(07-11-2023, 02:29 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(07-11-2023, 02:14 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Well, enlighten me, dog. I'm assuming you're not a liar, which is why I called it hyperbolic. Suggesting blacks were being hung up in the streets in the 60's, is either a lie or it's hyperbole for effect. You've all but admitted you weren't being literal. So enlighten me. Maybe I'm just a literary dummy and there's some specific term that better explains a gross exaggeration. 

I have a million things to do today. Hyperbole. I have 12 tasks to do before I can go home. Fact.
This game is taking forever. Hyperbole. This game is the longest ever recorded. Fact.
This jock strap is killing me. Hyperbole My nuts are too big for this jock strap. Fact.
Your brain is the size of a pea. Hyperbole. You are not admitting your statement was hyperbolic. Fact.
Black folks were being strung up in the 60's. Hyperbole. Blacks were still being discriminated in the 60's in a way the Irish weren't. Fact.

We've been through this. 
I laid it all out. 
I'll do it again.

Saying that there were blacks being lynched in America in the 60s for being black is an accurate statement.
There were simply more of them being murdered this way in the decades prior. As you've pointed out. Thanks, I guess. 

You are pointing out that I chose a particular decade to cite  - and it's not the best example of the relevant point.
 Cool. Doesn't make it hyperbole.
I didn't exaggerate anything. I just didn't use the best example in terms of timeline.  There was no intent to inflate, exaggerate or mislead. Sheesh - I expect most here to have a modicum of understanding about the history of this stuff or I wouldn't have referenced it. 

My statement could have read "in the twentieth century" instead of "the sixties" and been more accurate. 
 But that doesn't make the less accurate (but still true) original statement hyperbole.
 It was simply hastily worded because I didn't think it would ensue three pages of semantics that are completely irrelevant to the point.

You didn't say that. You asked if the "Irish Americans were being strung up in trees for being Irish in the mid-sixties," which implies that blacks were being strung up in trees, to which I said you were being hyperbolic, which is exaggerating for effect because they weren't being hung up in trees in the 60's. No matter how you spin it, what you ACTUALLY implied was hyperbolic. Sure, if you made it factual and used the 20th century, it wouldn't be. That's your bad and leaves you with a few outs: either you misspoke because you didn't realize that was untrue, you misled because you knew it was untrue and wanted people to think that was, or you chose your words carelessly because you were balls deep in an American pie. Of those three choices, I'd take the last one. 

...Or you were exaggerating for effect because you wanted to make an obvious point. You're all but admitting that last bit, but, for whatever reason, you don't want to see that statement as hyperbolic. I'm done arguing it. On its face, the statement is hyperbolic, regardless of your intentions, and I only corrected it because there are many people who literally believe blacks were being strung up in the 60's. I'm going to have to move on, because Mikey's over here getting jealous that I'm not giving his "serious" posts the attention they deserve. 

On a side note, I'm really bummed nobody appreciated the subtlety of the digs in my last post. That's a great progression, and I wish I could downvote you all for not commenting.

---