is the tale of the last 40 years of Republican governance.
When words lose all meaning, it is time to quit using them.
Dictators ban words.
Moose
And for that matter...none of those words have lost all meaning. It's just that you want them to mean something they don't mean.
Moose
It seems to me that the meanings of most of these are pretty clear... And if the budget folks wanted additional clarity, then they could have posted a list of definitions.
diversity
fetus
transgender
vulnerable
entitlement
science-based
evidence-based
Yes, the meanings may be clear to you and me, but they are NOT clear in the way the Left uses them, as a cudgel to prevent thought rather than promote it. For example, "diversity" ought to mean diversity of thought, not skin color. Most of the others are similar, promoting a Leftist view of the world that the original word does not carry.
So the Conservative answer is censorship?
I will never understand the Far Right...
I mean if Obama had banned words from the Federal lexicon... The right would have gone nuts. And yet in this case it is ok?
In the Rush Limbaugh school, words mean things. If they do not mean the same thing to both parties, communication fails. If one side insists on their definition and insists you accept it, better to not use the word at all-- it's bullying. Surely you object to bullying? Take an example: Obama apparently never used the words "radical Islamic terror[ist/ism]" Why not? Was he trying to prevent some truth from being spoken? Why would he ban that phrase?
I do not think it is "censorship" at all. I think it is insistence on straight talk. We are all familiar with "eduspeak," where we "Immanentize the eschaton" or some other high-sounding phrase meaning little and promising less. Such language contributes nought to solving the problem, and less to the discussion of it.
"For example, "diversity" ought to mean diversity of thought, not skin color."
My point now having been proven, I will retire from this thread.
Moose
"Obama apparently never used the words "radical Islamic terror[ist/ism]" Why not?"
He explained that at length on several occasions, actually (and it continued a policy from the Bush adminstration).
Jerry,
Even Trump is starting to understand why Bush and Obama avoided that term. It really is only useful if you want to start the "next crusade".
Trump Slowing Use of Term Radical Islamic Terrorism
Politifact Trump Then and Now
Moose,
Why do you disagree regarding the term diversity?
I agree that diversity of beliefs is much more important than diversity of skin color or sex.
As I have said before, my daughters have best friends from pretty much every race. However they make a good choice to avoid folks who act "ghetto" no matter their race... (ie ghetto to them means gang affiliations, using poor English, not caring about academics, not treating others with respect, dressing inappropriately for school, etc)
Jerry,
So you actually think these words are not "straight talk"?
diversity
fetus
transgender
vulnerable
entitlement
science-based
evidence-based
Now I agree that diversity can be a bit funny, but transgender, fetus, entitlement... Really?
They aren't "funny." They are "loaded words." They carry not only an opinion on the underlying subject, but the implied derision of any other viewpoint. For example, if I define "fetus" as "an unborn child," I am automatically a terrible person opposed to "women's rights." Those words are not for communication, they are rhetorical cudgels used to force compliance with a particular viewpoint. Until we find new words to talk about those subjects, we cannot talk about those subjects and we must either "retire" those words, or all agree to their original definitions.
'For example, if I define "fetus" as "an unborn child," I am automatically a terrible person opposed to "women's rights."'
That's because you're using incorrect terminology to make a political point and demand control over other people's health care decisions.
"Those words are not for communication, they are rhetorical cudgels used to force compliance with a particular viewpoint."
As are yours.
Again, my point is proven. The words don't mean what you want them to mean, so therefore they should be banned.
Moose
The definitions seem pretty clear and clinical to me. If anyone is loading them it must be you.
And SCOTUS has made it pretty clear that a fetus is has no rights until viability.
How much more clear do you want?
Fetus: "an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception."
Fetus: "an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth"
Fetus: "the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation."
An embryo is not a fetus.
A fetus is not an infant.
An infant is not a toddler.
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Words have meanings. Using the adjective 'unborn' loads the word 'baby' with unnecessary baggage when we already have a scientific term for that stage of development.
Again...you don't like the word. Too bad.
