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
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”.