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

561–570 of 634 posts

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

#561

Post by senojretep356 »

nonameking2026 wrote: post #444
teakettle42 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you mind sharing how you do this without making it awkward for the recipient or a spectacle? I’ve never been able to work that part out.

Yeah - it would be strange if someone offered to pay for my groceries, just because I was wearing old jeans looking depressed and worried because of the price of bitcoin. But I think it's a good thing to do if you "hit" the correct "target".

Yeah this I go to the market in a hoodie and joggers, - looking as rough as hell. But if somebody paid for my groceries and was filming it all without my permission I'd be mad as hell. Aside from not needing others to pay for my groceries, it's an invasion of privacy.

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

#562

Post by senojretep356 »

autoexec wrote: post #551
nonameking2026 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - it would be strange if someone offered to pay for my groceries, just because I was wearing old jeans looking depressed and worried because of the price of bitcoin. But I think it's a good thing to do if you "hit" the correct "target".

I don't need strangers to pay for my groceries either, but I think if they did (assuming it wasn't for a social media stunt) I'd accept it gracefully and try to pay it forward somehow. Maybe offer to pay for the next person, or use the money I'd have spent to buy those prepared bags for food pantries some shops offer. It's feels good to genuinely do something nice for another person and I wouldn't want to take that f…

The issue is the social media bit. Someone paid for my groceries without filming it then yeah I'd just pay for the next persons.

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

#563

Post by clejack »

sudosteph wrote: post #341
jonnycomputer wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"

Weird metaphor, right? We're probably missing context for that one. My theory is that it boils down to "don't nickel and dime or be overly concerned with recording the amount of your charitable giving" The reason I think that, is because in ancient Roman times they had a way of counting on your fingers where you could count up to 100 on your left hand alone (then you could use your right hand after that for even larg…

The context is the next sentence.

"do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret."

It's just hyperbolic/poetic language. It's not possible to do something in such a way that your right hand doesn't know what your left hand is doing, because they are both connected centrally (and they can't know anything to begin with).

"Be so secretive that your resting hand doesn't know what your charitable hand is doing."

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

#564

Post by phs318u »

AlexandrB wrote: post #308
btilly wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The staged stuff doesn't bother me as much as the dangerous stuff: https://www.fastcompany.com/90287323/people-are-falling-off-...

> A British YouTuber named Jay Swingler performed a dangerous stunt about a year ago. He placed a plastic bag with a breathing tube over his head, then “glued” his head to the inside of a microwave oven with expanding plaster. The plaster set, and Swingler couldn’t get his head out of the microwave. It took a team of paramedics to set him free. Wow.

The Darwin Awards - now an 8 part docu-series on YouTube Premium.

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

#565

Post by kelnos »

dropit_sphere wrote: post #553
ALittleLight wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the alternative is eternal torture in hell I'm not sure that holds.

This is more a disagreement about fact than it is a threat. "Take care of your body or else it will grow weak and sick" has a directive and a warning of consequences---is it a threat?

Your example isn't a threat because there is no external/conscious actor who is going to cause your body to grow weak and sick if you don't take care of it; it will just happen as a consequence of normal biological processes.

There need not be a consequence of failing to follow the Christian Bible; God/Satan have decided that there will be consequences, and Satan will be the one torturing you if you don't do what God says. That's definitely a threat. In these stories, God and Satan are conscious, sentient beings with free will. They can choose to reward or punish you based on whatever criteria they've decided.

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

#566

Post by drakonka »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #528
drakonka wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird straw man; he did not hand her trash, he handed her flowers under the guise of doing him a quick favor, then ran off. I guess she could think of it as trash after he left and even if she did - you genuinely wouldn't think some random person handing you their trash is kind of a rude thing of them to do?

> you genuinely wouldn't think some random person handing you their trash is kind of a rude thing of them to do? Sure, but I'm the kind of person who picks up litter anyway.

That's great, then it sounds like we're on the same page.

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

#567

Post by kelnos »

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.

I think this is a classic philosophical problem. Unless you are a philosopher, though, I don't think it really matters all that much. The bottom line is that you are making a sacrifice for someone else, and that you aren't involving other people in it.

Doing good for others should feel good! And if that internal reaction helps us want to continue doing good for others, then that's also a good thing.

I think also we should be less concerned about labeling ourselves this way. I would not try to make "altruist" a part of my identity (or "egoist", for that matter). You are just someone who does good things for others, and -- incidentally -- that makes you feel good. That should be enough.

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

#568

Post by lurquer »

kelnos wrote: post #559
drakonka wrote: post #16

The video itself was quite off-putting when I first saw it. He didn't even just kindly offer her flowers. He _tricked_ her into taking them by making it sound like he just wanted her to hold them for him. She was actually being kind to him by doing him a favor, and then he basically ran away and stuck her with them. That's not kind at all, it's pushy and exploitative. As someone who doesn't usually like to accept gif…

> that's before taking into consideration the fact that it was filmed and put online for people to gawk at. That's the thing for me. If you are truly doing a "random act of kindness", then you are not planning it, you are not filming it, and you are not putting it online. You are also being respectful: some people would be put off or offended for accepting certain kinds of help, so you probably should ask for consent…

"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.”

Matthew 6:3-4

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

#569

Post by exo-pla-net »

omega3 wrote: post #131

What a despicable human being. He even lied about her crying and being grateful after he left her the flowers. https://youtu.be/BU6PlJmGNkM?t=75

He may or may not have lied. The lady could have been grateful at first and changed her mind in hindsight (e.g. after learning it was just a stunt).

Asserting that he's lying without knowing that he's lying is a mild form of libel. In the scale of moral wrongs, calling someone "a despicable human being" and a liar is arguably worse than giving a woman flowers for views.

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

#570

Post by tsol »

dragonwriter wrote: post #499
tsol wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> So what is the motivator for people to give charity if there is no reward from God? Love of ones fellow man. > I would have thought there were some sort of reward for charity in Christianity. To the extent that there may be, that reward is not generally viewed in most Christian doctrine as the motivator . Christianity is not, predomonantly, doctrinally, transactional in that way. (Transactional personal beliefs are…

>Love of ones fellow man

Hmm interesting. I wonder is love really a motivator? It's more of a reason, right? "I give charity because I love my fellow man". I feel like that's not inclusive.

Like what about people who don't love their fellow man all that much? I mean is that even allowed?-- If I'm a Christian do I have to love my fellow man to the point of charity? What if I call myself Christian but I think most people are rude and selfish and have a hard time loving them.. does that make me not Christian? I'm sure there are people who are Christian and have a hard time loving humanity, seems like they would be not included. I suppose the reward aspect still applies so it makes sense for everyone.

I like the idea, it's very philosophically pure. But I'm surprised it actually works in real life. It seems to me like that would encompass only a minority. Maybe that's more a reflection of the times we're in than anything else. Hope you don't mind the probing questions-- I'm not trying to poke holes in these beliefs I'm just trying to understand them completely

Post reply on HN