List of Hard Drives That Need To Be Checked
Rep. Danny Williams
Rep. Justin Humphrey
Rep. Derrick Hildebrant
Rep. Warren Hamilton
Rep. Mark McBride
Rep. John George
Rep. Chris Sneed
Rep. David Hardin
Rep. Ronny Johns
Rep. Josh Cantrell
Rep. Jon Echols
Rep. Marcus McEntire
Rep. Tom Gann
Rep. Cody Maynard
Rep. Kevin West
Rep. Neil Hays
Rep. Rande Worthen
Rep. Brad Boles
Rep. Todd Russ
Rep. Ken Luttrell
Rep. Randy Randleman
Rep. Clay Staires
Rep. Ty Burns
Rep. Rusty Cornwell
Rep. Mark Vancuren
Rep. Eddy Dempsey
Rep. Mike Dobrinski
Rep. Gerrid Kendrix
Rep. Brian Hill
Rep. Dell Kerbs
Rep. Dick Lowe
Rep. Jim Grego
Rep. Kent Peterson
Rep. Kevin McDugle
Rep. Trey Caldwell
Rep. Ellyn Hefner
We don’t allow editorializing headlines, please make it match the original or we’ll have to remove it.
"Why Are Some Republican Lawmakers Hellbent on Preserving Child Marriage?
GOP lawmakers across the U.S. have opposed raising the marriage age, with some arguing child marriage bans would encourage abortion"
terrible take, OP’s title is way better, you should remove your rule instead
You don’t get to make the rules. It’s super simple, editorializing is not allowed.
I go a little easier, giving posters 8+ hours to make the correction, because people do need to sleep and work and so on.
But if they refuse to revert to the original headline, it will be removed.
This is a really awful policy though. It’s only a policy that enforces the language of those in power that control the headlines. This is how we got “Israeli’s murdered by barbaric terrorist attack!” and “Palestinians die after targeted arial strike on Hamas”.
The use of passive or active language depending on who the editor decides to favor. There is not some superior review process for these news organizations articles that ensures consistency. It is quite clearly the opposite. And this type of passive or active language in titles was used to manufacture consent for a genocide.
Currently, “following the rules” is passifying language in favor of pedophiles. That’s the current result of the “rule”. So maybe it needs some rethinking. Because if that’s how it’s working there is definitely a problem.
Which is open for discussion in the comments. Modified headlines would stifle that, because unless you clicked the modified headline, you’d never see the original.
The same could be said for the title of the original article. “The original article title is available in the link”.
The rule is favoring the opinion and bias of the original article and enforcing it on the window in which all people using the sub are deciding which comments or articles to even engage with.
That’s the point of the title in the sub. It’s not “equal” because it can be posted in a comment. We aren’t all reading the sub one link at a time and one comment at a time. We are using titles to decide what to engage with.
So one of these needs to be favored over the other unless we allow user titles to be posted along with article title (which I personally think is a bad solution).
So we are stuck favoring one over the other for the sub title. The opinions and bias of the users of this sub (regulated by the mod team to some degree) or the opinions and bias of the institutions (unregulated by the mod team in anyway. Just flat enforcement).
That’s the point. It’s not users opinions not being available. It’s about the opinions and bias in titles being enforced as the titles in the sub itself.
The rule enforces the opinions of and bias of third party institutions through all titles in this sub over the opinions and bias of the actual users of the sub. The rule doesn’t even allow for mods to use any form of judgement. Which is why you’re stuck here getting downvoted because you’re doing your job and enforcing the rule.
I’m arguing against this form of hard enforcement because I don’t want the mods being put in a position in which they are forced to defend the passive language titles used to normalize a law protecting pedophiles. I know you’re not trying to do that. But, the rule unfortunately, in this situation, is putting you in that position.
So, in my opinion, the rule needs some flexibility at the discretion of the mods. Enforce article titles to a degree. But you mods gotta have some discussion among one another on the flexibility of allowing user titles sometimes. Because it puts you in this awful position of enforcing a title that is passively normalizing pedophiles and being a robot that responds with “those are the rules”.
Hope you understand what I’m saying. This isn’t a criticism of you or any mod personally.
I get it, and I get where it’s coming from.
Fortunately the vast majority of Lemnmy users are smart enough to recognize passive voice and weasel words when they see them and call them out in the comments.
Replacing the original headline, either editorializing or editing, is a form of sanitization and makes it less obvious when news orgs are doing this.
