I don’t think it was ever meant to look like Obama, it was meant as a mockery.
Nesrie
6419
To just put a random black guy on a cookie, color it like a poster and call that generic black man on a cookie an Obama cake? That’s pretty ummm, racist. It’s not even a real black man just like some stereotypical this is what black people look like in that scenario.
That is exactly what I would come to expect from them.
Romalar
6421
I can understand this argument about the “banned” words, though I don’t entirely agree (from NYT article via. Ars Technica):
It’s absurd and Orwellian, it’s stupid and Orwellian, but they are not saying to not use the words in reports or articles or scientific publications or anything else the CDC does. They’re saying not to use it in your request for money because it will hurt you. It’s not about censoring what CDC can say to the American public. It’s about a budget strategy to get funded.
However, I’m still just as concerned with this kind of wordsmithing being required of employees from the tops of such agencies even if it’s not an explicit top-down ban. There’s a lot of semi-subtle thought policing like this going on in federal agencies. Here is a good summary of why this is so bad (quote from a Dr. Ashish Jha in this Ars Technica article):
So of course the administration and its defenders are going to argue that this is only about what goes into the budget. But we know that the signal to the agency is much stronger than that. And it’s going to change behavior of people who work there. And that’s much more damaging than any direct censorship.
Is there a banned list of words on Qt3?
Zylon
6423
If there was, we wouldn’t be able to tell you about it, now would we? Because the list has been banned.
Just answer me this: Are any of these insults on the list?
“twit”
“weapons-grade plum”
“twonk”
“absolute fucking doughnut”
“spoon”
“gobshite”
“cocksplat”
“weaselheaded fucknugget”
“mangled apricot hellbeast”
“eejit”
“clueless numpty”
“bloviating fleshbag”
“toupéd fucktrumpet”
“incompressible jizztrumpet”
“tiny fingered, Cheeto-faced, ferret wearing shitgibbon”
This is pretty standard for any budget application though. You consider the recipient of the application and mould it accordingly. This often includes very clear instructions to target priority areas, and hence you try and shoehorn that stuff in there (“Hmmm, how can this crocodile project address marriage equality… ah, I know!”). I can see the potential concern but unless I’m overestimating the CDC I seriously doubt it will influence behaviour outside of rewriting applications to ensure they tick the right boxes.
It’s been working the other way for years. God forbid if you wanted a grant you’d put in something about Islamic Terrorism, no the politically correct terminology was “Countering Violent Extremism”.
ShivaX
6427
Yeah, those pesky liberals like McMaster. Oh wait.
Also you forgot the word radical. If you’re going to push a tired talking point at least push it correctly.
I know! When will the government ever focus on or put any resources toward dealing with terrorism, huh libtards?!
Timex
6429
What grants were rejected based on this? This sounds like an entirely made up statement, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.
Banzai
6430
But I’m sure he believes that grants were rejected, and that makes it true in Trumpland. Get with the new reality Timex!
The KKK swears to uphold Christian morality. Does that make them Christian Terrorists?
I’m so confused-- I thought the KKK was made up of “many fine people?”
Woot!
More boomer-bashing red meat, yay!
