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

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    shield
    M
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    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.

    • wheezy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      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.

        • wheezy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          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.

    • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Wild how difficult this seems to be to grasp. If you want to editorialize the title c/shitposts is right there!

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        shield
        M
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        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.”

        • Footer1998@crazypeople.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          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

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          shield
          M
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          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…

          • Footer1998@crazypeople.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            15 days ago

            seeing something as commonplace does not make it sensible. thought you’d be smart enough not to make such a fallacious argument

            and your downvotes mean nothing to me, i’ve seen what makes you upvote. also, downvotes are disabled on my instance, as they should be on all instances tbh. and as far as i know you may have a hundred sockpuppets. wouldn’t surprise me even a little bit

        • Zos_Kia@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          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.

    • Footer1998@crazypeople.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      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.