231–240 of 634 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the amount of beggars in cities, I already highly distrust anyone who comes up to me to speak to me. 99 out of 100 times it is someone who tries to somehow enrich themselves.
Please be more empathetic to people who beg for money.
This 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.
Used for profit without consent can very well feel dehumanising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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.
> A friend contacted Maree that evening, sharing the uploaded video. At the time, Maree “didn’t think much of it”. > But after seeing the TikTok video featured in media reports describing her as an “elderly woman” with a “heartbreaking tale,” she said she “felt dehumanised”. Not trying to support the tiktoker, who is obviously a douchebag. But it's interesting that the negative emotions didn't trigger until it become…
This doesn't seem to accurately reflect Maree's own description of events.
Given that she said he interrupted her quiet time and then left her with an annoying problem to solve (what do I do with these flowers I don't want?), it's clear that this interaction started with negative emotions.
Just the scale of negative emotions increased when the scale of the interaction increased. Which makes sense - imagine being reminded dozens of times over a period of days about what started as a minor negative experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 the…
https://www.techdirt.com/2021/10/29/everything-you-know-abou...
Websites and TV stations have the same first amendment protection. The main difference is that users do not contribute content to TV stations. That's what 230 protects.
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
Yeah, right. Something smells.
I feel for this women. It is not right to do something like that without her consent. Then again I wonder: Is this a new phenomenon? Weren’t these kind of jokes normal for certain TV shows? And now they have made their way into social media?
While I don't like what happened to her, we should call it for what it is and not more. The filmer was a jerk and she had to right to not be disturbed or filmed. "Dehumanised" is a bit too far.
> to address or portray (someone) in a way that obscures or demeans that person's humanity or individuality