pafret wrote:
I found it interesting that when I saw the title, I used IM Translator to get the word's meaning in English. This is what the translator says it means: "DC circuit!”
I just tried it and it translated to Gleichschaltung to "Forcing into line". Maybe you didn't do it right.
pafret wrote:
While the same information can be communicated in other words, the censorship has achieved the desired effect because just as the wordsmith can say he didn't mean any of those words, the reader now has to infer that this is what was meant. Brevity is clarity; the use of circumlocutions introduces confusion and uncertainty in the reader and impedes effective communication. This is the intent; forbidding the use of certain words is a major step in controlling truth. Big Brother is tightening the noose; reality is what the government says it is.
br While the same information can be communicated... (
show quote)
I do agree with you, that brevity is clarity, which is the point of an extensive vocabulary and taking words away from the vocabulary does impede the efficiency of language. I was being positive about this by pointing out the ability for many people to communicate the same ideas using alternate expressions, but you're right, for many others such articulation is more difficult to write OR read. I think its pretty obvious that Trump's regime is focused on the less literate people, who have become his base. As long as his regime commands the attitudes of a base large enough to win elections, the more educated groups will matter less and censorship becomes a validated strategy.
pafret wrote:
Is it not remarkable that there is no single person who can be assigned responsibility for issuing such an order?
Not really. Maybe you haven't worked for a large organization before, but in my corporate environment I have to abide by lots of rules that are just considered corporate policy. We don't ask which person was responsible for each rule because it doesn't matter. The fact is, policies are often ratified by committee, not dictated by individuals.
We know that Alison Kelly (CDC) was told by the Department of Heath and Human Services not to use those words as a matter of HHS policy. We also know that the CDC falls under the Department of HHS, which itself falls under the Executive Branch. We also know that since Trump has taken over the Executive Branch many of the departments under his control have been removing critical information from their records, polices and websites related to subjects they don't want us to think about or know about.
pafret wrote:
How do the researchers know that penalties will be imposed if they don't follow the dictates?
Well, according to the article that I guess you didn't read, Alison Kelly was submitting a budget request to the HHS and it was refused BECAUSE of the words. So to get the money to research the threat of disease they had to remove the verboten words. This is an approach Trump is becoming famous for as someone who can't seem to get the democratic support to legislate, so he puts conditions on funding.
pafret wrote:
Where are the guardians of the constitution who say you cannot suppress free speech?
The Constitution only applies to laws not policies.
pafret wrote:
This issue is not the same as the Trump administration doing all of these freedom-suppressing actions.
Clearly, it is... one of many examples in fact.
pafret wrote:
I would suspect that this is exactly what Trump does not want. Instead it is the entrenched bureaucracy, imposing leftist political correctness, on other government agencies.
Wow... I don't whether to call that wishful thinking or heavy delusion, but it shouldn't take THAT many brains cells to look at the list and notice there's nothing politically incorrect about ANY of the words mentioned. Yeah, liberals are in an uproar over words like diversity. LOL - get real.
Besides, Trump has made his intolerance VERY clear from before he was even elected, and as I've already mentioned since taking office a LOT of information presented by government agencies under the Executive Branch has been removed. And it really doesn't take much see the obvious patterns. Basically anything Obama and his supporters have raised concern about, including the unfair treatment of LGBT people and climate change. Again, look at the list.
This censorship is so obviously aligned with Trump's stated positions and actions across the cabinet, not to mention he *IS* the final word on Executive Branch policy. If this is "exactly what Trump does not want", all he has to do is say so and the policy is killed. Again, these are not laws, they are policies over which he has complete authority.
I would say "nice try" but it wasn't even that. I assume you slipped and would not normally say such an idiot thing.
pafret wrote:
There is an evil in this imposition of thought control but it is by no means certain that Trump is behind it.
Maybe not to the clueless.
pafret wrote:
The man is a blunt instrument; he is hardly likely to espouse speech suppression.
Oh, of course not... Telling the NFL to fire athletes who dare take a knee before the flag in symbolic protest could not possibly suggest suppression of speech. What was I thinking? LOL