I really can't believe people fall for engagement bait
Meanwhile: I'm responding to a hnews post about engagement bait because it makes me upset
Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
141–150 of 634 posts
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#142Ah, the classic “here, hold this” and walk away. Is it effective and even perhaps funny? Yeah. Is it kind? Not so much. Still, it’s a fairly benign prank in and of itself. Posting a video sure changes things though.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#143Earlier 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.
Perhaps we're working to different definitions of the term. To me, virtue signaling is signaling (i.e. making publicly known) a virtuous act. To me that seems like an unambiguously good thing: it is likely to inspire others to similar virtuous acts, creating a feedback loop of people encouraging others to engage in good behaviour. "I voted! You should get out and vote too" feels like an example of positive virtual signaling.
Broadly speaking, I think there is nothing wrong with, say, videoing yourself serving food at a soup kitchen. It's when you use that video to boost your own profile rather than the virtuous act that it becomes problematic. There are plenty of people that do that. However there are also plenty of people who interpret any public record of virtue as being inherently narcissistic and I think that's just as bad.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#144Nothing wrong with the video imo, if people think it's stupid that's just their opinion. When you're in public anything goes. The place this went wrong is that they lied to her about being filmed and didn't get her consent: but on the other hand, no one expects security camera operators to get consent either.
> When you're in public anything goes.
There's a rule of thumb I hope doesn't catch on.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mr Beast is a game show host. He’s not giving away his own money yet everything is framed as the giant act of generosity on his part. He’s giving away money much like Bob Barker gave away kitchen sets.
Honest question - how does he fund these giveaways?
YouTube has advertising, as his videos have sponsorship. His audience is like double the level of an episode of Friends at its peak, so I guess the slots are worth a lot.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#146The 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
I dunno I disagree. Something can be kind and filmed. The issue here is how it plays out the person gifted isn’t more than a prop.
From the description, the flowers weren't offered as a gift, but he asked her to hold them. And then disappeared. Just think of someone asking you told hold his stuff for a moment and then disappears. Now you have to care for something that's neither your's nor wanted? I'm tempted to call that obnoxious, not nice.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#147I sort of feel compelled to quote the Bible here, though I'm not religious. "So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do ... to be honored by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, who sees what is done in s…
"And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." So still selfish (if doing it for the reward), but that is human nature.
It's more subtle than that. Because God's reward isn't really in the same conceptual category as material reward or approval of your peers.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#148This is a form of douchebaggery, sure, but "dehumanised" seems a bit out of proportion here. I'd reconsider such phrases out of respect for all the people who have been genuinely dehumanised throughout history, if nothing else.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternately we could look at Social Media as a defective product. I think it's a much better metaphor. The product has horrible consequences and side effects. It's a for profit making entity, creating a product that often causes people to get hurt or damaged. Like lawn darts.
Well I enjoyed Lawn Darts and disagree with the prohibition on them so if the desire would be to ban social media I would also disagree with it neither were "defective" products, just because they caused harm does not make them defective, both lawn darts, and social media are working exactly as the manufacturer intended, calling them "defective" is stretching the definition of the term if you want to make the case of…
The difference between the two of them is that due to historical specifics, the social media companies have Section 230, which completely immunizes them from dealing with the consequences of any of their actions.
Without that they'd be subject to the same constraints as your average newspaper or TV station. Which is to say not a lot of constraints. But there would in fact be a means to address the consequences of their editorial decisions.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#150Reminds me of this scene, from Tintin: Flight 714 : https://youtu.be/mYLsRTKhyYM?t=100 [EDIT] Added a start time (1:40).
> Reminds me of this scene, from Tintin: Fight 714: https://youtu.be/mYLsRTKhyYM Did you mean to link to a particular time? That link is just to a whole episode.
Oops. Forgot to include the start.