Israel brands Palestinian detainees with numbers on their foreheads
Israel brands Palestinian detainees with numbers on their foreheads
Troops humiliate Palestinians swept up in West Bank raid by referring to them only by their numbers instead of by name
When Israel re-arrested Palestinian men in the occupied West Bank town of Dura, the detainees faced familiar treatment.
They were blindfolded, handcuffed, insulted and kept in inhumane conditions. More unusual was that each man had a number written on his forehead.
Osama Shaheen, who was released in August after 10 months of administrative detention, told Middle East Eye that soldiers brutally stormed his house, smashing his furniture.
"The soldiers turned us from names into numbers, and every detainee had a number that they used to provoke him during his arrest and call him by number instead of name. To them, we are just numbers."
You're viewing part of a thread.
So the other comment pointing out the ambiguity in the headline with 60 upvotes…is just a coincidence? Can you address this? No goalposts were moved. We’re still on the same asinine topic. Can you specify which post was moved? Be specific.
If you want to provide a random pool then you’ll need a larger sample size regardless of how “organically” they sprouted. That’s how you avoid false positives lol.
“Filthy little genocide denier” Haha rereading this makes me laugh each time. I’m thinking of hobbits now.
So the randomly picked samples from millions of clips that all support my point about how "brand" is used — even in the context of a scene that is even set in the wild west... is just a coincidence?
No goalposts were moved. We’re still on the same asinine topic. Can you specify which post was moved? Be specific.
So you stand behind this comment:
Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation.
?
Why do you feel the need to specify "first dictionary definition" there? Couldn't have anything to do with you not understanding that definitions in dictionaries don't go by order of "most used", and someone having noted to you before that comment that "printed mark" is also a definition of "brand"?
Clearly you're not correct there. Not everyone is saying that. You're demanding that the headline is to be interpreted literally, and only in one single way that you've chosen (actually cherry-picked from a list of definitions that are being actively used, as I have demonstrated several times from databases which have millions and millions of entries). Yet you also insist that this literal interpretation can't be use for the comment in which you demand that the headline is interpreted purely prescriptively.
You see people claiming that "everyone is interpreting it in this way" doesn't mean that it's true that they are. You've failed to show anyone interpreting it like that. You've shown that people upvoted a comment asserting that is happening. That's like saying you've proved the Earth to be Flat because you can point to a comment with upvotes claiming it's Flat.
See you being too lazy and not spending five minutes to learn what "prescriptive" means that you've written these comments all day not realising how ironic it is to anyone with a basic understanding of philology. :D I've repeated myself about a dozen times, yet you just won't believe you can be wrong, so you haven't even bothered to skim the articles I've linked, meaning you continue this ironic garbage. Which I thank you for, because I'm having a rather empty evening otherwise, so repeating this to you until you get it is something very pleasant to do. :)
Filthy little Hobbits we are, aren't we? Little filthy genocide deniers.
I give up man. You're right. No one else in this thread saw the title as ambiguous. Woopsie. My bad. I how I could have come to that conclusion.... Sorry, I'm just a filthy little genocide apologist. What do I know
So you stand behind this comment:
Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation.
?
You said it and you meant it and you're now definitely not moving any goalposts in regards to it?
All you had to do was to actually read the link I linked to you in the first comment I made, and you would've got this, and you could've avoided this tantrum you're having. It's a weird hill to die on, man.
Listen, as a "filthy little genocide denier" i just don't have the big brain to handle this convo. You're right. There is no ambiguity about calling out branding people with numbers. It definitely can't be misconstrued...hmmm.
So you said a thing you can't back up and now you're ignoring it while still obsessively replying, because you can't let it go.
It's a really weird hill to die on, man.
You said "Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation."
You can't now walk back that very specific statement, and you can't defend it either, but you're not a big enough person to admit that you said something that wasn't right. You know that I know that you know that I know that you didn't read the articles about linguistic prescriptivism and descriptivism, because if you had even skimmed them, you'd have understood the issue, and you definitely wouldn't have defended your own statement about demanding 'the headline is prescriptive' as descriptive.
It's okay. You have to make these mistakes to learn from them.
Yea. Totally. It's the way we are built you know, as "filthy little genocide deniers". I'm good man.
I've addressed your "but other people have asserted the same bullshit I have, so the bullshit must be true!" quite a few times now.