I’ve had times going down the front page where “Oh, no, that CAN’T be a real headline…” then, surprise! It was!
Fair enough. Glad you understand the frustration. Thanks for dealing with my rant. But I figured a better explanation was in order than just “it’s a dumb rule”.
i get to tell you it’s a stupid, bad rule, and that you should get rid of it. doesn’t matter how simple it is. i recognize i unfortunately have no power over you, all i can do is tell you it’s dumb and hope for the best.
It’s not a stupid rule, posters are welcome to post articles, but they need to keep their opinion out of the headline.
They can add it to the body or as a top level comment, but allowing a headline change would just result in a front page of personal opinions and not actual news.
Why is that bad? Like, legitimately. The original titles are already opinions. They are the opinions of the editors and those that spend millions of dollars to ensure their narratives and bias are favored in the headlines. All the rule does is empower that influence more. Is that the goal? I would hope not. I would hope it’s more about being naive about how editors work narratives through titles.
The article isn’t being changed. Literally just the title. So, I don’t really see the problem in users having the ability to share an article with their own opinion as the title of the post.
I mean, if you want a community that is just “Trump does stupid shit - AGAIN!” [email protected] is right there.
Politics is about News Articles, not personal opinions.
I replied to your other comment. I don’t want that. I think I explained what I meant in my response there. So I’ll end the thread here. Sorry for the double reply initially.
Wild how difficult this seems to be to grasp. If you want to editorialize the title c/shitposts is right there!
Bonus - If the opinion was one the disagreed with, they would demand it be removed. 😉
This is why we have the rule, no editorializing. It’s not “No Editorializing, unless we personally agree.”
idk i just have this crazy notion posts shouldn’t be deleted because it contains opinions someone disagrees with. that seems very intolerant and frankly immature to me.
if i just wanted a pile of headlines from mainstream media outlets i’d use an rss feed
wild how you can’t recognize how stupid the rule is
Wild how you can’t recognize how sensible it is. This isn’t the only community with that requirement.
Count your downvotes and get back to me…
It’s a basic convention in most news-related communities. In general it tends to favor more grounded and factual conversation on the actual topic of the article, rather than on the OP’s take. This includes debating the choice of words in the headline and the bias it introduces.
What’s wrong with “Why Are Some Republican Lawmakers Hellbent on Preserving Child Marriage?” ? Is it too favorable ? Too unfavorable ? Idk man it seems to just state the point of the article, i don’t think the editorialized title is much better in any objective sense.
You are free of course to create /c/editorialized_news or whatever, which doesn’t enforce this “stupid” rule, and we’ll see how it fares in terms of the quality of discussion.
it’s a stupid rule. the opinions of article authors are no more worthy than the opinions of the people who post the links, and if anyone wants to know what the title is they can just click the link.
and it is literally leading you into a situation where you’d rather enforce some bureaucratic bullshit over raising awareness of lawmakers who voted in favor of child abuse.
Come on, guys, @[email protected], let’s try to find a compromise instead of just swinging fists. What about a hybrid stance? Put the original headline in parentheses after the opinion. That seems like it could be the best of both worlds.
Or, like I say, put the opinion in the body of the post or as a top level comment. 😉
maybe the title should just be the word “news” to make sure no opinions sneak in
“News” wouldn’t give the context that the original headline does.
the user-supplied headline provides yet more context than the one supplied by the media outlet
the rule value the opinions of mainstream media pundits - which is owned and controlled by the ruling class - over the opinions of fediverse users - who have editorial independence. it’s as simple as that really
The correct way to post it in this group would be:
Headline:
Why Are Some Republican Lawmakers Hellbent on Preserving Child Marriage?
