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
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
Opinions are fine, just not in the headline.
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…
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
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.