111–120 of 634 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really a shame people turned virtue signaling into a dirty world that can't be used in civil discussion. It is a great descriptor for all sorts of human behavior in all sorts of contexts. Edit: y'all are kind of proving my first point.
I am not aware of a context where virtue signaling would be a good practice or behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to tar an entire generation with the same brush, but I have noticed that younger people seem to be really taken in with these very shallow like-farming operations on YouTube and TikTok. Mr Beast is incredibly successful at this, in that his stunts produce massive numbers for very little outlay. A friend's kid in his teens was telling me about how he's the most generous person he's ever seen and it make m…
What is your opinion on Mr Beast? I just watched a video of his for the first time and he gave away over $500,000.
you can be kind and helpful without camera rolling
not this guy though, he's desperate for attention and validation (watch me, i'm a good person), and wants that ad money to not work a regular job
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree much more with your wording of the idea, though I still believe 100% it's possible to do something kind with the intention of filming it. If someone wants to donate a million dollars to me they're welcome to film it on a million cameras if they want
The flip side here is agreement on both sides, for me that is the moral question. Not that it was filmed, but that all parties should agreed to the filming. Prearranging to film giving you a million dollars, is very different from just showing up an putting camera's in your face with out your foreknowledge or consent
The reason this act breaks a moral boundary is that it subverts a principle of "ends" [1]. A genuine random act of kindness cannot occur if it's being filmed. Filming the act turns it into a virtue display. It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means and not and end in themself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends
Social Media has largely exposed the levels of narcissism embedded in a large number of human's psychological makeup , Selfies, clout chasing and virtue signalling are ever increasing forms of narcissism that really has destroyed the internet IMO
I wouldn't hold any flowers or anything really for any stranger in public. I've been to touristy places before and learned this lesson just by observation. High likelyhood some pressure style selling tactics would follow. Really, putting things on the groud or some other higher surface to free your hands should be a basic human skill by now.
Very common in NYC. Someone on the street will ask you to "have something" or "check out something I'm giving away for free", acting as if it is a gift. As you walk away with said thing, that person will accuse you of stealing and use it as means for a physical altercation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for Australia, but in the United States, there is generally no right to privacy in a public area. The model consent forms are more of a CYA than a legal requirement. It's useful as evidence to dismiss charges rather than go through the hassle and expense of a full trial. In addition, requiring the consent of people in public places would make it difficult for individuals to record illegal conduct commit…
> make it difficult for individuals to record illegal conduct committed by others, especially law enforcement. The states have had no difficulty in specifically making it illegal to record law enforcement, so they understand exceptions. You can easily require consent from people while as an institution giving consent for law enforcement to be filmed.
And those laws are running up against the 1st Amendment. https://www.rcfp.org/secret-recording-ban-ruling/
While the issue has not yet been delegated to the US Supreme Court, recording laws have been or are being struck down in more states on 1st Amendment grounds.
> You can easily require consent from people while as an institution giving consent for law enforcement to be filmed.
IANAL, but such legislation would be a content-based restriction and, as a result, would be subject to strict scrutiny. Frankly, any such requirement is unlikely to survive strict scrutiny unless it seeks to prohibit currently unprotected expressions (obscenity, incitement to imminent lawless action, etc.). Recording an individual in public isn't one of them.
Reminds me of this scene, from Tintin: Flight 714 : https://youtu.be/mYLsRTKhyYM?t=100 [EDIT] Added a start time (1:40).
Did you mean to link to a particular time? That link is just to a whole episode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the wikipedia article from OP makes a strong point that you may have missed. Notice the wording "ENDS" That would modify your statement as follows : Something can be kind and filmed (provided.. ENDS). OR restating your sentence: "Something can be kind and filmed provided filming was not the goal of the kindness, and in fact filming was entirely unintended and unexpected"
I agree much more with your wording of the idea, though I still believe 100% it's possible to do something kind with the intention of filming it. If someone wants to donate a million dollars to me they're welcome to film it on a million cameras if they want
I thought media releases were required for image rights before video could be commercialized? I always find these videos cheesy and fake and assumed they had received legal permission (if not hired actors to pose). If these jerks are filming and posing unwilling participants in their product, that seems pretty easy to remedy. I remember a few years ago pornhub had a decision to get positive consent from people in vid…