I hate the word blasts in this context. IDK why it bothers me so much
Maybe you would prefer "slams"? Just kidding I hate blasts and slams both in headlines.
Possibly because it's an overused, hyperbolic and mostly meaningless word, that really only serves to amplify the rage-bait component of a click-bait headline.
That's why it bothers me, anyway.
To me such language signals that the author's purpose is not to enlighten or dispell ignorance, but to get the upper hand, be the one who is "right" and the opponent is made "wrong." It's not only a lazy way of thinking, but it prevents anyone from actually learning anything. Instead we just get to be self-righteous for being "smart."
Any time I see an article that attempts to bash, slam, destroy, demolish, etc, etc. I cannot take it seriously because the author has convinced me from the start they are not interested in inspiring honest dialogue about a social issue. They just want to draw you into their own limited, biased way of thinking.
It’s called “editorialization” and it’s when you use colorful language to add meaning that doesn’t exist in the subject material.
In this case, I’d say it bothers you because there’s no actual definition of “blasts” that’s different from “criticizes” or “comments on”, and it indicates to you that the writer’s intent was to inflame rather than inform.
I hate the word blasts in this context. IDK why it bothers me so much
Maybe you would prefer "slams"? Just kidding I hate blasts and slams both in headlines.
Possibly because it's an overused, hyperbolic and mostly meaningless word, that really only serves to amplify the rage-bait component of a click-bait headline.
That's why it bothers me, anyway.
To me such language signals that the author's purpose is not to enlighten or dispell ignorance, but to get the upper hand, be the one who is "right" and the opponent is made "wrong." It's not only a lazy way of thinking, but it prevents anyone from actually learning anything. Instead we just get to be self-righteous for being "smart."
Any time I see an article that attempts to bash, slam, destroy, demolish, etc, etc. I cannot take it seriously because the author has convinced me from the start they are not interested in inspiring honest dialogue about a social issue. They just want to draw you into their own limited, biased way of thinking.
It’s called “editorialization” and it’s when you use colorful language to add meaning that doesn’t exist in the subject material.
In this case, I’d say it bothers you because there’s no actual definition of “blasts” that’s different from “criticizes” or “comments on”, and it indicates to you that the writer’s intent was to inflame rather than inform.