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
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.
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.