4 ms·

Florida Senate Bill 254 is the bill. The text of the bill: https://legiscan.com/FL/text/S0254/2023 https://legiscan.com/FL/text/S0254/2023 The fact that this

Florida Senate Bill 254 is the bill. The text of the bill: https://legiscan.com/FL/text/S0254/2023 https://legiscan.com/FL/text/S0254/2023 The fact that this made it to the senate and house in Florida is a story worth discussing.

Chronoyes 4y ago
[flagged]
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  I'm confused ; I could buy the first request, but now the cheese has inexplicably moved? Request was for credible source. Somebody provided text to actual bill. That is the canonical credible source - no interpretation, bait, translation, summary or slant. What is your expectation in terms of "credible source" then - keep trying until they guess your preferred news source?
  - Chronoyes 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - HeresTheT 4y ago
      You don't need to read thousands of government documents. You can read one. And then discuss it.
    - NikolaNovak 4y ago
      I think at some point, if you're presented a media article, and if on demand you're then presented the original source, if you feel the need to have it filtered through a particular funnel, Google can be your friend. Alternatively it is possible (if not likely) your preferred outlets may not, for various reasons, cover this story. So maybe it doesn't exist! As you say, that's how the world works ;-)
- HeresTheT 4y ago
  A senator and two members of the house felt that a minority class of people should have their children removed from them, and invested the time to draft legislation and introduce it to both the house and senate simultaneously. That, all by itself, is notable. We don't want to wait until this passes to start discussing it. The fact that it came up at all is the well past the point where we should be talking about it.
  - Chronoyes 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - HeresTheT 4y ago
      What does that mean? Are we only allowed to discuss topics that "credible media sources" already discuss? I was raising the concern for discussion here after posting a source link. You seem to unwilling to actually engage in discussion about a notable change in American politics?
- xracy 4y ago
  If this isn't the problem with the internet, I don't know what is. "No no, I don't want the primary source unfiltered, I want my preferred bias already added into the discussion, so I can know how to feel about it." The above is how this statement reads to me after your first request.

Chronoyes 4y ago

[flagged]

NikolaNovak 4y ago
I'm confused ; I could buy the first request, but now the cheese has inexplicably moved? Request was for credible source. Somebody provided text to actual bill. That is the canonical credible source - no interpretation, bait, translation, summary or slant. What is your expectation in terms of "credible source" then - keep trying until they guess your preferred news source?
- Chronoyes 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - HeresTheT 4y ago
    You don't need to read thousands of government documents. You can read one. And then discuss it.
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    I think at some point, if you're presented a media article, and if on demand you're then presented the original source, if you feel the need to have it filtered through a particular funnel, Google can be your friend. Alternatively it is possible (if not likely) your preferred outlets may not, for various reasons, cover this story. So maybe it doesn't exist! As you say, that's how the world works ;-)
HeresTheT 4y ago
A senator and two members of the house felt that a minority class of people should have their children removed from them, and invested the time to draft legislation and introduce it to both the house and senate simultaneously. That, all by itself, is notable. We don't want to wait until this passes to start discussing it. The fact that it came up at all is the well past the point where we should be talking about it.
- Chronoyes 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - HeresTheT 4y ago
    What does that mean? Are we only allowed to discuss topics that "credible media sources" already discuss? I was raising the concern for discussion here after posting a source link. You seem to unwilling to actually engage in discussion about a notable change in American politics?
xracy 4y ago
If this isn't the problem with the internet, I don't know what is. "No no, I don't want the primary source unfiltered, I want my preferred bias already added into the discussion, so I can know how to feel about it." The above is how this statement reads to me after your first request.