The vulnerable diversity of evidence-based research on transgender fetus entitlements

Those darned liberal snowflake universities and their attacks on free speech:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...010_story.html

Guys, look. You're becoming a laughing stock. Seriously. Get a grip.

Stupid ignorant snowflakes.

I use at least four of these words on a daily basis.

Twitter Link

The tweets in that thread are some of the most carefully phrased tweets I've ever seen. A virtuoso performance in non-denial denials.

One of those deplorable conservatives actually tried to pull the stunt of pushing "fake news".

When I asked him where exactly the practical difference between a "ban" and "say those words and you don't get funded" exactly lies he of course couldn't say.

He's also one of those guys who preaches "freedom of speech" but thinks that banishing protestors into "free speech zones" miles away from proceedings is a grand idea. :rolleyes:

It's just so sad and embarrassing. I almost feel sorry for conservatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

It's just so sad and embarrassing. I almost feel sorry for conservatives.

---

Feel sorry for the nation. These people are making policy with lunacy like this guiding them and they don't give a fuck who's laughing at them.

I'm just surprised Milo isn't picketing the CDC in the name of free speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

It's just so sad and embarrassing. I almost feel sorry for conservatives.

---

These people are fucking moronic snowflakes not conservatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

These people are fucking moronic snowflakes not conservatives.

---

They're so conservative they wouldn't change their underwear if they weren't forced to. It's high time "conservative" became the insult it deserves to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

These people are fucking moronic snowflakes not conservatives.

---

These terms are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

They're so conservative they wouldn't change their underwear if they weren't forced to. It's high time "conservative" became the insult it deserves to be.

---

Only if you want to be as pathetic as Lewkowski and his crusade against 'liberals'. Is that your rolemodel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Only if you want to be as pathetic as Lewkowski and his crusade against 'liberals'. Is that your rolemodel?

---

Sadly, making the term liberal into a slur was a huge strategic win by the right.

Problem with conservatives is that they have been shown to be more willing to latch onto discredited or bullshit information to reinforce their view of the world. Before they know it they're 10 feet down the rabbit hole wrapped up with the crazies. Without counting Lewk we've seen it on this board with voter fraud, climate change, gun control, trickle down, even constitutional protections against certain groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Problem with conservatives is that they have been shown to be more willing to latch onto discredited or bullshit information to reinforce their view of the world. Before they know it they're 10 feet down the rabbit hole wrapped up with the crazies.

---

You are pretty much describing human nature. Unless you somehow have some non bullshit information to share that shows people with other political beliefs aren't just as susceptible to confirmation bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm not really sure that's a complaint that is fair to level against conservatives alone. You are pretty much describing human nature. Unless you somehow have some non bullshit information to share that shows people with other political beliefs aren't just as susceptible to confirmation bias.

---

http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71516.pdf
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...56797617692108

Negative messages get more attention and spread faster than positive messages, and conservatives are more likely to believe negative messages. Their threshold for what they consider a possible threat is lower than from those identified as liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71516.pdf
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...56797617692108

Negative messages get more attention and spread faster than positive messages, and conservatives are more likely to believe negative messages. Their threshold for what they consider a possible threat is lower than from those identified as liberal.

---

A study behind a pay wall that doesn't give any indications as to its statistical significance or methodology, (beyond two online surveys of Americans) isn't really going to tilt the balance for me.

It also doesn't reference bullshit or discredited information. It references the type of message.

Just wait until I dig up the study which indicates that conservatives have a lower IQ.

The only reason someone can disagree with your world view is they are stupid, or easily manipulated, is that it? And you and I, we are somehow different. More worldly. This level of hubris and arrogance, while not really surprising, doesn't seem to be raising red flags for either of you.

Maybe you are more conservative than you thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

The only reason someone can disagree with your world view is they are stupid, or easily manipulated,

---

There are disagreements and there is wilful head in the sand ignorance. Like aggressively denying the usefulness of semi-auto mods before the vegas shooting. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

The only reason someone can disagree with your world view is they are stupid, or easily manipulated, is that it? And you and I, we are somehow different. More worldly. This level of hubris and arrogance, while not really surprising, doesn't seem to be raising red flags for either of you.

Maybe you are more conservative than you thought.

---

Enoch, perhaps you're not as representative of modern American "conservatives" as you once may have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

There are disagreements and there is head in the sand ignorance. Like aggressively denying the usefulness of semi-auto mods before the vegas shooting. :o

---

Semi-auto mods? I'm guessing you are referring to bump fire stocks? I don't recall aggressively denying usefulness of anything, but I also don't think they pose a grave existential threat either. I'm more worried about getting into my car to go to work than getting shot by someone. That worry shrinks even further if I am supposed to worry about getting shot by someone using a bump fire stock.

But I could see how negative messaging appealing to your fears might make you worry about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Enoch, perhaps you're not as representative of modern American "conservatives" as you once may have been.

---

Considering the only way I could even be remotely considered "conservative" would be by someone on this board, I'm not too concerned about it. I'm not taking umbrage because I consider myself conservative, I'm taking umbrage because I hate seeing people who should be able to think more critically fail to do so. Especially when they are trying to use critical thinking as a cudgel against those they disagree with politically.

