"I couldn't give a monkeys if the CIA did terrible things to suspected terrorists. Kept in coffin sized boxes? Ant 'n'Dec did worse to 'Slebs..."
I am again intrigued by the notion of 'hate bait' in the media.
Katie Hopkins, who has turned hate bait into a profession, tweets the above observation regarding the torture of terror suspects by the CIA.
Now I don't for one moment believe that a woman of Ms. Hopkins' intelligence seriously believes that this piffle is a valid comparison - so why does she post things like this?
Can you really make a career out of poking the populace with a stick by Twitter, in the same way that one would poke a sleeping cobra, and then wait for the reaction?
Why do we as a culture allow this nonsense to go on - not that she posts, that bit I understand - but that people will rise to it and give her the publicity she craves?
andy-hughes you are rising to it and giving her the publicity on here! -I don't even know who katie hopkins is! Think you've answered your own question.
Retrochic - "andy-hughes you are rising to it and giving her the publicity on here! -I don't even know who katie hopkins is! Think you've answered your own question."
I disagree.
If I were to rant away on Twitter, or as a national paper columnist, that would be offering publicity - I am merely seeking some opinions and viewpoints.
Publicity may be an unwelcome and unsaught by-product, but it is impossible to debate the subject without talking about it first in an OP - and that is what I have done.
its when you express something on the internet for the purpose of getting an extreme reaction. on something like twitter, you can end up trending so if you want attention & your name out there you can get it. You need a very thick skin
When someone posts or tweets an inflammatory remark to encourage people who disagree and are 'put-raged' to reply, thus getting publicity for the poster. It happens from time to time on AB