Israeli foreign ministry posts video of Thunberg’s arrest; vessels carrying about 500 activists intercepted about 75 miles off coast of war-torn territory

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -33 points 1 year ago (33 children)

They are only doing it for publicity. It's quite literally getting very publicly arrested to bring light to and test the blockade in court as a matter of international law. What other purpose do you think they have?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    ... to affect change. If you do something only for attention, you don't care about other things that happen. You only care about the attention.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    And how are they attempting to affect that change? Publicity. Even if you read it most favorably to your point it still doesn't change anything because she's invited to these things at this point specifically because of the weirdos that started hating her when she was a literal child voicing her opinion will get upset and it will make headlines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    "Doing things for attention" means attention for yourself. This is for the benefit of something that is not herself. Understand the difference when you say she's doing it for attention, she is not. "She's doing it for attention" and "She's bringing attention to a good cause" are very different sentences.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago*

    That's an implication not a definition or meaning and that's not the only meaning anyway.

    How's she bringing attention? By bringing herself, getting attention for yourself doesn't necessarily make it a selfish act.

    Be clear, I didn't say that at all bud the other commentor did.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    By bringing awareness and support to their cause. If it's left in the dark then Israel can do whatever the fuck they want without repercussion. She's invited to them because she's known. And I'm sorry last time I checked people would rather listen to someone with reputation rather than any joe shmoe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So you just explained that they did it for publicity so what exactly is your disagreement with what I've said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    To feed people affected by a genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    By what method, if it's feeding the population giving it directly to Israel and it'll go exactly the same place. The only difference is publicity which again, is not always a bad thing nor is attention to a singular personality necessarily selfish and in this case it's fairly obvious to be selfless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    Your pedantry on the usage of the term publicity does not align with how people colloquially use the phrase "only for publicity."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    Oh? Words with specific meanings no longer mean what those words collectively mean because they can also be used to imply something else. You still haven't said, by what method are they gaining publicity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    It is extremely common for phrases to be used in ways that are different than the strict, literal interpretation of their usage. Yes. The way people use the phrase "only for publicity" is different from the way you're using it, which is why you're getting push back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (19 children)

    Sure it's common, that's how colloquialisms work. In this case em using it either way is the same result. "They want publicity" and "they want attention" are effectively the same.

    Read usernames! I didn't use it like that, I didn't use it at all for that matter. I'm saying the person who did slant it negatively is fuckin dumb because they mean the same thing in this case. It's attention for her personally which helps with attention for the causes she's champions.

    They might mean it negatively but it's irrelevant.

    which is why you're getting push back.

    No I'm getting pushback because people like you don't bother to read before they get outraged. I'm not that person, you need to stop blaming me for someone else's words.

    Ed: For reference this is the initiating comment and it is in fact not my comment.

    https://aussie.zone/comment/19134271

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (18 children)

    Read usernames! I didn't use it like that, I didn't use it at all for that matter.

    I'm fully aware you're a different user, but I'm specifically talking about this comment that you made. Emphasis mine.

    They are only doing it for publicity. It's quite literally getting very publicly arrested to bring light to and test the blockade in court as a matter of international law. What other purpose do you think they have?

    Which is why I said this.

    Your pedantry on the usage of the term publicity does not align with how people colloquially use the phrase "only for publicity."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

    What is factually incorrect about the quoted comment. I'll wait.

    Also you left of the part where I made it clear that I would not use it as an implication.

    Ed:

    They are literally doing it for attention, but yes I agree slanting it as a negative is unwise and misleading.

    I'll put it this way. You're implying attention seeking behavior is always negative which simply isn't the case. There have been a number of protestors who set themselves on fire in protest which is unarguably attention seeking behavior. Is that a negative thing to do? My opinion is no.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (16 children)

    Like I said already, your usage of the phrase doesn't align with the way people use it and that's why you're getting push back. That's all I'm saying. I'm implying nothing else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    You're not listening.

    Is all attention seeking behavior negative? Yes or no.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    I am listening and I'm telling you that's not what anyone is taking issue with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    Not listening well enough to answer a yes or no question it seems.

    Alright, then define exactly what you're taking issue with me about and let's get to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    I feel like a broken record player here. I'm just explaining that your pedantic, hyper-literal usage of the phrase "only for publicity" is extremely different from how other people use it and this causes an emotional response in people.

    Also, if we're being hyper-literal, it is factually inaccurate. They are still trying to bring food and medical supplies. They are not only trying to raise awareness on the issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    Where exactly am I relying on a "hyper-literal" usage of the phrase? I'd like a direct quote if possible.

    It's not factually inaccurate, she wants the attention it's just not a negative. "She wants to be known for bringing attention to just causes and generally being empathetic" is only an insult if you're incapable of empathy in which case who actually cares what they think.

    Again, I don't think you're listening and at this point you're too invested in your odd belief.

    Similarly, yes or no. It was a simple question your avoiding because it would destroy your point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (10 children)

    I've directly quoted the exact phrase people are taking issue with multiple times. I've explained to you that while not factually inaccurate, because you are using a phrase differently than most people, they take issue with it. The fact that you just ignore me and keep saying "it's factual" and that I'm "not listening" proves you yourself aren't listening to me telling you that it's precisely because you're using the phrase differently from most people that they're upset. If you just want to be pedantic, that's fine. I've only been trying to explain it to you since you didn't seem to understand why people are upset. But I'm not gonna waste more of my time trying to help you understand why people are upset.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    But I'm not gonna waste more of my time trying to help you understand why people are upset.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Couldn't find that quote huh?

    Hard to come back from a lie huh?

    Ed you already helped, you proved my point.

    You haven't even paid enough attention to keep track of your own comments let alone mine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    I've directly quoted the exact phrase people are taking issue with multiple times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No you haven't, you've quoted a time I used the phrase but not a single time I've used it "hyper literally" we both know it doesn't exist and we both know you've lied so.... I'll settle on you're a loud mouth liar. Is love for you to prove me wrong but we both know that it's something you are wholesale incapable of doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    But I'm not gonna waste more of my time trying to help you understand why people are upset.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's fun a fun way to agree with me boss. You shouldn't lie though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    Not the phrase, the exact comment where it is used "hyper literally".

    I've explained to you that while not factually inaccurate, because you are using a phrase differently than most people, they take issue with it.

    Also you yep comments ago.

    Also, if we're being hyper-literal, it is factually inaccurate. They are still trying to bring food and medical supplies. They are not only trying to raise awareness on the issue.

    Similarly, I'm not using it differently, I'm saying it doesnt fucking either way, slant no slant they mean the same thing. Civil rights leaders want attention, it's the thing they're most known for. I'm sure no one knew mlk's name while he was alive right? No one knew Harvey milk before he got murdered right?

    Like I said, not listening though obvious lies were a weird choice.

  • source
  • parent