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
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.
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.
You’re not listening.
Is all attention seeking behavior negative? Yes or no.
I am listening and I’m telling you that’s not what anyone is taking issue with.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Not the phrase, the exact comment where it is used “hyper literally”.
Also you yep comments ago.
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.
Nothing to say?