Earlier quoted context omitted.
His intention was to film and monetize a viral video.
That's the cynical take, yes.
It is a factual description of what happened. I don't see a lot of room for interpretation here.
Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
261–270 of 634 posts
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#262The 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
Tell that to mr beast.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#263You think viral exploitative TikTok videos that cater to the lowest intellect are the worst thing in media right now? You'd be wrong. Writing articles about those videos is outright the lowest rung on that ladder of shit. Another low for the guardian, once a newspaper, now a propaganda/outrage rag of no news value whatsoever. Don't fall for the clickbait, and do yourself a favor: don't click on guardian links. It's a…
Actually, I see that article as the only way for that woman, and anyone else being in a viral video really, as the only means to get their voices heard as well. Hard to stink against millions of views and likes otherwise.
All it does it get that video more views. Are you so far gone in the horseshit the guardian peddles that you're willing to defend their cheap practice with arguments you invented yourself? Can you really not see how their aim is exclusively to sell more clicks?
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#264I 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.
Everything in the Bible, including what Christians are supposed to be like, should be viewed through the lens of Jesus on the cross. The idea is that you are supposed to imitate Christ in your life for salvation which is reaching Heaven i.e glorifying God, the Father forever via achieving the Beatific vision.
So the "reward" in this case is you becoming one with Christ and thus closer to God. It's not a "currency" to be accumulated to attain Heaven. This is why you can't "fake" your way through it by for example donating money to the poor or the Church and thinking that will impress God.
I think what Christians say before receiving the Eucharist at Mass really summarizes this nicely: "Lord I am not worthy to receive you".
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#265Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#266Social media dehumanizes everyone who touches it.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#267This 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.
She's not being treated as a human, she's being used as a prop. There are many levels of dehumanizing, and treating your subjects like objects rather than people is a form of dehumanization.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it comes off as seeking return value for the action Surely that’s in the eye of the beholder? It is possible to interpret it that way, certainly. But applying the observers value judgement (i.e. how it comes off) onto the original actor seems unfair to me. Sometimes I feel like (and I don’t mean anything personal by this) we’re all cynical bastards these days so when we see someone do something genuinely altruistic…
> But the people in the soup kitchen see me serving the food. Anyone walking by might see me in the window. The nuance here is that there's a difference being observed doing a kind act versus purposefully making it a public spectacle. I don't view people I observe doing something altruistic as self-seeking unless they try to "cash in" on it. I would see someone helping a person in need and think "how kind of them!" B…
I actually erased the part you replied to, sorry. Primarily because I figured out the response to it myself!
> it can be seen
I still maintain that it’s unfair to project the value judgement of the observer onto the observed, as if the observer is impartial in all of this. It can be seen that way, yes, but it doesn’t have to be. That is the observer’s choice.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#269I 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…
Similar, from AJR's "3:30" song:
Someone told me to be selfless // But we are helpless without attention // Wealthy people learn the lesson // And never donate without the press there //
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That's not at all a reasonable characterization of 230. 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.
There were "public access" shows on cable that showed user generated content. Not so different than the majority of tik-tok content today.