So again, how do you feel now that Israel is demanding more than 48 people and all remains that probably don’t exist in identifiable condition given the constant bombing of all but like 5% of Gaza.

But we have such conclusive evidence they’re Venezuelan gangsters like… Being on a fast boat near Venezuela.

YouTube Guy would probably do it for giggles and do weird drum shit while he’s at it because ya know, YouTube Guy.

https://youtube.com/shorts/thydU8iGDhY

Granted it would be weird to see rush live with a 7 or 9 piece.

Uh huh, what will you say when Israel demands more than 48 people in return.

Ed: as a fun aside. How many Palestinian “prisoners” does Israel currently hold? And if you’d be so kind how many prisoners did they hold prior to Oct 7 that are not convicted combatants?

You shouldn’t have to more to prove your point.

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

They probably don’t but agreeing to release something you don’t have is pretty easy. Israel is just gonna ask for random names and break the agreement when people that don’t exist aren’t found.

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.

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.

Nothing to say?

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.

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.

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.

You’re not listening.

Is all attention seeking behavior negative? Yes or no.

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.

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

So again you agree with me so why are you so upset?

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.

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

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.