Doubleplus Goodspeak

[Angry Floof]

This should be required reading in schools: http://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

 

[blastula]

I'm not aware of words they have banned in law, nor did I say that they have banned any words yet. I said that they want to. And they do.

C-68 is the closest that I have seen them get so far, which gives power to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal not only to ban speech but to compel it, in accordance with their stated policy. The law says you can't discriminate on grounds of gender identity. That would be fine if it just meant you can't mistreat somebody because he calls himself "her", but the same law is enforced by the Human Rights Tribunal who has stated as a policy that discrimination includes failing to use "correct" gender pronouns.

It doesn't "ban speech" in any special way that speech isn't already routinely prohibited. There are already lots of things you can't say to other people in certain social settings if it is deemed harassment. Adding gender to non-discrimination laws no more violates free speech than does banning a co-worker from repeatedly calling the idiot Jordan Peterson "hey, idiot" at work. That is harassment just as repeatedly calling someone by an unwelcome pronoun.

And one more time, C-16 (not 68) doesn't even apply to universities. The Ontario code does and it has included gender identity for years, apparently unbeknownst to the idiot Jordan Peterson and his gullible followers. The Laurier professor was also stupid for claiming C-16 applied in their school. The Ontario code does apply there but showing a video in class like that wouldn't be a violation.

 

[blastula]

The OP story turns out to have a twist. There is no ban on words at the CDC. - Slate

According to CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald, “There are no banned, prohibited or forbidden words at the CDC—period.” Meanwhile, anonymous sources at the Department of Health and Human Services told the National Review’s Yuval Levin this week that any language changes did not originate with political appointees, but instead came from career CDC officials who were strategizing how best to frame their upcoming budget request to Congress. What we’re seeing, his interviews suggest, is not a top-down effort to stamp out certain public-health initiatives, like those that aim to help the LGTBQ community, but, in fact, the opposite: a bottom-up attempt by lifers in the agency to reframe (and thus preserve) the very work they suspect may be in the greatest danger.
////
HHS staffers have been telling those at CDC and other agencies that it would be better to avoid any phrases that might attract extra notice from the budget-slashers higher up the chain. This is tactical advice: They want to bolster the CDC’s position during these negotiations.

 

[ZiprHead]

The OP story turns out to have a twist. There is no ban on words at the CDC. - Slate

According to CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald, “There are no banned, prohibited or forbidden words at the CDC—period.” Meanwhile, anonymous sources at the Department of Health and Human Services told the National Review’s Yuval Levin this week that any language changes did not originate with political appointees, but instead came from career CDC officials who were strategizing how best to frame their upcoming budget request to Congress. What we’re seeing, his interviews suggest, is not a top-down effort to stamp out certain public-health initiatives, like those that aim to help the LGTBQ community, but, in fact, the opposite: a bottom-up attempt by lifers in the agency to reframe (and thus preserve) the very work they suspect may be in the greatest danger.
////
HHS staffers have been telling those at CDC and other agencies that it would be better to avoid any phrases that might attract extra notice from the budget-slashers higher up the chain. This is tactical advice: They want to bolster the CDC’s position during these negotiations.

So they are trying to appease the troglodytes on the right who hold the purse strings.

 

[Opoponax]

The OP story turns out to have a twist. There is no ban on words at the CDC. - Slate

According to CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald, “There are no banned, prohibited or forbidden words at the CDC—period.” Meanwhile, anonymous sources at the Department of Health and Human Services told the National Review’s Yuval Levin this week that any language changes did not originate with political appointees, but instead came from career CDC officials who were strategizing how best to frame their upcoming budget request to Congress. What we’re seeing, his interviews suggest, is not a top-down effort to stamp out certain public-health initiatives, like those that aim to help the LGTBQ community, but, in fact, the opposite: a bottom-up attempt by lifers in the agency to reframe (and thus preserve) the very work they suspect may be in the greatest danger.
////
HHS staffers have been telling those at CDC and other agencies that it would be better to avoid any phrases that might attract extra notice from the budget-slashers higher up the chain. This is tactical advice: They want to bolster the CDC’s position during these negotiations.

That is indeed mitigating to some degree, but the result is the same.

It appears they believe they need to self-ban the language that most accurately describes the work they're doing. If they do not, then they have a reasonable fear of retaliation/punishment. It operates as a threat; implied coercion for using language that is offensive to ideologues who have railed against the given words and terms in the past. And given that those ideologues control their purse strings as well as their jobs, it certainly appears they're afraid.