See you're walking back this statement you made. Now you're trying to say "no, I didn't say that everyone is literally using that definition, I only said that some others have pointed out the ambiguity"?
"To imply a good majority"
Oh... so... people use figures of speech when they use language, instead of meaning the literal meaning of the words they're using? Oh geez. I wonder if there's like any discipline which studies how language is used.
I've not at any point claimed that there aren't people who may have perceived it as a literal burning iron. I'm noting that there isn't a single one in this thread in which you claim that EVERYONE is using "the LITERAL and FIRST dictionary definition". Literally everyone should be interpreting it as literal branding. There's not a single comment saying so. Definitely not everyone or even a "good majority". Only yours saying that every other comment is doing that, despite everyone being able to read the other comments, like mine, which are pointing out that that's not how language or journalistic headlines work.
It's not biased, but you're rather adamant it is, yet can't even stand behind your words, but also can't admit that were wrong or that you can't stand behind them.
Just like I said, you're now trying to defend a statement where you assert that the headline is purely prescriptive, as a statement that was purely descriptive. You could avoid all this by reading wikipedia for a few minutes, but instead you keep coming back here to humiliate yourself more and more. It's hilarious.
None of what we are talking about has anything to do with linguistic description. I am not making any prescriptive claims about how the phrase burning ought to be used when describing the practice on humans. We are discussing the colloquial ambiguity in how the term is employed in the headline. We are not discussing grammar.
There is enough ambiguity that plenty of users have brought it up in this thread. You can be dismissive and handwave it away as "others falling for the same bullshit" but it's irrelevant. There are enough of us that grew up speaking English that when we refer to act of branding humans the implication is physical scarification and not product branding which is a marketing term. For those of us that grew up speaking English this is clear as day. It has nothing to do with prescriptive language or grammatic rules as discussed in your philology. Also, at no point did any of this justify your pathetic attack with "filthy little genocide denier". Do better.
I am not making any prescriptive claims about how the phrase burning ought to be used when describing the practice on humans
Oh, so you did go and spend a few minutes on Wiki, good, that's a start. See you are making prescriptive claims as to how you think people have interpreted it, even when faced with people saying "no, that's definitely not how I interpreted it", and afterwards you even argue to them that they can't have interpreted "branding" as a printed mark, since that's not in it's definition. Then someone shows you it is in the definition, and you still maintain your prescriptive claim.
You literally write it out right there.
“Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation.”
Now you've walked back that very prescriptive statement about how you pretend people have definitely interpreted this headline from explicitly stating that EVERYONE is doing something to "imply a good majority". But there is no "good majority". People upvoting a comment claiming something doesn't make that claim any more true, you understand that.
You linking "colloquialism" is peak irony as well. See if you actually understood the subject, you'd realise how silly the things you claim are. But you don't, so you don't realise it, so you keep doing it. :D What does colloquial language have to do with this? Please? Do make an argument, instead of your pseudointelligent babbling about "colloquial ambiguity". This is about you having EXPLICITLY stated that EVERYONE in this thread is using the "literal and first dictionary definition". Even being charitable to you... where is that "good majority assuming the literal and first dictionary definition"? And.. which dictionary? Wouldn't be the only one you checked when someone linked it to you, would it? Because dictionaries don't actually always put definitions in the same order, you see. :F
You're still pretending that everyone is applying the insane prescriptive standard you hold to this word, when native speakers most certainly don't. I've also linked you a million resources showing the actual usage of the term. From movies, shows, books and news articles. Most usages are either discussing a trademark or the act of being "branded" figuratively. As in all these examples that they use here https://www.playphrase.me/#/search?q=branded&language=en and once more, those examples are not cherry-picked, unlike you claimed so many times. They're literally randomly picked examples. That's the very opposite of cherry-picking, ie selecting. I won't argue that no-one uses "branding" to refer to hot irons (or cold ones, as it happens, as cryo-branding is a thing as well nowadays, better scars), but I am arguing that your bullshit statement about "Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation" being bullshit, because there's even a clear fucking illustration of someone having marker on their face. So please show these "everyones" using this definition which means permanent physical mutilation. Go ahead. I'll wait right here. You know, unless you want to just admit that you making a statement you knew to be bullshit?
You simply made a statement you can't back up so you're having to change it and move the goalposts of this debate. "Do better."