He came in quite hot and has made no acknowledgements of my rebuttal. To be honest, taking a deep breath and giving me a more sensible response than what I got could have gone a lot way.

We're allowed, and should be encouraged, to write with a small amount of nuance and creativity.

My intent was to argue by counterexample. That grant being cut merely because of containing the prefix homo is an example of indiscriminate cutting, in my opinion. Actually effectively cutting grants that only related to homosexuality or something would've been discriminate.

However, I might still be misunderstanding you, pardon me.

> That grant being cut merely because of containing the prefix homo is an example of indiscriminate cutting, in my opinion.

I disagree. I think it would be considered "discriminate cutting".

> Actually effectively cutting grants that only related to homosexuality or something would've been discriminate.

I agree and that's the point I was making. They're just cutting grants with the word "homo" in them because it meets their criteria of interest for cutting. Whether they deal with homosexuality or not is not a discriminate vs indiscriminate topic, but a topic of DOGE's competency in actually executing on their discriminate cutting vision.