• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 5th, 2024

help-circle

  • Given the lack of punctuation at the end of the sentence compared to proper punctuation on the other lines, I would expect that one of these is true:

    1. The end of the punchline was never printed.
    2. The end of the punchline appears elsewhere and cannot be seen because of how it is being held.
    3. The image has been edited for comedic effect (successfully, in my opinion).















  • 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.