The plot thickens:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ds-yuval-levin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

The plot thickens:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ds-yuval-levin

---

long history of annoying some Republicans

[...]

terms that it might be wise to avoid so as not to raise red flags among Republicans in Congress

[...]

how to avoid setting off congressional Republicans and so how to maximize the agency’s chances of getting its budget-request approved.

That sums up the entire story. The snowflakes don't like certain things being brought to their attention, so the words aren't banned as long as you don't like things like getting a paycheck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Considering the only way I could even be remotely considered "conservative" would be by someone on this board, I'm not too concerned about it. I'm not taking umbrage because I consider myself conservative, I'm taking umbrage because I hate seeing people who should be able to think more critically fail to do so. Especially when they are trying to use critical thinking as a cudgel against those they disagree with politically.

---

Oh, then please defend the latest switch-around by Mr. "I don't know what's in the bill, and if that passage is true then it shouldn't be in the bill, but please wait, I have to vote for the bill!" Corker.

Because that's what we "disagree with politically" here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Oh, then please defend the latest switch-around by Mr. "I don't know what's in the bill, and if that passage is true then it shouldn't be in the bill, but please wait, I have to vote for the bill!" Corker.

Because that's what we "disagree with politically" here.

---

I'm just going to let this stand. I don't think I can add anything further.

Wimp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Oh, then please defend the latest switch-around by Mr. "I don't know what's in the bill, and if that passage is true then it shouldn't be in the bill, but please wait, I have to vote for the bill!" Corker.

Because that's what we "disagree with politically" here.

---

Okay first of all this isn't really the right thread for that discussion, and secondly, if we must use cudgels then we should probably use the best cudgels, and use them properly.

Well, we were talking about the stupidity of conservatives. Only a moron can use "but we didn't know what's in the bill!" as a defense when it's their job to know about that stuff.

Twitter Link

Well, even in the WaPo article, it was always only about budget documents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Well, even in the WaPo article, it was always only about budget documents.

---

I don't really get the fuss over either the original WaPo article or the NR explanation. I've routinely read style guides that suggest you avoid certain words, generally because they are overused and largely devoid of meaning (or because they are freighted with meaning/consequence that you might not want to impart). For example, when submitting papers to a great number of STEM journals, they abhor the word 'novel' - it's not that they don't want to publish novel work, they just think the word is useless. Ditto with applying for grants from government agencies - there are certain words and phrases that won't get you anywhere. Right now I'm working on a massive document for the FDA that is littered with linguistic landmines.

So when I read the WaPo article, I thought it rather unlikely that some political appointee at HHS would be dim enough to try to force something like this on the staff; rather, the article itself seemed to suggest that it was a very specific type of document with a very specific type of language that was being discussed. Any reasonable reader would have come to the conclusion in the NR piece even without interviewing a bunch of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Twitter Link

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

The plot thickens:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ds-yuval-levin

---

:o

Every organization has some sort of style guide. Hell, even my social media team does, even though it mainly focuses on the oxford comma, numbers, and time formats. But I'm not seeing the connection between a style guide for formatting or for useless words and a style guide thats built around the fact that the GOP is so easily triggered, there is a world of difference between the purpose and intent behind that compared the examples people keep providing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I don't really get the fuss over either the original WaPo article or the NR explanation. I've routinely read style guides that suggest you avoid certain words, generally because they are overused and largely devoid of meaning (or because they are freighted with meaning/consequence that you might not want to impart). For example, when submitting papers to a great number of STEM journals, they abhor the word 'novel' - it's not that they don't want to publish novel work, they just think the word is useless. Ditto with applying for grants from government agencies - there are certain words and phrases that won't get you anywhere. Right now I'm working on a massive document for the FDA that is littered with linguistic landmines.

So when I read the WaPo article, I thought it rather unlikely that some political appointee at HHS would be dim enough to try to force something like this on the staff; rather, the article itself seemed to suggest that it was a very specific type of document with a very specific type of language that was being discussed. Any reasonable reader would have come to the conclusion in the NR piece even without interviewing a bunch of people.

---

So, then make the case for "fetus" being banned. I'd also like to know how to describe research into "transgender" issues.

I'd also like to know why the word "fetus" is such a hot issue when it comes to congressional budgets.

I'd hazard a guess that fetus is a big-deal sadly because American evangelicals tend to consider the appropriate term to be more "baby" or "unborn baby" and that "fetus" leads to questions regarding abortion that might be better off avoided for funding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I don't really get the fuss over either the original WaPo article or the NR explanation. I've routinely read style guides that suggest you avoid certain words, generally because they are overused and largely devoid of meaning (or because they are freighted with meaning/consequence that you might not want to impart). For example, when submitting papers to a great number of STEM journals, they abhor the word 'novel' - it's not that they don't want to publish novel work, they just think the word is useless. Ditto with applying for grants from government agencies - there are certain words and phrases that won't get you anywhere. Right now I'm working on a massive document for the FDA that is littered with linguistic landmines.

So when I read the WaPo article, I thought it rather unlikely that some political appointee at HHS would be dim enough to try to force something like this on the staff; rather, the article itself seemed to suggest that it was a very specific type of document with a very specific type of language that was being discussed. Any reasonable reader would have come to the conclusion in the NR piece even without interviewing a bunch of people.

---

I do wonder how the CDC offices and programs are supposed to describe their work without using the word "vulnerable" still. That's literally how you define epidemiologically relevant populations.