1
49
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Hey everyone. I've been considering if I should add this clause since November when I rebooted this community, but a post yesterday whose user-created title resulted in needless fighting in the comments finally made me organize my thoughts around why it should be implemented.

Keep in mind that there are no ex post facto rules in this community; anything posted before this isn't subject to this amendment. (Although if you've posted something, going back and making sure it conforms would make me very happy.) Before getting to my rationale, the Rule 3 extension is bolded below while verbosity getting axed is struck through:

"Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source rewrites the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list. ~~If it’s marked in red, it probably isn’t allowed; if it’s yellow, exercise caution.~~"


  1. User-created headlines are often far more ambiguous. As an example, "Trump voters are afraid that he would hold his promise to cut medicaid". Which Trump voters specifically? The real headline tells us: "4 in 10 Republicans worried Medicaid cuts would hurt their communities: Poll". As another example (of a screenshot of an article; I've considered for a long time if image posts are healthy for this community as it was the original intention to be articles-only, but I don't want to adjudicate that here): "Only thing worse than ICE agents..." The title is a joke instead of telling readers anything relevant unless they click on the image.

TL;DR: Weasel words and jokes obscuring the facts.


  1. User-created headlines often introduce unsourced claims which the moderators have to meticulously check the article for. For example, "Michigan Arab community, a majority of who voted for Trump in 2024, are outraged that the man who instituted a Muslim travel ban in his first term, has done so again in his second". Refer back to (1) for "Who in the Michigan Arab community?", but more importantly, "a majority of who voted for Trump in 2024" is never once substantiated. This violates Rule 2, yes, because the OP doesn't use a high-quality source for this explanation of why their post fits the LAMF criteria, and hence this one was removed. But now a moderator has to read through the entire article just to see if this claim is substantiated there.

TL;DR: Unsourced information is much harder to prove and remove.


  1. Original headlines usually have better grammar, spelling, and parseability. Refer to the example in (1), in which "are afraid that he would hold his promise to cut medicaid" is less parseable than "worried Medicaid cuts would hurt their communities". This is also a weird title on account of Trump already cutting Medicaid; this article is about them worrying about the effects of that.

TL;DR: Things written by professional writers are usually more readable.


  1. Trying to establish rules around what headlines should and shouldn't include (jokes, unverified claims, etc.) is Sisyphean nonsense – not just so the mods don't have to meticulously arbitrate each one but so that users don't feel like they're playing the Password Game.

TL;DR: Moderating custom titles against (1), (2), and (3) is a nightmare.


  1. The post body still exists for jokes, claims outside of the article for why this is relevant (provided you follow Rule 2 and source them), your thoughts on what's discussed, etc. We can let the people who want the color commentary go to the comments while letting people who want a useful link aggregator avoid interacting with them.

Because this removes the ability of the OP to explain relevance in the title, Rule 2 is rewritten slightly:

"If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this."

2
37
submitted 2 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Michigan, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota have all urged the US Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that federally legalized same-sex marriage. But this move isn’t as straightforward as many activists on both sides would have you believe. Even if Obergefell is ultimately overturned, other laws and rulings complicate things. The Respect for Marriage Act requires states to acknowledge the legal marriages of other states, and United States v. Windsor struck down key parts of the anti-LGBT Defense of Marriage Act. Should Obergefell fall while Windsor stands, same-sex marriages would still be recognized at the federal level, even if individual states banned them. Yet, the implications are deeply troubling. We could return to a system where some states honor same-sex marriages, while others don’t — a legal patchwork that could severely constrain LGBT rights and upend the decades of work leading up to Obergefell. As a 29-year-old lesbian engaged to be married, this turn of events is personal for me. And it may be one I helped contribute to.

When the “woke” mania swept the country in 2020, I took a step back and reevaluated where I stood and why I stood there. To my surprise, I found that I agreed with conservatives and libertarians on a number of issues. I opposed childhood gender transitions, unlawful and divisive DEI mandates, and the excesses of Critical Race Theory. I argued against biological males competing in women’s sports and being housed in women’s prisons. I did so loudly and publicly, losing many friends along the way. My stance wasn’t rooted in hate or fear but in a commitment to reason and fairness. My loyalty was to the truth, not to political tribes. Maintaining my integrity cost me greatly, but I believed it was worth it.

I went even further — I joined a nonpartisan organization as a legal analyst, advocating for parental rights in schools, against race-based affirmative action, and opposing radical gender ideology. I wrote legal letters, spoke at universities that plastered my face on fliers calling me a bigot, and partnered with conservative attorneys who, I believed, were fighting to preserve fundamental American values. I stood shoulder to shoulder with them on the cultural battlefield, committed to protecting gender-nonconforming children's welfare while still supporting trans adults who simply wanted to live their lives in peace. It was the most extreme activist voices — those who called lesbians transphobic for only wanting to sleep with women and who prioritized trans women’s feelings over the safety of cisgender women — that I opposed. I recognized that these excesses were not just putting trans adults’ rights in jeopardy, but the gay and bi communities’ as well. The fringe was threatening all of us. Acceptance of same-sex marriage began to decline for the first time in a decade. We needed to course correct, and fast.

