For one, her title is a question. She’s also writing an opinion column. So no, not stating a simple truth.
Maybe it’s just a few of us, but it does seem pretty obvious to me that such an article is chumming the waters and the outcome of seeing a few sharks is wholly unsurprising.
I suppose it depends on how you define rage-baiting. I think she’s definitely trying to make a point, but I don’t know that she’s trying to make people angry so much as trying to get people to engage. Engagement is not inherently about anger and hatred, and depending on the actual content of the article (I noticed you didn’t mention anything about it so I assume, like me, you didn’t feel like googling it) it could be more about talking about her own experiences and why she might be more comfortable with a wild animal rather than a random strange man.
Your own response seems to be exactly why she’d write the article. Rather than being interested in engaging on the topic, you’ve already made up your mind based on the barest possible metrics.
Why would you ever entertain clickbait? Do you click on videos with red arrows and circles just to be sure it’s not just a stupid clickbait and actually has some merit?
I don’t feel any rage about that. Not even a hint of any possibility of anger, regardless of mood or whatever. I don’t think it is rage-baiting. The point isn’t to induce rage. The point is just that men are dangerous and often don’t acknowledge it.
I don’t see why you think the author is rage-baiting, rather than stating a simple truth.
For one, her title is a question. She’s also writing an opinion column. So no, not stating a simple truth.
Maybe it’s just a few of us, but it does seem pretty obvious to me that such an article is chumming the waters and the outcome of seeing a few sharks is wholly unsurprising.
I suppose it depends on how you define rage-baiting. I think she’s definitely trying to make a point, but I don’t know that she’s trying to make people angry so much as trying to get people to engage. Engagement is not inherently about anger and hatred, and depending on the actual content of the article (I noticed you didn’t mention anything about it so I assume, like me, you didn’t feel like googling it) it could be more about talking about her own experiences and why she might be more comfortable with a wild animal rather than a random strange man.
Your own response seems to be exactly why she’d write the article. Rather than being interested in engaging on the topic, you’ve already made up your mind based on the barest possible metrics.
Why would you ever entertain clickbait? Do you click on videos with red arrows and circles just to be sure it’s not just a stupid clickbait and actually has some merit?
“no bears have written in”
I don’t feel any rage about that. Not even a hint of any possibility of anger, regardless of mood or whatever. I don’t think it is rage-baiting. The point isn’t to induce rage. The point is just that men are dangerous and often don’t acknowledge it.
If any man reads that and has rage in their hearts over it and they’re exactly the kind of people you aren’t safe in the woods with.