Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

melftastic t1_iwsxtxo wrote

“The sponsor of the amendment himself, state Rep. Edmond Jordan, a Democrat, ultimately opposed it due to changes in the text that he said would have expanded the state's ability to use slavery or involuntary servitude as a punishment, according to reporting by member station WRKF.” —-> I am from Louisiana and voted against this constitutional amendment for this reason. I wasn’t confused. The amendment was absolute garbage, would not have ended slavery in our state and might have even expanded its use. The title of the article is misleading.

151

CA_Orange t1_iwtm48r wrote

Yeah, but Reddit doesn't care about facts. "LA votes against anti-slavery" is all they need and want to know.

25

Accurate_Koala_4698 t1_iwttkk2 wrote

How is it misleading? They rejected the amendment (factual) and reason wasn’t simply because of a face-value interpretation. The entire content of the article can’t go in the headline, and I don’t understand how someone reads that headline and concludes that “they rejected it due to support for slavery”

−20

melftastic t1_iwubrwr wrote

The word "anti-slavery" in the title is misleading. I rejected a "maintaining the status quo of slavery" amendment that might have actually magnified its use in our state.

11

Accurate_Koala_4698 t1_iwulli6 wrote

So if you were writing the Thalidomide headline it would have been “Drug that causes birth defects causes birth defects?”

And by misinformation you mean NPR is out to misstate the intentions of the bill. NPR is shilling for big slavery hoping people don’t read the contents of the article. It’s not that the ballot measure purported to be anti-slavery, but NPR expecting their audience to not look at the details…

−7