One thing is certain, no one doubted that the Trump administration had it out for DEI initiatives during the campaign. No one is surprised by the initiative. Americans knew and a simple majority of voters (Or close enough) were fine to drop what’s been called “identity politics” in search of a better economy, warranted or not, and polls show that swing voters were primarily concerned with inflation. Whether Americans care much about banning words from government websites is almost unanswerable, but it’s doubtful that many knew that President Donald Trump and his appointees would go so far as to ban even certain words. This is made even more ironic by the fact that they have crowned themselves as champions of free speech. The dichotomy is probably not so much lost on them as it is irrelevant. It is not all that hard to figure out what they’re trying to avoid – a world in which authority is questioned or nebulous.
To that end, the people with the most to lose, major media outlets that face White House bans and lack of access to sources, outlets such as The New York Times, are beginning to dig deep into the extent of the new policies. It is breathtaking in scope as this report shows simple words and phrases, ones that are nearly ubiquitous in society, now banned from government websites.
The Times on Friday revealed a list of banned words that came with that order – from phrases like “sense of belonging,” “all-inclusive” and “at risk” – to more innocuous terms like “women,” “institutional,” and “systemic.”
They all landed on Trump’s ban list and while the Times noted the White House’s “rhetorical strategy” has been criticized as discriminatory, it exposes a greater hypocrisy as the president and his closest allies – including tech billionaire Elon Musk – “have frequently portrayed themselves as champions of free speech.”
It is difficult to imagine that the administration has had time to sort through every site and examine context. As we saw in the Pentagon scrubbing references to the “Enola Gay” World War II plane, it is far more likely that they’re entering search terms to pull the words right out without examination. Thus one wonders how a phrase like “at risk” does when the context is – just for example – Homeland Security noting that certain air space is “at risk” of becoming unmanageable due to growth, or that certain public areas are “at risk” to terrorist attack. Will the phrases be missed at some point? Tough to tell. But it puts some work “at risk.”
“Indeed, the office of the presidency carries with it a tremendous power to drive the discourse,” the Times wrote Friday. “But the pattern of vanishing words established here suggests Mr. Trump and his administration may be more interested in chilling the national conversation — at least when it comes to their own disfavored topics — than in expanding it.”
That seems self-evident. It is a bit of a wonder how it is that simply dissolving programs isn’t enough. Their actions look more like a concerted effort to ghost people from any discourse, especially from government action or intervention. This is never more true than when looking further into what has been banned. As Rawstory breaks down:
Other words the government is now avoiding use of include: “all-inclusive,” “historically,” “Native American,” “underappreciated,” “health equity,” and “political,” according to the Times. “Still, the words and phrases listed here represent a marked — and remarkable — shift in the corpus of language being used both in the federal government’s corridors of power and among its rank and file,” the Times said. “They are an unmistakable reflection of this administration’s priorities.”
Leave it to the Times to drain any sense of humanity out of the subject and leave the “corpse” lying bloodless to be examined. The “shift in language” is a nuisance. It is the shift in thinking that impacts Americans of all shades and persuasions. The fact that the government may not be concerned with providing an adequate baseline level of healthcare matters far less than phrasing it as “health equity.”
In the end we’re talking about words – and, to be sure, words matter. But on the list of concerns right now scrubbing the language matters less than the motivation, and the words much less than the consequences.
God Bless: I can be reached at [email protected] and on twitter-X at @JasonMiciak, and follow now on Bluesky.
Friends, we are struggling to make ends meet. It’s not just us, it’s industry wide. There are star hosts being bumped on MSNBC as we speak. (Joy Reid and Alex Wagner) So if you can afford a small donation or a monthly subscription, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Ursula
The Muskrat’s self-proclaimed status as a “champion of free speech” has always been a lie. And Drumpf has never cared about the subject.
Their idea of what constitutes “free speech” is, and always has been, “speech that we support”; anything else–especially material they disagree with–isn’t covered.
