Preaching to the converted here, I know (you’re all lovely) but I like this. It’s a good summary.
I don’t see too much of that here (or maybe I’m lurking in the wrong forums).
I like Cracked too.
Though it is becoming more like click bait rather than the proper interesting, funny articles of old
I personally think most of the “outrage” on the internet is more often than not an excuse to validate a day in many of these people’s lives. They wish to feel as though they’re doing something without actually doing it.
It is almost always a hot button topic with absolutely no nuance and a complete lack of awareness for things that do not directly affect them. People are only concerned so far as it affects them, and the ability to go outside of the fold of a few talking points or divisive issues means that there will be an instant stalemate.
Many don’t want the change, they want the conflict.
No, we don’t. But there’s always one.
Oh, I agree. Still some quality stuff there though.
I am okay with outrage culture, they upload entertaining videos every now and then. Besides we all know why they are mad all the time, measurement is not their strong suit.
“Do rhetorical questions have answers?”
How come a bird can fly but a fly can’t bird?
How come we bake cookies but cook bacon?
Because raw bacon sucks.
Why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways?
“Time to compensate!”
In response to some of the responses here, I feel like asking this, because at this point I’m legitimately confused. What exactly does “clickbait” mean, and has the meaning changed for you over the past couple years?
This isn’t a rhetorical question by the by. General confusion.
Because about 2-3 years ago I would have said that clickbait means “Any article or headline designed to pander to the lowest common denominator in some respect”. Some examples would be “the 20 sideboobiest cosplays” or “15 nostalgia themed products you have to buy to solidify your nerd cred, buy this ■■■■, you stupid nostalgia whore.”
… I might be paraphrasing on the last one.
At this point though, clickbait seems to mean “any post about a controversial subject that I have an opinion on”.
Not that I’m defending cracked. I’m fairly certain JF Sarg hasn’t written a comedy piece in goddamn near four years. They still have their gems, but goddammit, I miss my Dick Whiskey: Worlds Drunkest Cop. I still laugh my ass off at those.
As to the actual video itself… blerg? Until people stop getting mad at other people for having opinions… we’re not going anywhere any time soon. The media we consume obviously has no reason to stop doing anything it’s doing now, and I think it’s only going to get worse. We’re at the point right now where 6-7 people can say something on twitter, only for their comments to get picked up by a mainstream blog and blown out of proportion as a “new internet movement against x”. Which makes group y, who thinks those 6-7 people are dicktards, ■■■■ themselves at their position, because in their mind, there are now THOOOOSUANDS of people who are moving against x, and goddammit, they love x. They were into X when marky mark had a funky bunch. So they go off. Which makes group Z who thinks group y are being overly dismissive (even if they don’t agree against the anti-x’rs) run to their defense like the calvary that nobody wanted, which only bolsters group Y’s beliefs about how everything is turning bad and then it goes on and on and on and on…
And the real catalyst in all this, is the news/blog groups who look to blow up minor twitter beefs or people just having a bad day into major page views, which makes everyone look stupid.
Et tu, life?
For me, clickbait means articles and links titled like
‘She gets a can opener and a small dog, but you won’t believe what happened next’ or ‘you’ll be amazed by this man’s hair: this changes everything’ or ‘i thought she was making tea but what she did with that lemon was utterly mindblowing’.
You know, titles that hint at awesomeness without being specific, in order to provoke human curiosity.
See, I could see that as a definition as well. Makes sense in maybe the most on the nose of ways.
I get very confused when I see it thrown about against any article that covers a controversial topic, particularly one that that the person saying it disagrees with.
There’s a coincidence/correlation there (depending on how much tin foil is on your head at the moment) between these two: sites that live for click counts lean toward controversial topics, since they apparently generate a lot of traffic.
Thanks for posting - cracked came up with something insightful! Current times are so consumed by this outrage-reaction, especially towards culture. I’m not saying a book or a game can’t be eg sexist, but sometimes it’s like people are looking for an excuse to condemn it as offensive / misogynistic etc… Which kind of results in a really restricted understanding of the game? I’m not sure. Sometimes it’s justified. But other times it becomes quite limiting and hostile.
So true! There have been some really awful moments in internet history when people have said something supposedly offensive (though often just poorly judged), it’s gone viral and sparked incredibly nasty condemnation that destroys their life. Maybe because it’s so easy to be horrible if you think your outrage is right and you’re at a distance from someone? Outrage is automatically justified without thinking on the Internet…
Found this oddly relevant to this discussion.