Body:
36 Pedophiles/enablers voted AGAINST a Child Marriage Ban that passed in Oklahoma
List of Hard Drives That Need To Be Checked
Rep. Danny Williams
Rep. Justin Humphrey
Rep. Derrick Hildebrant
Rep. Warren Hamilton
Rep. Mark McBride
Rep. John George
Rep. Chris Sneed
Rep. David Hardin
Rep. Ronny Johns
Rep. Josh Cantrell
Rep. Jon Echols
Rep. Marcus McEntire
Rep. Tom Gann
Rep. Cody Maynard
Rep. Kevin West
Rep. Neil Hays
Rep. Rande Worthen
Rep. Brad Boles
Rep. Todd Russ
Rep. Ken Luttrell
Rep. Randy Randleman
Rep. Clay Staires
Rep. Ty Burns
Rep. Rusty Cornwell
Rep. Mark Vancuren
Rep. Eddy Dempsey
Rep. Mike Dobrinski
Rep. Gerrid Kendrix
Rep. Brian Hill
Rep. Dell Kerbs
Rep. Dick Lowe
Rep. Jim Grego
Rep. Kent Peterson
Rep. Kevin McDugle
Rep. Trey Caldwell
Rep. Ellyn Hefner
And yet, it is well documented you don’t follow your own rules or the rules of the instance, and yet no one seems to do anything.
Why is that, do you think?
The rules are followed fine, except by a bunch of whiners and bad actors who object to any form of moderation.
Reddit-ass moderation
Reddit would have just removed it with no warning and no offer to let them correct it. 😉
it was literally impossible to edit titles on reddit. it was a stupid rule there anyways, but good for you for clearing that bar despite the fact that the bar is underground
This is a really weird hill to die on.
what, child abuse? i was abused as a kid so yeah maybe i’m a little weird about it, sorry if that’s the case
That’s a cool straw man you’ve got there, gonna put him out in a field?
Who are you even helping by enforcing this? The people on the list?
Nothing to do with the content, we don’t allow editorializing in headlines, full stop. The content is immaterial.
Imagine being Ellen Hefner, the only woman who sided with these sickos and voted against the ban.
Check her basement
*Hard drives that need to be erased. Permanently.
You must mean the carbon based hard drives not the silicon based ones.
what a beautiful country, heh?
Yeah, they do that in advanced civilizations, like deep countryside of Pakistan, or Taliban’s Afghanistan.
Yeah, that comes of as extremely racist. You could choose so many other options throughout history but focused in on a very specific area. And one reason for it being like that in that area is the extremism that has evolved from the US and other countries playing with it like a dog plays with a dead rabbit.
I get what you’re saying it just comes off as super racist lol.
But yes child marriage is backwards as fuck and should be a relic of history not a modern day problem.
wat
What about the author? That does seem a bit harsh indeed.
The subtitle of the article says “some argue child marriage bans would increase abortion”
The person who wrote the article can die too (figuratively I mean. Like their career dying).
When the subtitle of your article just states the opinions of pedophiles you’re a piece of shit too. They are saying the opinions like they have some form of merit enough to stand alone as the subtitle. Maybe the opinions of the victims of child rapist should be your subtitle? Something like: They are “concerned” about maintaining the law that a child, that was raped, is treated as a murderer unless they marry their rapist. That’s what that subtitle SHOULD be.
I’m so tired of “stating passive opinions” not being treated for the fundamental bias they already have baked in.
It’s awful journalism and the author is just allowing the language of pedophiles to be normalized.
So, yeah. I know you were probably just joking with your comment. But I saw it as an opportunity to vent my frustration. Especially, with the mods trying to enforce the awful passive language title this article has in the first place.
theyre-the-same-picture.jpg
All for going after our leaders for supporting CSA, but in the meantime we could go after people posting fauxbait (porn of adults made to look like children… with some children thrown in and you don’t really know) on the Fediverse. I browse /all and I see some of it, I downvote, but there’s not really much you can do. I feel like we should clean our own house (though fedinsfw is its own instance) first… and I feel like people will defend these guys because they’re on the Fediverse. I don’t like any paedophiles and I’ll state it plainly.
Right there with you. It’s wild to have porn on here at all. I get it, “Sex Sells”, but Christ, there are other places to find it. The internet is full of it. You don’t need to browse this feed for it. All it is is either posts from porn sites, or self promotion for onlyfans accounts. There is nothing of value. Just get rid of porn on the fediverse entirely.
You could legitimately make this argument about any topic you like. Fortunately, it’s easy to block at either the account or instance level, so you can see the things you want to see and I can see the things I want to see, whether those things be politics, Trump, porn, trans news, left wing politics, genocide, genocide denial, memes, tan eggs, cats, or, god help us, beans, jeans, orbs, and corn.
How’s that for freedom?
You are oversimplifying a solution that doesn’t exist.
