In 2017, I miss George Carlin because he was cynical and sharp and would have told you he foresaw all this present-day bullshit, because
there's a club, and honeys, you were never in it. But I will say I do not like the Trump Administration deciding that there are
seven words that the CDC should consider
forbidden.
Forbidden words? Huh. I guess
Winston Smith could probably explain part of why, but let me do my bit:
"Vulnerable". This word implies persons in a precarious situation and in need. The Trump state does not seem to want to recognize human problems or needs as anything they prefer to address. People can be vulnerable to crime, food scarcity, lack of jobs, discrimination, inequalities in the deliverance of promised goods and services from the state, such as education, health services and housing. Not understanding these people as "vulnerable" is an attempt to make us not sympathize with these--the least among us. My catechism an age ago said that whatever you do to these you do to the Lord. Trump will dangle Johnson Amendment bullcrap in front of evangelicals, but he will never pretend he cares for "the least of us". Our vulnerable asses need to sack up.
"Entitlement": An entitlement is a paid benefit for one's investment, and denying that entitlements are a thing is denying that since FDR and LBJ, we have been paying for benefits we surely should have access to. Social Security and Medicare are things working people pay for all the time. We are "entitled" to those benefits.
"Diversity" : I grew up in Philadelphia, which is a very diverse major US city. I have always known people who were racial minorities, and had friends who were. I feel like there is a benefit in understanding that people have different backgrounds and experiences, and trying to learn from them, is innately beneficial and ignoring diversity is a kind of tunnel vision.
"Transgender" : Talk about trying to "disappear people"--not using a reference to a class of people is a form of erasure. Trans people will continue to exist because of their identity, but "on paper", the Trump Administration prefers not to talk about these folks. This marginalizing quality is sheer bigotry and ugliness in action. Thinking about a caution to avoid using the term "transgender" reminds me that there is a transgender ban proposed by the Trump Administration, aimed at hounding out trans service members even though there is nothing to indicate that trans people are poor soldiers or sailors or air personnel. It is the height of stupidity to think avoiding a word will make an entire class of people disappear.
"Fetus": The pro-life contingent is probably behind the desire to see the word "fetus" get elbowed out in favor of terms like "unborn child". While denying a word like "transgender" is aimed at denying a class of people their identity, the banning of the term "fetus" seems bent on discovering ways not to erase, but to invent, a class of not yet people into persons. A 20 week gestational human fetus is not treated as a person in the sense of having opinions and making choices about outcomes.
And this is how is should be, because fetuses have no human experience, memories, etc, and are only provisionally human in the sense that someone wants to make a person of them, someday. And if one physically hosting them does not?
"Evidence-based" : I feel like back-handing
evidence, which is the basis of science, is a definite indicator of bad will--these SOBS have no intention to recognize scientific data that matters. They will roll back regulations without any study as to the outward harm done. They think looking too strongly at outcomes is a kind of bias (because they know their own ideas never work.)
"Science-based": Again, facts seem to have a liberal bias, so maybe qualitative or quantitative values for looking at the world seem liberal-biased, because they show that hard facts aren't changed by messaging or bribes.
