• lemmydripzdotz456@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2621·
    4 months ago

    I do not understand what is happening here. I do not understand why you are spending your time like this. I don’t know why there seems to be a few users dedicated to downvoting people.adding context to a sensational - if true - headline. I don’t think I’m going to succeed at this, but I have some free time so I’ll try one more time. Here’s a hypothetical:

    Say there was many who went crazy and stabbed 30 people at the mall. Half of the victims are white and half are black. This is inline with the racial demographics in the area where the population is about a 50/50 mix of white and black people. A headline is written that reads “Man Stabs 15 Black People”.

    Now, this headline is completely accurate and truthful. The crazy guy totally stabbed 15 black people. However, they also stabbed 15 white people. Only including part of the data in the headline gives the impression that the man was only stabbing black people. He totally wasn’t and that totally isn’t what the headline says, but it is what it implies.

    The author of the headline could have and should have said that the Bible did not include the entire constitution or that it left out most of the amendments (including those ending (most) slavery and allowing women to vote). They could have but they didn’t. People choose words intentionally. In this case, they chose words that made people believe that only those two amendments were left out. Any user could read the article and find the whole truth there. Outrage drives engagement, though, and engagement sells ads. I get why the author made the choice they did. It was not factually wrong and it probably achieved their goal of greater engagement. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t misleading.

    Here’s some bits from Merriam-Webster. Mislead: : to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit : to lead astray : give a wrong impression

    Also, if the intent was to include only the amendments that Republicans like, I would have expected at least the 11th to be there.

    • Marighost@lemm.eeEnglish
      103·
      4 months ago

      I have no clue why you’re being downvoted so much. I understood exactly what you were trying to convey and I agree with you.

      • Naboo_calls_for_aid@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        83·
        4 months ago

        Right, having trouble following the logic here. When referring to the constitution, people can (and do) refer to it in it’s original state.

        If you Google constitution you find the original document including photos. I could understand why someone would possibly expect all amendments. But the thing does also list “bill of rights” and for the average American that would purchase such a thing it’s more than enough. I’m sure we’ll see these on auction in 20 or 30 years.

        What I really don’t get is the anger this conversation has drawn, the title of the article tries to imply that not including all the amendments is an intentional act of sexism & racism. As if trump is hand selecting it all. We don’t need a money grab bible to tell us he’s sexist & racist.

    • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
      1611·
      4 months ago

      You don’t understand that the Constitution is made up of all the amendments to it or you don’t understand that cherry picking the amendments you want to read is stupid?

      • cjoll4@lemmy.worldEnglish
        186·
        4 months ago

        The only “cherry picking” being done is by the writer of the headline. This Bible doesn’t include Amendments 11 - 27 (everything that came after the Bill of Rights). It’s not advertised to contain those amendments, either. It contains the original Constitution of the United States and it contains the Bill of Rights. The fact that the book description lists the Bill of Rights separately from the US Constitution logically implies that “US Constitution” doesn’t include its amendments in the context of the book’s contents.

        The headline suggests that two very specific amendments were omitted in such a way to evoke outrage and paint Trump in a bad light.

        I despise Donald Trump and would rather see him in prison than in the White House again, but propaganda is propaganda.

        • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
          65·
          4 months ago

          All I know is, if I show up at somebody’s house and tell them “this is your child” when I only have part of their child, they would not agree with me.

          • cjoll4@lemmy.worldEnglish
            75·
            4 months ago

            Well it’s a good thing we’re not talking about a human child, we’re talking about a body of text consisting of several distinct documents that were introduced over a span of more than two centuries. Context is tricky, I know.

          • Windex007@lemmy.worldEnglish
            42·
            4 months ago

            This is the level of nuance I heard from the TEA Party discussing their paychecks.

          • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comEnglish
            2·
            4 months ago

            What shitty logic is this?

            If the coroner shows recognizable body parts to parents… You think the parent doesn’t recognize and notify the coroner of that fact?

            “Yes, I recognize that birthmark. That torso is my daughter.”

            or

            “No, that’s just a torso, that isn’t Billy!”

            How far does this go? Billy cut his pinky off… It’s no longer Billy! That must be some new kid I’ve never seen before. Let’s call him Bill!

      • Windex007@lemmy.worldEnglish
        105·
        4 months ago

        Yeah, how dare he omit the amendment which permits electors from the district of Columbia!

        I think the previous authour is suggesting that if this offering omits not 2, but sequentially from 11-27 inclusive (aka, everything ratified after 1791) that this isn’t “cherry picking”. A line was drawn, reasonable or not, and that’s the line.

        On the other hand, reporting and headlining 2 specific amendments, implies that they were specifically hand-picked (dare I say it, “cherry-picked”) to maximize outrage. Because let’s face it, nobody gives a fuck about how many electoral votes DC gets.

        It might even read, to some readers, that maybe these were the ONLY two amendments removed. Even though that’s not true.

        Now, see, this is the BRILLIANCE in it. Trump can ARGUE that it was an arbitrary line. And people like me might say “it wasn’t cherry picked per amendment, because it’s consistently applied by ratification date”, and argue that for him.

        But let’s get real. It’s no coincidence the line was drawn where it was. It’s telling that “prohibiting disallowing the vote based on sex” (19th amendment) or race (15th) and maybe most ominously “limiting presidential terms to 2” (22nd) are all after the 10th. It’s also kinda telling of where the media sees its barrier for rage inducing material (sorry POC, Trump toasting your rights to vote doesn’t make the cut. We don’t gauge this as something people will get upset about)

        They had to get the 2nd amendment in there. The 10th is about states rights. Republicans are generally onboard w/ the first 10. The rest are pretty “woke”.

        So, it turns into an argument around semantics. Perfect. Plausible deniability.

        Edit: revised after pointed out that the cutoff was the 10th, not the 11th as my original post stated.

        • cjoll4@lemmy.worldEnglish
          73·
          4 months ago

          I just want to point out that the 11th Amendment isn’t included either; just the first 10, according to the article. The original Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It makes the dividing line seem a little less arbitrary that way.

          I agree with the points you’ve made, though.