Moose
If I say that a post-conception human is an unborn human, I find opposition from those wanting to call it a "fetus" even though both terms, at most points of gestation, are equally correct. The person "loading" the word is the one wanting to deny the equivalence in order to drive a different conclusion-- in this case, that a "fetus" may be murdered while an "unborn human" maybe should not. If you want to use the word in purely definitional sense, no harm no foul. It is how the word is used, in what context, that communicates one's personal opinion and a "disrespect" for someone wanting to use the word in the "unloaded" sense, or to use a different word entirely.
Oh, and by the way, the Trump administration has NOT "banned" any words at all.
Jerry,
Please feel free to use the term unborn human, however that means others should be free to use the word fetus.
This NPR article discusses your perception that there maybe was no "ban".
It will be interesting to see what the Freedom of Information Act Uncovers.
And even if it was self censorship by government bureaucrats because they fear reprisals by the far Right politicians, I would still say that is not a good thing by any means.
People can use whatever word they want. If they want to use "fetus" in the dictionary definition of the word, I have no problem. We are communicating based on a common understanding of the term. But the first step in debate/communication/conversation is to define our terms. If one side says "fetus" = "clump of cells" and the other says "fetus"= "unborn child" we get nowhere. We cannot use the word in the discussion. It's not a "ban," it is just an agreement on common terminology.
And I would be willing to bet that HHS was wisely following the advice on wording in a budget request. Using such "loaded words" in a budget document might provoke opposition where none would be if other, equally "correct" words were chosen.
You know, sort of like the Obamacare individual mandate was not a tax but a penalty, up until it had to be a tax to pass the supreme court? and now it gets repealed because it is a tax and not a penalty? A simple word choice, with huge legal ramifications.
What again is the unloaded word for fetus? The 3 definitions above seem very clear and scientific.
Personally I think it was an Excellent Tax that should have been much higher. No American citizen should be free to go without adequate health insurance. Otherwise they are making the rest of us tax payers carry their risk and potential financial liability.
Just as we do not allow driver's legally on our roads without adequate liability insurance.
Yes, but we DO allow people on our roads without collision insurance. And we get to buy our insurance anywhere we like.
And where do you get this "making the rest of us carry their risk..." stuff? Am I responsible for keeping you in groceries, too?
Here we go again...
Now if someone does not carry enough Collision insurance, society is fine with that. It is their loss if they smash up their car and can not repair it.
Whereas since our society has decided that "people will not die in the streets..."
If someone does not carry enough health insurance and they get sick, their expense is transferred to society and tax payers.
Just like when a driver does not carry enough liability insurance.
Now you will likely answer that we will just make them pay the bills from their savings. Which is unlikely to happen since most people "who do not have insurance" are low income folks with little or no savings...
'If one side says "fetus" = "clump of cells" and the other says "fetus"= "unborn child" we get nowhere. We cannot use the word in the discussion. It's not a "ban," it is just an agreement on common terminology.'
A fetus is not a clump of cells, by definition.
A fetus is not an unborn 'child'. Again, by definition. A child is a born human.
Words have meanings.
Moose
"A fetus is not an unborn 'child'. Again, by definition. A child is a born human."
Sorry. This was unclear.
My point is that by using the word 'child', which everyone understands to be a born human, you are loading the phrase 'unborn child' with political baggage. The term is 'fetus'.
Moose
"... their expense is transferred to society and tax payers." Wait.... WHY?
And why am I required to carry liability insurance and then pay for "uninsured motorist" coverage?
" The term is 'fetus'."
Actually, the most common term is "baby," but your side doesn't like that term. It carries a political view with which they disagree and that hampers their political agenda. It is "loaded" only for those who want to murder babies without feeling bad about it.
Jerry,
If they don't carry insurance and we are not going to let "them die in the streets". Society and tax payers will pay for their care. What is tricky about this simple concept?
You carry Uninsured and Under Insured coverage because some people break the law. Kind of like we all pay more in taxes, insurance premiums, etc because of those "uninsured and under health insured" citizens. And the more there are the more we pay.
