| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On December 16 2017 19:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I mean, we knew the Trump administration has been anti-trans, anti-entitlements, anti-diversity, and anti-science, but it's interesting that they would openly admit it like this. This is some Orwellian shit right here. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On December 16 2017 21:32 GreenHorizons wrote: Beyond blatant authoritarian bullshit, it's just shamefully stupid to ban the term "evidence-based". That should alarm anyone even pretending to be remotely sensible. If I was inclined to be generous I would think they're banning it because "evidence-based" is often a shortcut to picking out specific studies and ignoring the rest of the evidence. I'm not inclined to be generous though. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On December 17 2017 00:56 NewSunshine wrote: I mean, we knew the Trump administration has been anti-trans, anti-entitlements, anti-diversity, and anti-science, but it's interesting that they would openly admit it like this. This is some Orwellian shit right here. You're right on the Orwellian part for sure. It is even more amusing that the conservatives and Republicans are the ones implementing it, since they've spent the last eight years preaching against it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 17 2017 02:22 Danglars wrote: Don Willet, allegedly homophobic tweeter, confirmed to the fifth circuit court of appeals. https://twitter.com/justicewillett/status/942035968118452226 is he the obviously unfit stupid one, or is that someone else? (i.e. the one that doesn't know basic law) | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 16 2017 21:48 farvacola wrote: At this point, the practitioners of golden mean apologism are too far gone; I expect they'll find a way to avoid this issue like all the others. You really don't like supporting or opposing based on the merits of the policy, eh? Your cynicism really knows no bounds. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 17 2017 02:38 zlefin wrote: is he the obviously unfit stupid one, or is that someone else? (i.e. the one that doesn't know basic law) There's more than one unfit stupid ones but I don't think he's one. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22562 Posts
On December 17 2017 02:38 zlefin wrote: is he the obviously unfit stupid one, or is that someone else? (i.e. the one that doesn't know basic law) A different one. The one linked 4 pages ago (which I assume your talking about) is Mattew Spencer Petersen. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
This actually has nothing to do with Orwellian-ism and everyone to do with your guys' ignorance. Doctors that don't practice EBM (which is most of them I believe) aren't doing exorcisms, they just don't require a published study for every decision. In theory, EBM is a good idea but in practice it doesn't work out so well for various reasons. Evidence-based medicine Criticism This is definitely not a thread high-point. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9064 Posts
On December 17 2017 04:01 mozoku wrote: "Evidence-based" and "science-based" in the medical field is a very specific term that describes a decision making process that is essentially requires a study for any clinical decision and EBM (evidence-based medicine) has been under criticism for a while by some of the most well-respected statisticians in the field in part because of the low quality of most published medical studies. This actually has nothing to do with Orwellian-ism and everyone to do with your guys' ignorance. Doctors that don't practice EBM (which is most of them I believe) aren't doing exorcisms, they just don't require a published study for every decision. In theory, EBM is a good idea but in practice it doesn't work out so well for various reasons. Evidence-based medicine Criticism This is definitely not a thread high-point. CDC does more than medical studies. You pigeon-holed this into a very specific niche. You have to broaden your use of the terms being forbidden. This is Orwellian. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
engaging in poor argumentation as you did to prove a point just makes you look bad. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On December 17 2017 04:01 mozoku wrote: "Evidence-based" and "science-based" in the medical field is a very specific term that describes a decision making process that is essentially requires a study for any clinical decision and EBM (evidence-based medicine) has been under criticism for a while by some of the most well-respected statisticians in the field in part because of the low quality of most published medical studies. This actually has nothing to do with Orwellian-ism and everyone to do with your guys' ignorance. Doctors that don't practice EBM (which is most of them I believe) aren't doing exorcisms, they just don't require a published study for every decision. In theory, EBM is a good idea but in practice it doesn't work out so well for various reasons. Evidence-based medicine Criticism This is definitely not a thread high-point. "There are flaws and limits to this particular methodology... THEREFORE ALL MENTION OF IT IS BANNED MMKAY!" FFS you can do better than that. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 17 2017 03:46 Gorsameth wrote: A different one. The one linked 4 pages ago (which I assume your talking about) is Mattew Spencer Petersen. The best part of the questioning of Petersen was at the end when he asked all 5 nominees whether they had ever blogged for the KKK, as if to say, “well at least we’re above that bar.” And that Senator is an enthusiastic Trump supporter. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On December 17 2017 04:01 mozoku wrote: "Evidence-based" and "science-based" in the medical field is a very specific term that describes a decision making process that is essentially requires a study for any clinical decision and EBM (evidence-based medicine) has been under criticism for a while by some of the most well-respected statisticians in the field in part because of the low quality of most published medical studies. This actually has nothing to do with Orwellian-ism and everyone to do with your guys' ignorance. Doctors that don't practice EBM (which is most of them I believe) aren't doing exorcisms, they just don't require a published study for every decision. In theory, EBM is a good idea but in practice it doesn't work out so well for various reasons. Evidence-based medicine Criticism This is definitely not a thread high-point. I'm going to humor you, and assume that you are correct. So we should be totally cool with the fact that our administration is now telling the CDC what it can and cannot say, in an attempt to police their thoughts and shape their policies. You can't play dumb on this, that's exactly what these people are trying to do. Tell me how policing their choice of words in a budget jives with any notion of freedom of speech, and that it is somehow a good thing. The question you need to be asking is "why is this good?", not "but does this really end America as we know it?" But yeah, everyone else is ignorant and the thread has gone to shit. Nice jab. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9999 Posts
On December 17 2017 04:40 NewSunshine wrote: I'm going to humor you, and assume that you are correct. So we should be totally cool with the fact that our administration is now telling the CDC what it can and cannot say, in an attempt to police their thoughts and shape their policies. You can't play dumb on this, that's exactly what these people are trying to do. Tell me how policing their choice of words in a budget jives with any notion of freedom of speech, and that it is somehow a good thing. The question you need to be asking is "why is this good?", not "but does this really end America as we know it?" But yeah, everyone else is ignorant and the thread has gone to shit. Nice jab. To be fair, language guidelines are fairly standard. Its not particularly standard for this kind of language to be banned, but the current government are anti-trans, anti-science and anti-evidence so its not really a surprise at all. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
ABC News Story Link Also even if this were true it would only be nominally Orwellian. It would be absurd, but I'm pretty sure people would find other terms to use that mean essentially the same thing. There's no implication that such a change would lead to concrete changes in policy, though it would certainly have a small chilling effect. | ||
| ||
|
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
Cure vs Zoun
SHIN vs Classic
ByuN vs MaxPax
Percival vs YoungYakov
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
Serral vs Rogue
BlizzCon
IdrA vs MC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