The issue though, is whether a discernible threat has been implied to chill speech in this circumstance. It doesn't amount to a prior restraint on speech though because if no order was given, then no government action's been taken. But does fear and/or intimidation perceived in advance of any state action constitute a speech-restriction? Hell, I don't know.

 

[RavenSky]

The OP story turns out to have a twist. There is no ban on words at the CDC. - Slate

According to CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald, “There are no banned, prohibited or forbidden words at the CDC—period.” Meanwhile, anonymous sources at the Department of Health and Human Services told the National Review’s Yuval Levin this week that any language changes did not originate with political appointees, but instead came from career CDC officials who were strategizing how best to frame their upcoming budget request to Congress. What we’re seeing, his interviews suggest, is not a top-down effort to stamp out certain public-health initiatives, like those that aim to help the LGTBQ community, but, in fact, the opposite: a bottom-up attempt by lifers in the agency to reframe (and thus preserve) the very work they suspect may be in the greatest danger.
////
HHS staffers have been telling those at CDC and other agencies that it would be better to avoid any phrases that might attract extra notice from the budget-slashers higher up the chain. This is tactical advice: They want to bolster the CDC’s position during these negotiations.

So they are trying to appease the troglodytes on the right who hold the purse strings.

I don't know which way is worse

 

[Opoponax]

So they are trying to appease the troglodytes on the right who hold the purse strings.

I don't know which way is worse

What I have to wonder is why these particular words and phrases? They're very specific. It's not like they pulled them out of one of those bingo ball machines and won the Christian-fascist appeasement lottery.

 

[Angry Floof]

So they are trying to appease the troglodytes on the right who hold the purse strings.

I don't know which way is worse

What I have to wonder is why these particular words and phrases? They're very specific. It's not like they pulled them out of one of those bingo ball machines and won the Christian-fascist appeasement lottery.

Those are terms that trigger bloodthirstiness in the zealots in Congress. If they think the CDC is liberally biased, they'll do whatever they can do defund it.

 

[Underseer]

I'm not aware of words they have banned in law, nor did I say that they have banned any words yet. I said that they want to. And they do.

C-68 is the closest that I have seen them get so far, which gives power to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal not only to ban speech but to compel it, in accordance with their stated policy. The law says you can't discriminate on grounds of gender identity. That would be fine if it just meant you can't mistreat somebody because he calls himself "her", but the same law is enforced by the Human Rights Tribunal who has stated as a policy that discrimination includes failing to use "correct" gender pronouns.

It doesn't "ban speech" in any special way that speech isn't already routinely prohibited. There are already lots of things you can't say to other people in certain social settings if it is deemed harassment. Adding gender to non-discrimination laws no more violates free speech than does banning a co-worker from repeatedly calling the idiot Jordan Peterson "hey, idiot" at work. That is harassment just as repeatedly calling someone by an unwelcome pronoun.

And one more time, C-16 (not 68) doesn't even apply to universities. The Ontario code does and it has included gender identity for years, apparently unbeknownst to the idiot Jordan Peterson and his gullible followers. The Laurier professor was also stupid for claiming C-16 applied in their school. The Ontario code does apply there but showing a video in class like that wouldn't be a violation.

Thanks for being honest.

It's not freedom of speech that you want, it's freedom from criticism, and freedom from criticism is the exact opposite of freedom of speech.

 

[blastula]

I'm not aware of words they have banned in law, nor did I say that they have banned any words yet. I said that they want to. And they do.

C-68 is the closest that I have seen them get so far, which gives power to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal not only to ban speech but to compel it, in accordance with their stated policy. The law says you can't discriminate on grounds of gender identity. That would be fine if it just meant you can't mistreat somebody because he calls himself "her", but the same law is enforced by the Human Rights Tribunal who has stated as a policy that discrimination includes failing to use "correct" gender pronouns.

It doesn't "ban speech" in any special way that speech isn't already routinely prohibited. There are already lots of things you can't say to other people in certain social settings if it is deemed harassment. Adding gender to non-discrimination laws no more violates free speech than does banning a co-worker from repeatedly calling the idiot Jordan Peterson "hey, idiot" at work. That is harassment just as repeatedly calling someone by an unwelcome pronoun.

And one more time, C-16 (not 68) doesn't even apply to universities. The Ontario code does and it has included gender identity for years, apparently unbeknownst to the idiot Jordan Peterson and his gullible followers. The Laurier professor was also stupid for claiming C-16 applied in their school. The Ontario code does apply there but showing a video in class like that wouldn't be a violation.

Thanks for being honest.

It's not freedom of speech that you want, it's freedom from criticism, and freedom from criticism is the exact opposite of freedom of speech.

If you're replying to me, I have no idea what it has to do with what I wrote.