hkcavalier
US Veteran
In typical conversational textual communications there is something called conceptual semantics. Tone, intent, and humor, for example, may be difficult to interpret.
Hear hear! I'm a media consultant these days. Most of my workday involves crafting persuasive emails, making persuasive phone calls, and holding video meanings intended to persuade the other side. People complain that professional communication is dry, but when dealing with strangers, it has to be, and missteps can be pretty embarrassing.
Here I'm freed from those shackles, and "embarrassing missteps" usually lead to more activity and engagement. I make use of Cunningham's Law here all the time (posting a wrong answer vs. asking a question) as it gets me actual answers vs. more conjecture/guesses. The engagement experts with Facebook and other media companies have figured out the same thing and certainly to a much greater degree than I have.
Poe's Law is probably more apropos for this thread (satirical expressions of extremism online are hard to distinguish from genuine ones without indicating intent). One can also do some research into manufactured controversy and find even more clues as to why posts like the OP's get engagement. 9mm vs. .45 comes to mind...