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
[–] 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