And ironically you support eliminating the punishment / tax for doing so...
But we do NOT let them "die in the streets" We have charity hospitals, etc, and we mandate "free" emergency room care for everybody. We cannot stop death any more than we can stop irresponsible behavior leading to it. That's a liberal pipe-dream. Find a reasonable way to let people buy reasonable care OR insurance, and let it go at that. Obamacare is none of those things.
yes, I oppose punishing people for not doing what we command. the fact we think it is in their own best interest does not make it so, or even possible. If there were a fine for walking on the grass because flapping your arms and flying was better exercise and faster, would you pay the fine?
Now you really didn't say that did you?
"mandate "free" emergency room care"
You are sounding like a Liberal... The reality is as I keep saying...
"If someone does not carry enough health insurance and they get sick, their expense is transferred to society and tax payers."
Babies are born humans, not unborn humans.
Moose
I mean, I'm not surprised that you don't care about the science-based terminology for things. You don't care about Science. You only care about your ideology.
Moose
I really did say that, because it is the law.
I care about using the common definitions of words, or at least the dictionary definition. Scientifically, were all 95% water, making it difficult to drain the swamp. Words loaded with ideology, by either side, do not contribute much to the discussion but a great deal to the controversy. Want a scientific discussion? Tell us when a human life begins.
"If someone does not carry enough health insurance and they get sick, their expense is transferred to society and tax payers."
That is an entirely different statement than "it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the taxpayers." And I will point out that if Bill Gates doesn't have enough health insurance and gets sick, he will NOT go without health CARE, nor does it fall on me to pay for it.
Moose,
Don't be as silly as Jerry.
I have yet to hear someone ask "What is sex of your fetus?" or When is your fetus going exit the womb and become a baby?"
Jerry,
The SCOTUS has already decided that a long time ago... At the point of viability... Just because you don't like the answer does not mean that it is not clearly defined.
But if a broke person needs healthcare in MN, you will be helping to pay for it. Whether you want to or not.
SCOTUS decided a legal issue on when States may regulate abortion. They used scientific and objective terms to define it. They did not rule on the definitions of words like "fetus" or "baby" and it is not their job to do that. We do that by common agreement and if we do not agree on our definitions we cannot have a sensible debate or conversation.
A common complaint among conservatives is that we are "losing the language," as words are appropriated by the Left to mean what THEY want them to mean, foreclosing what might be a debate on the nature of that subject. Take, for example, the word "cut" as applied to the budget. If it is used to describe a reduction in the rate of growth, it is NOT a cut. It's a "loaded" word intended to convey misinformation and to denigrate those supporting a probably sensible idea.
As for "cut"... If I don't get a cost of living raise each year I guess I will consider it a cut in real dollars available to my family.
Maybe you see it differently.
Jerry,
Of course SCOTUS gets to rule on these things... Remember what the SC stands for "Supreme Court"...
You may find this releated and interesting
As for "cut," yes, failing to keep pace with inflation could be considered a cut in real income. But what if Democrats want 12% more and Republicans insist on 6%, while inflation is running at 2%? Is THAT a cut? Democrats insist it is. And they do it every time.
And thanks to the "massive" "tax cuts for the rich" in the new tax bill, we're all going to die next year. At what point does the noxious hyperbole become obvious?
More accurately...
We as a country will be deeper in debt because of the tax cuts.
A bill that some of us seem fine passing on to our children and grand children, just so we can pay a smaller bill ourselves while enjoying the benefits today.
The deaths of some people will occur when the GOP starts cutting some of their health and welfare services. But on the upside your taxes will be lower. :-)
So, in other words, if government doesn't pay for it, nobody else will? Isn't that by definition wasteful spending?
And while I "care" just as much as you do about all those poor unfortunate deaths, and even more about the debt and deficit, there is a practical matter of arithmetic. Tax the rich at 100% and you MIGHT end the deficit for one year. You won't get another.
BUT, reform some entitlements and you eliminate the deficit, permanently (over time).
Post a Comment