We’ve seen how the Muskrat has banned people from *his* little version of Twitter, especially when they dare to criticize the Muskrat (whether his opinions, his business dealings or his personal behaviors). Years ago, a young man decided to post material that tracked where the Muskrat was (using PUBLICLY available material–including Melonhead’s own social media postings and schedules) and Melonhead sued him for “endangering” his life and his family’s lives with the information (even though the Muskrat has a fortune that’s beyond measure and has more than enough money to spend on bodyguards and private security; hell, he could hire a private army for a year and never miss the money he spent).
What’s truly ironic about some of the “bans” that Drumpf and the Muskrat are doing is that they’ve shown that they don’t really CARE about women. You remember? That’s been the whole basis for all the moves to ban protections and health care for trans individuals: To “protect” women (although many of the trans individuals in this country happen to be trans men–a fact that few of the anti-trans lawmakers care to discuss). Well, it’s going to be VERY difficult to “protect” women when your focus on banning words includes “women.” Or is that ban only supposed to be in certain circumstances (like when followed by “rights” or “equality” or “doctors” or “astronauts”)?
Words. They have power and power can be used for either good or evil. Words can inspire, and words can depress. I don’t know if grade schoolers still learn the ditty about ‘sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me’ but even sixty years ago I’d already learned the bitter lesson about the harm words can do. Dealing with the damage the taunting, led by one person in particular (who like me was born to modest circumstances but was freaking adored) has been a lifelong thing for me. At the same time during my formative years I saw words being spoken by certain leaders that inspired me in ways no one who didn’t live through those times can ever fully appreciate.
Words. Which ones are used, or not. The tone and context in which they are delivered. It really is something when you think about it. I’ll guarantee every person reading this, or anyone who has ever lived long enough to learn the language of wherever they were raised can think of countless examples of words and how they were used lifted them up, or drove them to despair. I’m reminded of a powerful moment in that last Harry Potter movie, that last lesson Professor Dumbldore gave to Harry in the train station in an ethereal setting;
“Words are in my not so humble opinion an almost inexhaustible source of magic, capable of both inflicting injury and remedying it.”
I feel like we are being forced back to another time when people with great power and the megaphone it provides have sway over what we can even read or hear about. What we can learn, and/or be taught. When people think of the famous Scopes trial iconic attorney’s were brought in as “ringers” – William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow for the defense. However, defendant Scope’s actual lead counsel was an eccentric but beloved law professor (he hadn’t yet been fired) UT law professor. John Randolph Neal who wrote that it wasn’t a question of whether Evolution was true or untrue, but involved the right to teach and therefore the right to learn. Again, something to think about.
Free speech means having to put up with things that make your blood boil. Yet without it countless truths, and questions all should ponder are never learned by the masses. We have someone in control of a stupid ass (I said so from its beginning and still think it holds WAY too much sway for fomenting a ‘bumper sticker’ means of considering complex matters) website that is arguably the most influential social media platform. Since it’s privately owned, Musk can run it how he wants. It’s his staggering hypocrisy about being a champion of free speech while censoring content he doesn’t like that (rightly) offends so many others.
I think he and Trump share the trait of self-loathing combined with resentment of those who actually are or were while alive great people. People with talent and vision they (Musk and Trump) lack. Oh, and courage. Even when physical danger (i.e. Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier) isn’t involved it still takes a lot of guts to lead, to be the first to accomplish some difficult and often great thing. So, like most people who are jealous instead of working to improve themselves people like Muskrat ant Trumpty tear-down and belittle those BETTER than them. Or now simply try to erase them from history!
Aming the words banned ate “women,” “female,” “disability,” “disabled,” “hispanic minority,” Native American, ” “LGBTW,””indigenous,” ” black and latinx.” In other words, anyone who is not white and male doesn’t exist in official.documents. It couldn’t be clearer that the world they want is one with classes, one of straight white men,,and another of everyone else.nIf we don’t exist in.official documents, how.long before we start not existing for real?