I was aware of the ever-present elements of the far-right who have always opposed same-sex marriage and the existence of trans-identifying adults, but I didn’t expect the “reasonable” right to join their ranks so quickly once the power dynamic shifted.

Today, some of those same attorneys I worked with are advocating for my right to marry my fiancée to be stripped away. They are urging the Supreme Court to invalidate my engagement and to deny me the protections and benefits that heterosexual couples take for granted. Twitter is rife with homophobic posts calling gay and bi people demonic and disgusting, and attempting to oust us from the Republican Party. They blame us for the overreaches of trans activism, claiming that same-sex marriage was the “slippery slope” that preceded the extremes taking root. They argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman, period. Their legal briefs couch it in historical tradition, religious freedom, and states' rights, but the message is clear: my love, my commitment, and my family is not worthy of legal recognition. I’m a Christian woman. It took a long time for me to make my way back to the church after coming out, but my faith is now stronger than ever. My fiancée and I plan to be married in the church. Now it seems that even though our church is willing to marry us, the government might not recognize it.

This is a dangerous game right-wing culture warriors are playing. If Obergefell falls, it won’t just impact same-sex couples. It will set a precedent that fundamental rights can be granted and taken away by the shifting winds of political power. This should concern every American, regardless of their stance on same-sex marriage.

I can think of a hundred issues more pressing to the American public than the existence of same-sex marriage: inflation, the cost of healthcare, national security, the war in Gaza — the list goes on. But a growing faction of the right is drunk on power, using its current dominance to wage a culture war against its own citizens as retribution for the last number of years. “Owning the libs” is their preferred method of revenge. Instead of tackling inflation or healthcare, they are targeting millions like me who want nothing more than to live our lives freely and equally.

Many will say I should have seen this coming — that the right has and always will be against LGBT rights. And maybe there’s some truth to that. But that just wasn’t my experience. I was met with open arms by this messy coalition of ex-Democrats and lifelong Republicans, many of whom still support me and my right to marry. I found a community committed to reason and truth. Perhaps I’m simply realizing that there are fewer of us than I originally thought. The radical right is on the warpath against liberalism, trampling centrists, libertarians, and reasonable ring-wingers in the process. Ultimately, I don’t regret my decision. I worked toward what I believed — and still believe — to be true. I still oppose radical gender ideology and Critical Race Theory in schools. I still believe that biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports or be housed in women’s prisons. But I will not stand by while LGBT rights are legislated away.

Consider the recent controversy surrounding the gay journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has become a popular figure in right-populist circles in the past few years. When explicit videos from his private life were leaked — depicting consensual, fetishistic encounters and possible drug use — the right-wing response fractured. Some, like Megyn Kelly, defended him, calling the leak an irrelevant “attempt to embarrass him.” But the backlash was fierce and disturbing. A vocal contingent of the right, including pundits with large platforms and significant influence, seized the moment to denounce gay people writ large. Never mind the fact that fetish and kink are widespread among straight people as well. Conservative author and podcaster Allie Beth Stuckey, for example, used the occasion to argue that same-sex marriage had paved the way for child genital mutilation and drag queens reading to kids, suggesting that gay couples should never have been granted marriage or adoption rights in the first place. Others implied that Greenwald had “bought” his adopted children and needed to be “delivered” from homosexuality.

The whole affair made something clear: for many on the right, their past tolerance of gay and bi people who aligned with them on a few pet issues was never rooted in principle. It was always about convenience. We were never truly accepted — just temporarily useful. And now that some of us have outlived our political utility, they’re more than happy to throw us to the wolves the moment the opportunity arises. 

The conservative movement has a choice to make: will they stay true to their promises of liberty and limited government, or will they use the levers of power to impose their preferred moral order? I joined forces with them because I believed in the former. I fear they are choosing the latter.

Many on the cultural right are forgetting something critical: same-sex marriage doesn’t infringe upon anyone else’s rights. A crucial argument against gender ideology was the infringement on women’s rights. But unlike trans edge cases such as women’s sports or prisons, marriage isn’t a zero-sum issue. There isn’t a finite number of spots on the “marriage team.” My getting married takes nothing away from straight couples. And I will fight for my right to do so just as fiercely as I fought against radical ideologies that threatened other American values.

Conservatives can either stand for freedom, or they can stand for oppression — but they cannot do both. If they truly value individual liberty, they should defend our right to marry. If they turn on us now, they reveal who they really are. 

