• cjoll4@lemmy.worldEnglish
        216·
        2 months ago

        The fact that the sales description lists the Bill of Rights separately from the US Constitution logically implies that “The US Constitution” isn’t meant to include its amendments in the context of the book’s contents.

        The writer of the headline wants us to assume that Trump cherry-picked the 13th and 19th amendments to be excluded, when that’s obviously not the case. The 11th through 27th Amendments were all left out.

        • CasualPenguin@reddthat.comEnglish
          27·
          2 months ago

          What? You are assuming what a statement wants you to do?

          It’s been interesting reading the back and forth all over this post but I gotta say, defending against something you did to yourself is pretty silly.

      • audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        2416·
        2 months ago

        It can both be reporting the facts and be rage bait. A headline that said “Trump Bible only contains the Bill of Rights and not the rest of the Constitution” would also be factual, but it doesn’t push the narrative that Trump is anti-black and anti-woman.

        Don’t get me wrong, I think Trump is absolutely anti-black and anti-woman, but the headline is absolutely ragebait. It is selective to get people to click it.

        • AmidFuror@fedia.io
          1410·
          2 months ago

          You’re absolutely right. If it skipped those amendments specifically, which is what the headline implies, it would be a very different story.

          • audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            103·
            2 months ago

            I’m not disagreeing with you about it being incorrectly advertised. I’m saying the headline is written to imply that the bible specifically excludes only the amendments that apply to slavery and women. That is not the case. In fact, the only place in the article that mentions that exact fact is the headline. So while it is technically true to say that it excludes those amendments, it is, at best, misleading. Why not say it “excludes amendment to handle the death of a president”? That is also technically true.

            So what I’m saying is: you’re engaging in Lemmy’s second past time, bashing someone for calling out something that’s misleading because the implication fits your narrative.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        2 months ago

        Anyone continuing to parrot MAGA spin

        Why would you list Constitution + Bill of Rights if the constitution included the Bill of Rights?