That said, it would be great if there weren’t a new porn community every other day. I tried the blocking thing and got tired of it. Now I filter out NSFW even though it will block some posts that aren’t porn, it’s better than being flooded. Still not sure how to go about getting rid of those creepy communities that fetishize celebrities and their bodies to an unhealthy degree but don’t post “porn” so they don’t get filtered, not to mention the asshole accounts that just don’t tick the NSFW box on their posts.
I really do wish there was some kind of option to hide all porn communities in /all without disabling other NSFW posts. I would be cool with something like letting communities mark themselves as porn communities and having an option to hide those communities without playing whack-a-mole with blocking porn communities, especially since blocking a community always seems to mess up my /all feed scrolling.
Also while I’m on my soapbox, would love to be able to mark posts as spoilers vs. NSFW, which I don’t believe can be done? I’ve seen photos marked as NSFW because they contain spoilers for recent movies and there’s not a better option right now.
Spoilers vs NSFW is something that has been a problem for such a long time, and it’s so crazy that no one has ever bothered to implement a simple second checkbox that blurs things the same way as the NSFW checkbox, but doesn’t hide spoilers from your feed. The spoiler tags on text are fine, but you can blur an image with a spoiler tag, so you have to mark it NSFW. Such a strange thing to have left out of online communities for so long.
Interesting. I’ve blocked all the nsfw instances so I never see it.
IMO the Epstein class would like nothing more than for us to turn our rage towards working class pedophiles. I’m not defending that fauxcp shit, but I do think there is levels of culpability to this. The person drawing comics is not as harmful to society as the pastor/politician with real life victims.
IF these oklahoma reps are committing sex crimes and using their position of power to operate above the law than the are forfeiting their right to a life sentence in prison.
As far as delinquent artists I would like to believe that those folks that haven’t victimized someone IRL can be receive professional help so that they never do.
These politicians have children, start hitting them up for fresh young wives.
They aren’t hiding anymore
Can we just undo America?
On reflection it’s just been a lot of harm
- Native Americans have entered the chat
“On reflection”
A lot of the world gas never needed to reflect on it, it has always been extremely obvious and clear as day, and not just in recent years.
I believe this is an example of ironic understatement to emphasize the obviousness of a viewpoint
Thirty six pedo representatives who can’t get an adult woman to talk to them voluntarily, without being paid.
I can’t WAIT for the PEDOPHILES SHOULD DIE QAnon crowd to
VOTE THEM OUT!it’s always who you expect most
Steeping to a new low, even for Representative Dick Lowe
Paywall-free options: https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/republican-lawmakers-child-marriage-abortion-1235018777/
Also what, and I cannot stress this enough, the fuck.
Marriage is currently legal in Missouri at age of 16 with at least one parent’s consent. That’s a relatively recent development: Missouri lawmakers only banned marrying children who were 14 years old or younger in 2018.
What the fuck.
The United States does not have a federal law setting the age of marriage. The marriage age is set by states, and only 12 of them have banned child marriage. (Those states: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.)
What the fuck.
A 2021 study by the advocacy group Unchained at Last found that 300,000 minors were married between 2000 and 2018 in the United States. According to the group, 60,000 of those marriages involved an age difference that would have otherwise been considered a sex crime.
… So 20% of them are literally statutory rape but still were legal somehow???
The vast majority of these minors were 16 or 17 years old, and most were girls wed to adult men who were four years older than they were, on average. There were five documented instances of children as young as 10 married in the U.S. in the period studied.
I think I am going to be sick.
On the New Hampshire House floor last week, state Rep. Jess Edwards ® argued against raising the marriage age from 16 to 18, by asking whether a law preventing people “of ripe, fertile age”
Absolute creepiest way to say it, too.
Well, you ever read something expecting it to be bad, and then it’s even worse? This is that. Jesus Christ.
Well I was going to say, just check the entire male population’s hard drives as a joke but now I’m not so sure if it should be a joke.
Secure connection failed
Ah, shoot, the rules forbid me from posting the full text of articles in the comments, so I’m not sure what to do if this link doesn’t work. (I… think I’m in the clear posting the link at all, since it’s a comment and not a post? But mods let me know if I’ve misunderstood and I will remove the paywall-free link.)
Don’t forget that they are still legally minors, and therefore cannot legally sign divorce papers without the consent of their legal guardian (spouse) or an advocate. Marriage is a contract, minors cannot enter into a contract, modify, or terminate a contract without an adult advocate. With most contracts that would be the parents (or child advocate), unless they sign those rights over through a parent consented marriage.
