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

411–420 of 634 posts

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

#411

Post by bumby »

Corazoor wrote: post #403
bumby wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't a limitation of Kant's view that intention is all that matters? In other words, neither context or outcome change the morality of the action?

Kants moral philosophy (the categorical imperative) is deontological, which means it is based on the action (and only the action) itself. Intent and Outcome are important in other moral philosophies, but for Kant these were hypothetical imperatives: Nothing more than mere whishes, nothing concrete. For him, moral philosophy should be based on concrete, testable tenets, which have to be unconditionally true (categoric…

Thank you for clearing up my misconceptions. Is it fair to say Kants view mostly works when there is a universal answer that is not context dependent?

I know this is a bit of an ad hominem and an aside, but is it true that Kant was a loner? Do you think his idealist worldviews contributed to that, I.e., his moral philosophy is more fit for theoretical and academic discussions rather than applied in practice, in the sense that philosophy is aimed at living a better life?

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

#412

Post by matheweis »

FalconSensei wrote: post #390
xorcist wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing it was just free flowers. Imagine if it had been a free puppy. "Here, just hold this" running off

Even with flowers, I would be mad, because them I'll have to take them home, put on a pot near the window, water them... (I don't like the idea of just throwing plants and flowers out in the trash). Actually, I would like it even less because I hate the idea of cutting flowers out to put on a bouquet. They'll just die way faster for nothing. I think it's just not a good thing to give someone

> I hate the idea of cutting flowers out to put on a bouquet. They'll just die way faster for nothing.

Many kinds of flower plants last longer and produce many more flowers if the flowers are cut away from the main plant.

I have flower plants in my garden that I intentionally and frequently cut blooms from because it keeps the main plant healthier and blooming longer.

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

#413

Post by kkielhofner »

titzer wrote: post #12
chrisseaton wrote: post #9

> the video was “designed to spread love and compassion” Hmmm.... seems more likely designed to get engagement. Presumably he doesn't love the woman, as he doesn't know anything at all about her, so that one is a lie for a start. And I guess he doesn't feel any compassion for her either, as he hasn't taken it down without forcing her to contact him, which she probably doesn't want to do.

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.

It’s amazing how many people don’t realize this and post some comment/reply/like that reinforces this behavior.

Some of these incidents even make the news, positioned as some heartwarming feel good story.

In short from the perspective of the attention seeker/clout beast - it works.

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

#414

Post by jamiek88 »

phpisthebest wrote: post #182
bumby wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just because they caused harm does not make them defective, both lawn darts, and social media are working exactly as the manufacturer intended Then would it possibly be a better distinction to define them instead as poorly designed products with large negative externalities? If I build a product that meets it's stated goal but poisons the environment around it, it's not "defective" in the myopic view, but poorly de…

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…

Well who gives a shit what libertarians think?

It’s a philosophy for 12 year olds.

I can come up with any old bullshit by extending arguments to a level of ludicrousness like that. Doesn’t mean you should entertain my bullshit.

humans are social creatures and have alway, always, always lived in a societal hierarchy. Our only genuine political decision we can make is what kind of government we want and how much freedom to give up.

The idea that we can live without giving up any freedoms to a society just means that the strongest, most ruthless person ‘wins’ and is king.

This is just a fact. There is no opinion involved. And the only reason this flavor of internet libertarianism exists is because those espousing it have grown up in relative comfort with no fear of warlords.

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

#415

Post by tsol »

erybodyknows wrote: post #123
phpisthebest wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not aware of a context where virtue signaling would be a good practice or behavior.

Virtue can be practiced and even observed without being signalled.

Practicing virtue in public, even if you don't intend it that way, is signaling virtue. What is strange is how in our society virtue has to be justified. Is it virtue signaling that people dislike, or being fake?

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

#416

Post by msrenee »

tomc1985 wrote: post #392
DocTomoe wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is almost as if forcing people who need professional psychiatric help out of the psychiatric clinics and putting them to their 'freedom' somehow has diametral effects on societal health. Maybe you shouldn't put these people in the same category. Not everyone living in the street is the same. Some are just poor. Some need medical and/or psychiatrical help. Some may be on the street by choice (see: Hobos (meant in t…

The other day at the transit station there was a man sitting on a bench with a shopping cart of his stuff, having a loud argument with nobody in particular. Like shouting at the top of his lungs, for at least a half hour. A couple of weeks ago I had to avoid an altercation with a woman who talking to herself on the subway, she didn't like the way I "looked" at her as I was doing my best to mind my own business. She s…

You understand that most of these are examples of mental illness, right? It would be great if schizophrenic people would behave themselves, but kind of the whole deal is that they can't.

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

#417

Post by tipsytoad »

epups wrote: post #162
slillibri wrote: post #104

Earlier 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.

But he owns his channel, no? So any money not spent in giving reverts back to him.

No. A sponsorship would give a clear budget, if blizzard gives him 500k for video expenses the rest would go back to blizzard, not him.

Blizzard would probably require him to spend all the money though, as more money = more clicks.

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

#418

Post by sudosteph »

finder83 wrote: post #373
vel0city wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There may be some overlap in some denominations I'm not aware of, but as far as the Eucharist is concerned, it's largely only a Catholic thing. In Catholicism, the first Eucharist has a particular significance as Christ/the Spirit dwelling within you. In Protestantism, it's only an ordinance, so is only a representation/ritual/tradition. There is often a component of confessing sins privately before partaking though,…

Great summary! It's not actually talked about much, and not even well understood by many Protestants themselves, but it actually is a sacrament in most major Protestant traditions I'm familiar with (Reformed[1], Lutheran[2], Anglican, Methodist[4]). Zwingli was the only major reformer I know of to take purely memorialist stance, while Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all professed some degree of presence (spritual presence or real presence) in the eucharist.

Some non-reformed baptists and non-denominationals are memorialist, but historically most protestant churches do consider it a sacrament.

[1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/ccc/westminster/of_the... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_in_Lutheranism [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_eucharistic_theology [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology#Methodist...

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

#419

Post by jnsaff2 »

I find a very stark contrast between this discussion and the one on dominos couple of days ago [0].

There most people thought it was all well and good to spend 50M to advertise a 100k kindness. This is just business.

Here people (IMO correctly) see this a virtue signaling and not kindness.

To me there is really no difference, Dominos did not do kindness, neither did this tiktok douche. All calculated to mislead people into thinking you are better. Vile scam artists.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32070067

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

#420

Post by tsol »

twodave wrote: post #277
wyldfire wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the reward cited above in Matthew 6 isn't absolution then it is still effectively similar if it's a pleasant afterlife.

It isn’t. A primary tenet of Christianity is to identify with Christ, mainly through suffering. Much the way a workout can be rewarding in and of itself (e.g. the runner’s high), the suffering of sacrifice can be its own reward if given in the correct mindset. What makes this possible for the Christian believer is the faith/knowledge that one’s sins have already _been_ absolved, so Heaven has already effectively been…

So what is the motivator for people to give charity if there is no reward from God? I would have thought there were some sort of reward for charity in Christianity.
Post reply on HN