Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 634 posts

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#311

Post by bumby »

jeremyjh wrote: post #261
bumby wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except the distinction is you were describing intent and not the event. The event can be framed as a factual description, but the intent cannot unless you somehow have unique insight into the person's mind. You can infer intent in this situation, but you can't really claim it as an objective fact.

That's not to mention that the two (action to create a viral video and the intent to truly act out of kindness) don't have to be mutually exclusive. For example, if I did the same to create a viral video with the intent to shape social norms, that would probably be a more moral decision than to create a viral video for monetary gain.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#312

Post by golemotron »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #40

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

> It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means and not and end in themself.

False dichotomy. It can be both.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#313

Post by unsupp0rted »

andai wrote: post #188
joshjje wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I remember wondering, when I first heard about altruism, whether I was actually an altruist. If I feel good when I do something good for someone, am I not just an egoist who's wired differently? True altruism would be going against what feels good, because I know it to be right.

Even then it's not true altruism because you're doing it because you know it to be right and you (selfishly?) want to be the kind of person who does the right thing.

I don't think it's possible for apes who evolved and outcompeted other apes in the endeavor to become the dominant species on a planet to be truly altruistic. At least not without a lot more cultural, social, and possibly biological evolution, if ever.

Doesn't matter though. What difference does it make how "true" one's altruism is?

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#314

Post by strix_varius »

Invictus0 wrote: post #257
strix_varius wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an absurd take. Are you really so confused?

Quite confused. Please explain.

Sure:

> That it should be illegal to speak to people in public?

The error here has nothing to do with people speaking to one another in public. Of all the strawmen you could choose for why people find fault with this behavior, that's the least realistic.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#315

Post by pcmoney »

Dont film people without explicit consent.

An act of kindness you show others is not an act of kindness. Its a negative on your character.

This lady should sue if possible. So sick of these vapid, self obsessed “influencers”. So tacky. So worthless.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#316

Post by ncallaway »

bumby wrote: post #178
azemetre wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about this story that the thread is discussing? The woman in question did not appreciate being filmed, is this still an example of kindness? Not trying to argue here just understanding your thought process, because I agree with the poster you replied to.

I think the distinction comes from differing worldviews on moral behavior. Consequentialists believe all that matters is the "ends". So even if I filmed something with the aim of patting myself on the back but it made people feel good, it's moral because the outcome was positive. Others believe all that matters is intent. A good Samaritan may act recklessly and end up maiming somebody, but they acted morally because…

I’ve really come to think of my moral framework as trying to maintain an Aristotle golden mean between Consequentialism and Deontology.

Both outcome and intent matter, and the tricky question is how to balance the two.

I don’t have a strong philosophical argument to justify the balance I aim to strike in daily life, but it definitely feels like both consequentialism and deontology fall down when left totally to their own devices.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#318

Post by vel0city »

swat535 wrote: post #264
joshjje wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Is that last part really a Christian (in a wide sense) thing or just a Catholic thing? I definitely hear it at Catholic Mass but I have not experienced it at most protestant Eucharist ceremonies.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#319

Post by frankbreetz »

While certainly demonstrative of an issue with our current society, I think it is important to remember that the video creator, while misguided, didn't do that much wrong. He is just trying to make something of himself, in fairly harmless way. In my opinion, not worthy of being burned at the stake.

Perhaps being told that some of his acts of not appreciated and are in fact causing people discomfort will cause him to be more thoughtful and maybe go a different path.

The women in the article is seemly experiencing something of Streisand effect and instead of being a no name in mildly viral tik-tok video is now in an international news article. Maybe she is passionate about the issue and the notoriety is a side-effect she is willing to bear, maybe she likes the attention.

I think this entire problem would go away if all participants were just ignored.

One thing this article does demonstrate is just as you should be suspicious of rich pastors, convincing you to give to the lord, you should also be wary of people who are making money spreading "random acts of kindness" and an online persona is perhaps entirely different then the a real persons morals. I don't know if that is the case with the creator in the video, but I that is my current exception with all people similar to this.

Overall my takeaway from this article is: Annoying young person annoys grouchy old person, a tale as old as time.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#320

Post by watwut »

TrueGeek wrote: post #288
duxup wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the video is for the creator and the audience… and that’s it. There seems to be little interest in the actual person given the flowers other than as a prop.

Even The Guardian couldn't help but link to the TikTok channel, point out when it was posted so you could find it easier, and post a screenshot of the video with the woman in it even though it's an article all about how she didn't want to be on camera. They're going to get tons of views!

Tho, I would argue that linking content you talk about is good habit. If they write about content without linking full version of it, there should be strong reason for it.
Post reply on HN