This article confused me with the phrase, “TikTok creator Harrison Pawluk”. I looked it up and though I still don’t know who this guy is, I do know he did not write TikTok.
Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
321–330 of 634 posts
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>the tricky question is how to balance the two.
I've heard people smarter than me advocate contractualism as a way of finding balance between the two.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
So much of the content I see now on TikTok and other apps is totally staged, and quite often poorly staged at that. It would be interesting to know who funds the production of many of the videos, because there's obviously an advertising scheme or some sort of moneymaking ploy behind a lot of it. I think things really took off with the people who were making "gold-digger" videos, where a guy tries to talk to a girl an…
You can avoid that content by not watching the video or visiting places where videos like that appear.
That is the exact thing that children get told when they are being bullied. "Stay away from them, ignore them, just don't read it online."
It doesn't work
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is it that shows the exact opposite of love and compassion. Self-aggrandizement and no regard for others, motivated only by the needs of self, and didn't even spend an extra second with her beyond what was required to execute this vapid stunt.
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…
> 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.
I don't fault them. They're only responding the world that we, the older generation, are implicitly condoning. Fact is, our culture does not teach the benefits of generosity much, and the few instances we see are often highly public: "$FAMOUS_PERSON donates $LARGE_SUM to $NONPROFIT!" Anonymous donors are never trumpeted the same way.
There is a marketplace for virtues, and people need role models.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends on the type and scope of "negative externalities", and not all libertarian philosophies agree on the where to draw that line. Some would say a negative exernality like CO2 emissions would raise to the level for government regulations (violating NAP) , other libertarian philosophies would not, viewing it a totalitarian control as human breath expeals CO2 so if the government can regulate it then there are…
>viewing it a totalitarian control as human breath expeals CO2 so if the government can regulate it then there are no limits on government at all. "If the gubmit can tell multinational corps not to pull oil out of the ground, they can make me hold my breath! It produces the same molecule!" Libertarian philosophy in a nutshell.
Your post made me wonder what libertarians think about things like llcs and corporations - the legal shields they provide are a massive government subsidy.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G8reRPOoiw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFBIMKdOdBg
Actually, very different.
Public access was very limited in bandwidth: one simply didn't have thousands of people posting content. As a result, public access was heavily curated and subject to the same broadcast restrictions as traditional television.
Even allowing that, public access isn't much of a thing anymore. In modern mainstream television stations, there is absolutely no user-generated content.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it means you’re doing it because you think you’ll get something out of it.
It's more mind bending than that. The reward is synonymous with the fact that it is good. These are definitionally equivalent within this framework. It doesn't map one-to-one to the way we typically conceptualize rewards or self interest or altruism.
[deleted]
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#328While 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…
> I think this entire problem would go away if all participants were just ignored.
Ignoring people? In this attention economy?!
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#329Earlier 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.
Virtue signaling has similar effect as vice signaling: it signals to others what you think is good thing to do. It is statement toward rest of word.
Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
The corresponding Qur'an verse (because they're all faces of the same coin): " To give charity publicly is good, but to give to the poor privately is better for you, and will absolve you of your sins. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do. " Al-Baqarah 272
I don't think that the bible says that giving to the poor will absolve you of your sins. So maybe not the same coin.
Well even though it says that, the concept of absolution (at least as far as I know, I am not religious anymore) does not exist in Islam. It's more as in doing good things would cancel out some of your sins, but not omit them completely.