Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: ↑
President Trump recently banned the use of the terms "science-based" and "evidence based" by the Centers for Disease Control
This was showed to be about a decrease of those terms in the budget request for 2019
where for example "evidence-based" for the 2018 request already went reportedly from 125 to 38. In any case HHS and CDC leadership completely dismissed the idea of a current ban but of course "they would say that". Don't you think this rumor might have been warped out of proportions?
the governor of Florida banned the use of the term "climate change" some years ago and the current Presidential administration is discouraging use of that term and related terms, the current President and the majority of Congress are global warming deniers, and only recently have Americans in general started to believe that climate change is real, though not so many of those believe it is an actual problem.
[note: the following section has been rewritten later as my first reply did not seem to address the wording issue at all]
Although I'd denounce any attempt to ban words at that level, at the same time I could imagine that from a political view the terms simply had become too overloaded with meanings not being really scientific but more policy and activist related. Considering the weight of the electorate demanding a more "fair" or neutral handling of the issue, a change in wording does not have to mean anti-science automatically. Anyone who thinks this is about pure scientific conclusions which should be translated directly into law is heading into a way more dangerous direction: the naive idea that science can translate directly into real life policies. A deeply flawed position and a source of grave nightmares, especially when looking at it historically.
It's therefore also interesting that for example a liberal newspaper like the Huffington Post
sees the ban as a realpolitik view which "understands that language is a weapon, a political weapon of social control -- those who dictate the rhetoric influence how people think" while naively or perhaps hypocritically implying that this principle can work in one direction only. Thereby forgetting that by invoking words as "climate change" again and again in the context of warming, CO2, industry and disaster, a certain control word is introduced with at least to my ears many religious overtones to it. The phrase has simply become too inclusive of any set of extremes and changes, at least in its popular usage, to remain very meaningful. Also logically: all climate changes by definition. So by itself not really a word that covers the intent very well either.
There are many real dangers. All should be attended to in reasonable proportions, and fortunately there are enough of us to address all of them reasonably. We do not have to finish our prayers before putting out the kitchen fire, and if we try, the whole house may burn down with us in it, still praying.
The illusive house is always burning down in the eyes of the ones participating in right prayer. It cannot be a particular fear.
Capitalism is killing us (...) so many people have to work multiple jobs and still may not have enough money to feed and house themselves.
Historically one could make the claim that the very thing feeding us always ends up killing us just the same. In my view that realization is dawning. As for the multiple job situation, I know of many in the situation but in every case it's linked to them desiring to have a part of that dream in terms of property, vehicles, amenities, location and so on. The credit game does not work as well as before and prices are becoming more realistic
, not simply higher.