CDC gets list of forbidden words
I probably need to preface this comment by making it clear that I&#x27;m against banning words and not a fan of Trump.<p>Banning &quot;fetus&quot; and &quot;transgender&quot; is completely indefensible as they&#x27;re fairly neutral words with no obvious replacement. But for the rest, imagine that rather than a ban this was a style guide recommending against certain words. The common theme in the rest of them is that they don&#x27;t convey much useful information but have a strong emotional charge.<p>You don&#x27;t need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence. Coming right out and saying your position is evidence-based just sounds like a way to shut down any objections, even reasoned discussion, by casting the other side as being against science, evidence, or facts in general. This is similar for science-based, vulnerable, and diversity. If you&#x27;re seen as being &quot;anti-diversity&quot; your argument doesn&#x27;t matter because you&#x27;re a misogynistic racist xenophobe.<p>Entitlements is charged term because you&#x27;ve cemented your position on social welfare pretty clearly just by referring to them as entitlements. It&#x27;s not quite as bad as Derry&#x2F;Londonderry , but it&#x27;s certainly not neutral.<p>I don&#x27;t think any of these words should be banned, but I do think it would be reasonable for government agencies to use neutral language and fully explain their thoughts rather than using emotionally charged buzzwords.