That’s a whole lot of words to say “I know you asked how this is ragebait, I just don’t have an answer for you since there’s nothing in this article indicating or encouraging outrage. Sorry!”
Literally just told you again the second sentence. A sentence beginning “the rage-bait is.”
Seriously? Your sentence was this:
The rage-bait is getting to say ‘she took away our guns!’ In a video game.
There’s nothing about “she took away our guns in a videogame” that should incite rage or anger…right? Like, what would be the concern exactly? Kamala banning shooting games?
Or maybe I’m missing something. Why would “she took away our guns in a videogame” rile people up? What would they be riled up about, exactly? Guns going missing in a videogame?
Correct, it’s a non-issue. And yet: the framing of the story is exactly what you’re scoffing at. Otherwise, what on Earth do you think “sparked some social media criticism?” What else do you believe is being criticized?
Just phrasing it as “BANS GUNS!” instead of, y’know, being a normal fucking Creative Mode map, is manipulative.
After all this, you’re not able to identify how this is supposed to be ragebait. Amazing.
I’m not going to go back and forth with you on this, this is a really silly objection here. I shared it because it’s funny on multiple fronts. Like, making a gun-free map in a shooting game is funny, as is making such a map to promote your campaign when you own guns yourself AND during your campaign you publicly stated that you’re not trying to take peoples’ guns away! 😂😂
Maybe you thought that was supposed to make people mad for some reason? But sorry to disappoint ya bud, this is just funny.
That’s a whole lot of words to say “I know you asked how this is ragebait, I just don’t have an answer for you since there’s nothing in this article indicating or encouraging outrage. Sorry!”
Literally just told you again the second sentence. A sentence beginning “the rage-bait is.” Do you need help with English?
And again: you have no alternative explanation, because there is no alternative explanation. All you can do is act smug and pretend this is unclear.
Seriously? Your sentence was this:
There’s nothing about “she took away our guns in a videogame” that should incite rage or anger…right? Like, what would be the concern exactly? Kamala banning shooting games?
Or maybe I’m missing something. Why would “she took away our guns in a videogame” rile people up? What would they be riled up about, exactly? Guns going missing in a videogame?
Correct, it’s a non-issue. And yet: the framing of the story is exactly what you’re scoffing at. Otherwise, what on Earth do you think “sparked some social media criticism?” What else do you believe is being criticized?
Just phrasing it as “BANS GUNS!” instead of, y’know, being a normal fucking Creative Mode map, is manipulative.
After all this, you’re not able to identify how this is supposed to be ragebait. Amazing.
I’m not going to go back and forth with you on this, this is a really silly objection here. I shared it because it’s funny on multiple fronts. Like, making a gun-free map in a shooting game is funny, as is making such a map to promote your campaign when you own guns yourself AND during your campaign you publicly stated that you’re not trying to take peoples’ guns away! 😂😂
Maybe you thought that was supposed to make people mad for some reason? But sorry to disappoint ya bud, this is just funny.
Patrick Star, take your wallet.