Trump won in 2024 in part due to the left’s overreach. If the right continues down this path, they could meet a similar fate in future elections. As more people come out as LGBT, and as more LGBT people voice concerns with far-left activist orthodoxies, Republicans should be broadening the tent, not excluding these people and pushing them away. Hemorrhaging potential voters to get your druthers isn’t a winning political strategy. The pendulum from hell will just keep swinging back and forth until we all decide we’ve had enough.

/- By Reid Newton

3
182
Pro-Trump Cuban (discuss.online)
submitted 12 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
4
312
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31103164

Florida Republican says Cuban-refugee parents “are now just as American, if not more so, than Stephen Miller

A Republican state lawmaker in Florida who founded Latinas for Trump condemned the administration’s sweeping immigration arrests across the state despite the president’s months-long campaign that promised the largest “mass deportation operation” in American history.

“This is not what we voted for,” state Sen. Ileana Garcia said in a statement Saturday. “I have always supported Trump, through thick and thin. However, this is unacceptable and inhumane.”

She said her Cuban-refugee parents “are now just as American, if not more so, than Stephen Miller,” among the architects of Trump’s anti-immigration agenda demanding 3,000 daily immigration arrests.

5
207
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
6
956
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
7
216
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

We TOTALLY didn't see this coming, lol!

8
308
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
9
230
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
10
508
submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

In my country, it's called "voting for the fox because the rooster is crowing out of tune".

11
141
submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
12
269
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

... Is ICE agents in jo' booty.

13
60
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
14
13
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

"I never thought racist party would be anti-Muslim" sobbed Muslim chairman while resigning.

15
140
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
16
136
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
17
268
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

The article says:

Ken Griffin says Trump’s tariff strategy is eroding America’s global standing and investor trust in U.S. financial stability.

We already knew this was going to happen. On June 26, 2024 Reuters released an article with the headline "16 Nobel Prize-winning economists say Trump policies will fuel inflation". Trump campaigned on tariffs.

In my view this really undermines the creditably of Ken Griffin because an investor should be able to accurately asses information and determine its credibility to make proper investing decisions. Someone who falls for Fox "News" drivel wouldn't be a good investor. This is why Warren Buffet is outperforming other investors now, he properly prepared himself for Trump's tariffs.

Source for donation amount: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors

18
371
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
19
117
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/44923452

20
63
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

As a Republican state lawmaker for 16 years, a Texas rancher and a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, John Davis’s conservative credentials are impeccable

Lol

The bills come as Trump has ramped up anti-renewable rhetoric on the national stage, calling wind turbines “ugly” and “disgusting” and barring major clean energy projects on federal lands and waters. “We don’t want windmills in this country,” Trump, who has enjoyed strong electoral support from farmers, said shortly after being inaugurated as president.

Davis retired as state legislator in 2015 to spend more time on his ranch but has lately been donning a suit and traveling back to Austin to urge his former colleagues to reject the anti-renewables bills. “I testify as a conservative and say: ‘What are you guys doing? Have you lost your mind?’” he said.

Yes, i believe so :)

“Some of these bills are attacking battery storage of all things. How dumb is that? It’s sacrificing your core conservative value principles in order to protect the oil and gas industry.”

It’s not productive or helpful when he spouts off like that,” Corbin said of Trump’s comments on wind and solar.

80%

21
234
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
22
74
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Recently, I got a report about a post with the rationale: "[This story is] 15 years old". While the story's age didn't violate any established rules,* it was ironically removed anyway because it wasn't actually "leopards ate my face" (Rule 1).

With nearly unchecked power to fuck over his sadistic, servile voter base, a flood of Trump stories is unavoidable right now. However, unless there's a strong community consensus against it, from the day I reopened this community, I've wanted it to be a place for "leopards ate my face" stories about anyone anywhere on Earth at any point in history. The new Rule 6 enshrines this, even though it was always allowed because it wasn't against any rules. Shake things up with a story about a local government from the Yuan dynasty; see if I give a shit.

The only thing I'd ask (note: not a rule) is that if you post something that could be easily mistaken for a current event (e.g. a story from Trump's 2017–2021 term), please try to disclaim it in the title – maybe, for example, by putting the year at the end in brackets like '[2019]'. The sad reality is that many people haven't learned yet how important it is to look at an article before you comment about and share it around. This community has done a really good job so far of maintaining a healthy information ecosystem, so I trust your judgment.


* My promise as a moderator is that I'll do my best never to create any ex post facto rules. I have actually broken this: I've removed at least two posts for being reposts, but I didn't realize I'd never put a rule in place. In light of this, Rule 5 has been created, and Rule 0 has been moved to the top of the list of rules.

23
121
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
24
303
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
25
164
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
view more: next ›

Leopards Ate My Face

6878 readers
475 users here now

Rules:

  1. The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
  2. Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
  3. If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
  4. Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
  5. For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
  6. Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
  7. This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
  8. All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.

Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS