You will not believe what Milo just said, even for Milo!

So, I was minding my own business, scrolling through Facebook, Twitter what have you, when I came across something that left me speechless.

And, that's how it gets you... clickbait. Silly, shallow pieces or quizzes or slideshows littered with ads you attempt not to click when you're trying to find the "next" button.

I've observed three types of clickbait:

1) Clickbait meant to drive hits to a page loaded with ads so that the site owner can receive a check from google ads.
2)Clickbait meant to drive people to the site in order to stir up controversy, get website hits and increase notoriety (and also receive a check from google ads).
3) Clickbait people - people who hone in on controversial, "unpolitically (yup just made up a word) correct" phrases and opinions in order to appear edgy and informed.

I don't care about the first one. Let's talk about the second two.

For #2, I'm going to highlight an example, or two, from my page...both stemming from NYPOST opinion pieces. Who doesn't remember the MEternity gal? You know, the woman who doesn't have a child but wrote a book about being jealous of pregnant women who are a leach on her work environment and get a vacation to boot, just for birthing a kid! Well, to be fair, she went on many an interview after that piece defending her book, saying that wasn't really what it was about.

Hoooooowever.... she wrote a slanted piece to go viral and stir up controversy about her book in hopes of driving sales, and then spent her time on morning talk shows discussing what her book was actually about... an "eat-pray-love" type story about a woman who needed a soul-searching journey and thought MEternity was a cute play on words or something. The backlash she was receiving "wasn't fair." Boo, you wrote the NYPost article. That's what you chose to say about your book first and foremost. I don't care if that's not what it was actually about in reality... you purposely wrote a piece of divisive drivel for attention which tells me you don't believe your writing speaks for itself. Why mischaracterize your own book??

I have the same opinion about an opinion piece I shared earlier today...also from the NYPost! SHOCKER! The woman led with a scathing hit on celebrities celebrating their pregnancies openly, including subtle jabs at women who want to be mothers and have equal rights, before scaling down to her opinions on how childbirth isn't miraculous and we shouldn't worship women for having children.

There was some outrage and a few comments insisting the point was missed. But was it? The author of this opinion piece used extremely popular celebrity mothers as her targets to make a point, and led with that point FIRST. Sure, were there other points made in this opinion piece? Of course. But they were buried 4-5 paragraphs in. It is the author's job to make a point, and the one she was highlighted to get attention is the one I'm talking about. You can call that being "not objective" and I can call her writing smoke and mirrors. 

Whatever happened to just owning what you write, without needing all the bells and whistles and tricks? If you're working that hard to get noticed, maybe you should work on you writing first. 

And then we have the clickbait people of the world. You've heard their names by now, even if you don't really know them. People like Tomi Lahren and Milo something. This year it suddenly became en vogue to actually become a walking, talking piece of clickbait. If you were to watch either speak, you'd hear a slew of over-popularized phrases and buzz words built into whatever rant or point they're trying to make. See, they're edgy and cool because they're being "real." 

Milo is a fascinating example of clickbait and a victim of his own propaganda. If he were to label himself, perhaps it'd be as a self-hating gay man, but that's not up for me to determine. Beloved by the alt-white-er-right, and conservatives, they've lapped up Milo because he's everything they hate, and he's apparently everything he hates. It was a magical relationship. They could hold their golden boy out to the world: "see, here! He's gay and hates himself, as he should! Why can't you all be like Milo and say 'fuck off' to gay rights?!" 

But alas, it appears even our reactionary hero has potentially gone  "too far" with his past comments that suggest favor of sex with minors (as long as they've gone through puberty of course). Now see, here's what I think happened. Milo boy got caught up in being clickbait and said some shit he thought was edgy because that's what his base loves, and now he's getting spanked and having to post Facebook apologies. Oh Milo. We've all been there, haven't we? See, when the wheelhouse was good to Milo, fans left and right fawning over him for his outlandish media and press antics and "real talk," life was good. But that's where Milo underestimated his importance and status. He's easily disposable when he's already proven to be a sellout from the jump.

I'm never going to be a fan of shock jocks because they're really quite shallow in quality. That goes for the people who write shitastic pieces in the aim of going viral, or those public figures who get off at disparaging groups of people to satisfy a fan base. 

I'm now going to add a picture of Milo for effect, and to complement my baity title. I hope it works and everyone fights over the point I'm trying to make, which I forgot half-way through this because I'm on dayquil. I also hope someone will call me out on being a hypocrite for using a celebrity to make a point... we've come full circle haven't we?!

Update. Jesus. Does Milo have control of google images? They're all from the neck up!