cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15442706
Trump’s $60 Bible & Constitution omits amendments ending slavery and allowing women to vote
Glad I read the comments first, this article is Rage Bait, it doesn’t list any amendments beyond the Bill of Rights, if it omitted these two things specifically that’d be sus, but it didn’t.
Though the irony of a Holy Book that says not to make any law in support of a specific religion is worth a chuckle or twelve.
Who is downvoting everything.
Joe
Joe who?
┬──┬ ノ( ゜-゜ノ)
Joe mama
BUURRRNNNN!
Oh.
@DxK@lemmy.sdf.org mind fixing the problematic title?
Purpose: properly messaging the idiocy of the twice-impeached president
He probably made the publishers use the text version of the so-called “Wicked Bible” from 1631. He would feel right at home with their version of Exodus 20:14.
Top comment from the linked page:
"Looks like the book only included the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those two amendments were not specifically excluded. This is rage bait. "
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
You’re absolutely right. If it skipped those amendments specifically, which is what the headline implies, it would be a very different story.
Anyone continuing to parrot MAGA spin
Why would you list Constitution + Bill of Rights if the constitution included the Bill of Rights?
