Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I’m not ignoring anything. A couple cherry picked examples don’t make your point. You also conflate ‘product branding’ with the way it’s invoked when talking about people. Of course this is not exclusive and can be taken also as metaphorical. Plenty of others in this thread have pointed out this ambiguity. Just that fact should raise some flags to you.

“filthy little genocide denier”. Truly living up to the lemmy meme here haha. I love it.

Removed by mod

All right Noam Chomsky. I think you shit your diaper again. Maybe you should call your caretaker to come change it. Your expertise on linguistics is on par with Joe Rogan. No one here is talking about linguistic purity dumbass. As native English speakers were just pointing out how the expression is used colloquially, which I know is a difficult concept for you to grasp.

I have no interest in moronic strawmen about linguistic purity since you are unable to hold more than one thought in your head at the same time without having to call someone a filthy little genocide denier

Go back to Tumblr or something.

Like we’ll be eating some rich people and suddenly the rich guy I’m eating is not lefty halal because they aren’t organic or grass fed or some shit.

You keep bringing up the branding of objects or products as a counter to the branding implied when humans are the subject. In the AAP article you linked it is referring to product branding.

I know for sure English is not your language now.

Almost everyone in this thread that did not read the article took the physical scarification implication of the headline.

This in such a weird hill to die on. Unless you are the author of the article it’s odd how much effort you are putting into discussing the semantics of branding when it comes to humans. Right now the IDF is committing genocide and there are so many more horrendous acts being neported in actual news sources to refer to but here we are super concerned with explaining how the word “branded” akshuallly really means printed text haha no really gotcha (in every colloquial context - not news articles discussing products! - in the English language when the physical branding of humans is mentioned it is universally taken as physical scarification; Not drawing with a sharpie).

Like, why?

Edit: just reread your comment and just caught the labels. Holy shit,

“filthy little genocide denier”

How sad that even after people mention they agree that Israel is committing heinous acts (I’ve stated as much numerous times) you can’t help yourself. We are all in agreement here that Israel is committing genocide but I want nothing to do with you. You are incapable of discussing anything that disagrees on the slightest fact because your feelings are unable to handle any criticism. I recommend you stick to some safe bubble or echo chamber from now on.

Removed by mod

Who. In. The fuck. Did any apologia here? What a fucking imbecile thing to write to someone that stated clearly and emphatically that the IDF is committing plenty of heinous acts.

Hoooooly shit.

How insecure do you have to be to just pivot to name calling without engaging with what is being said. Are you a child?

Every single day heinous actions by the IDF are being reported in mainstream news. You’re straight lying or stuck in online echo chambers. The fact that this comment has any up votes is really frightening.

I’m curious, are you a native English speaker? In colloquial English the term “branded” is almost never referred to the second point in the Webster dictionary. The term originates from a particular context and the etymology derives from germanic “to burn”. I’m not doing the semantic bullshit game that already happened in this thread. No one uses “brand” colloquially for printed form. I suspect you know this.

I think I agree but part of me wonders when the purity testing actually stops…

So… 99% of the users in these comments?