George Bernard Shaw once quipped that England and America were two nations divided by a common language. But a new force has seemingly bridged that gap: pure, unadulterated rage. Oxford University Press’s word of the year, “rage bait,” isn’t just a linguistic curiosity – it’s a stark reflection of our times.
Defined as online content deliberately designed to provoke anger, outrage, or frustration, “rage bait” first surfaced in 2002. Its selection feels tragically appropriate, highlighting how easily inflamed emotions now dominate the digital landscape. This isn’t simply about disagreement; it’s about engineered emotional response.
Rage is a uniquely powerful emotion, offering a temporary release, a permission to say and do things normally held back. This inherent liberation is precisely why it’s so addictive, so readily spread. But that very release can morph into something far more controlling.
The subjectivity of rage is its most dangerous characteristic. What one person perceives as righteous indignation, another brands as dangerous provocation. This inherent relativism fuels a cycle of accusation and counter-accusation, blurring the lines between legitimate debate and malicious intent.
Oxford Languages president Casper Grathwohl framed the term as a “manipulation tactic,” lamenting how “internet culture” hijacks and influences our emotions. He specifically warned of “rage-farming” – the deliberate seeding of misinformation and conspiracy theories to cultivate anger and engagement.
Beneath the concern for emotional well-being lies a familiar impulse: control. Great Britain, and much of Europe, has a long history of restricting speech through criminalization and regulation. The internet, a revolutionary tool for free expression, is viewed as a direct threat to that control.
The current focus on “algorithms” – the unseen forces that shape our online experience – is part of this trend. While some call for algorithms to promote “better” content, others accuse them of fueling division by amplifying dissenting voices. The core issue isn’t the algorithm itself, but the desire to dictate what constitutes acceptable discourse.
The truth is, these platforms thrive on engagement, prioritizing content that captures attention. Activists bristle at this, believing their views deserve preferential treatment. This ultimately translates into calls for “enlightened algorithms” – systems that favor “truth” as defined by those in power.
Any viewpoint deemed undesirable can easily be labeled “rage bait.” Consider the case of Jon Richelieu-Booth, arrested in the UK for posting a picture of himself with a shotgun on a Florida homestead. Police warned him to be mindful of how his posts “make people feel,” a chilling warning against expressing potentially offensive opinions.
Richelieu-Booth’s story is far from isolated. In the UK, individuals have been arrested for silently praying in public and even convicted for holding “toxic ideologies” – essentially, thought crimes. Police now make approximately 12,000 arrests annually for online posts.
The real danger isn’t the rhetoric of rage itself, but its exploitation by governments and institutions to silence dissent. It’s easy to dismiss certain content as “bait,” but far more difficult to agree on a universal definition of “rage.” What one side condemns, the other often defends as reasoned debate.
The internet isn’t “hijacking” anyone. Individuals actively choose their sources, often gravitating towards echo chambers that reinforce their existing beliefs. This self-selection is a defining characteristic of our current “age of rage.”
Oxford’s choice of “rage bait” is undeniably astute, capturing the spirit of the times. But it also reveals a deeper, more troubling trend: the use of outrage as a justification for censorship, framing dissenting viewpoints as harmful lures for the masses. This desire to regulate speech, ironically, is often fueled by the very rage it seeks to suppress.
