Israeli foreign ministry posts video of Thunberg’s arrest; vessels carrying about 500 activists intercepted about 75 miles off coast of war-torn territory
Israeli foreign ministry posts video of Thunberg’s arrest; vessels carrying about 500 activists intercepted about 75 miles off coast of war-torn territory
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?
… 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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
So you just explained that they did it for publicity so what exactly is your disagreement with what I’ve said.
Idc if it’s public. That’s the whole point of awareness. But it does cause change.
So again you agree with me so why are you so upset?
To feed people affected by a genocide.
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.
Your pedantry on the usage of the term publicity does not align with how people colloquially use the phrase “only for publicity.”
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.
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.
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.
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
I’m fully aware you’re a different user, but I’m specifically talking about this comment that you made. Emphasis mine.
Which is why I said this.
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:
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.