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

601–610 of 634 posts

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

#601

Post by JetAlone »

sva_ wrote: post #522
corrral wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tricking you into taking flowers and then trying to charge for them is already a Whole Thing, too. Not that that makes what they did any better, but this specific behavior sets off "scam" alarm bells for me.

I mean they've been doing that in Paris for quite some time when you're walking with someone. 'What you don't want to buy roses for 50 euro? Is your girlfriend not worth it to you?' Luckily my girlfriend told the guy to put his roses some place I may not mention here.

Sounds to me like your girlfriend is worth having self-respect for.

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

#602

Post by highwaylights »

throwthroyaboat wrote: post #425
itronitron wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago I was walking with my wife and parents along a path/boardwalk across a marsh to the beach on Cape Cod, MA. At the top of the platform where the wooden stairs went up the dune and onto the beach there were three people standing, one holding a sun shade. We just walked past them, but my Mom chatted them up briefly. Apparently they were doing a photo shoot for a J. Crew catalog, but I never would have guessed…

Last time I went hiking in Yosemite, and there were people who would hike all the way to a pretty spot (like, 4hr+ hike), change into a dress/suit/etc that they had packed, get some pictures taken, change back, and then presumably hike all the way back out.

I mean if you're going to fake it anyway you could've stayed home and just pouted in front of a green screen.

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

#603

Post by highwaylights »

mihaic wrote: post #121
hef19898 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between the social.media selfie photographers and those people trying to take nice pictures of beautiful places. A big camera usually points at tue latter, phones and lighting and whatnot at the former.

I get that they might be professionals with possibly a good amount of skill, but even then what gives them the right to make any tourist attraction a lot less enjoyable? Museums are usually closed on Mondays, why not make "photographer Tuesday" a thing for instance?

No. If I want to go on a Tuesday they're getting photobombed and that's the end of it.

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

#604

Post by alias_neo »

teakettle42 wrote: post #399
alias_neo wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I, individually, and on various occasions over the years, have paid for random strangers' shopping. We don't do social media, we don't even tell anybody, except for this one time, right now to support your point, so I think it's appropriate in this case. We've told each other because we talk about our finances and it's reasonably to discuss why the grocery bill was double triple, etc what it would have be…

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.

It's almost always that I'm behind them at the checkout/cashier.

If they're struggling, card declined etc, they're probably already frustrated, they might turn to me to apologise, that's my cue; I'll just say, "hey, can I get that for you?“. I remember the first time, a guy about my age just buying food, his card was declined, he had a little bit of cash so the cashier was having him figure out what to leave behind so he had enough to cover it. I just asked if I could get it all for him and he just asked, "why?", looking puzzled, I just said "why not?", and something along the lines of "you can pass on the favour one day", he accepted.

Other times its that the place doesn't take cards and they need to get cash, I'll just say, they can add it to my bill and I'll get it, if they don't mind.

Sometimes people decline, but usually I'm pretty good at judging when people would appreciate it so it's rarely awkward.

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

#605

Post by jnsaff2 »

exo-pla-net wrote: post #582
jnsaff2 wrote: post #419

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 peopl…

And people donate to get parks built, largely for the plaque with their name on it. At the end of the day, the public still gets a park. Good has been done. Fixating on motivates is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There aren't "good people" or "bad people". There are just people, and motives are almost always mixed. The people who are smearing this kid are acting worse than the kid himself. I'll drink your…

Also, if society does not shun bad actors, how would we not degenerate rapidly?

So bringing your park example to extreme: someone murders, is bad, but vilifying him would still be worse?

I'll leave you with a quote from Batman: "criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding".

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

#606

Post by alias_neo »

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".

For my wife and I, we usually keep it to situations where it's needed, we don't just offer any body, just because. My wife being a feminist and a mother will always "target" to help the single/young mothers, or older ladies etc.

I tend to just try help out those who are having trouble paying, regardless who they are, on the condition that if we're in a supermarket, their shop is a grocery shop on the whole; if they're buying £70 worth of spirits and nothing else, I'm probably not going to offer.

I work in central London, so sometimes a tourist will come into my local cash-only coffee shop just in front of me and not have cash, so I'll just offer to buy their coffees or whatever, though there are no cash-only coffee shops now since returning to the office after the pandemic, so it doesn't happen as often.

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

#607

Post by justin66 »

Invictus0 wrote: post #585
strix_varius wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet neither you nor the other commented has explained their actual stance, so idk how you can accuse me of constructing a strawman when nothing substantive was articulated in the first place.

The way people ought to behave lies somewhere apart from the blatantly absurd comment of yours that I quoted upthread and the blatantly absurd straw man you attributed to me in reply.

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

#608

Post by omega3 »

exo-pla-net wrote: post #582
jnsaff2 wrote: post #419

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 peopl…

And people donate to get parks built, largely for the plaque with their name on it. At the end of the day, the public still gets a park. Good has been done. Fixating on motivates is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There aren't "good people" or "bad people". There are just people, and motives are almost always mixed. The people who are smearing this kid are acting worse than the kid himself. I'll drink your…

In the scale of moral wrongs, justifying, defending and enabling[0] this behavior is arguably as bad as the behavior itself.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling#Narcissists_and_abuse...

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

#609

Post by whiddershins »

lelandfe wrote: post #575
kelnos wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your questioning here rhymes with what drove me from the church: If God is good, why do bad things happen? I never got an answer that resonated with me. Wound up not pursuing theology.

This is what has always baffled me.

‘I don’t understand something therefore there is no God’ is one of the most common trains of thought that lead to atheism.

Especially and most commonly ‘How could a loving God allow x.’

There isn’t an easy answer to this stuff and I wouldn’t expect there to be. The notion that the universe is easily comprehensible is a framework of thinking that only gets there by discarding everything NOT easily comprehensible and calling the remainder ‘real.’

When people ask why a loving god would allow bad things to happen I want to reply ‘how would you do it better? Design a universe that has meaningful goodness without suffering and evil. Explain how it would work …’

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

#610

Post by lelandfe »

whiddershins wrote: post #609
lelandfe wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your questioning here rhymes with what drove me from the church: If God is good, why do bad things happen? I never got an answer that resonated with me. Wound up not pursuing theology.

This is what has always baffled me. ‘I don’t understand something therefore there is no God’ is one of the most common trains of thought that lead to atheism. Especially and most commonly ‘How could a loving God allow x.’ There isn’t an easy answer to this stuff and I wouldn’t expect there to be. The notion that the universe is easily comprehensible is a framework of thinking that only gets there by discarding everyt…

I view this as the root hypocrisy in the Bible, not as Yet Another Question. Assume I’ve thought and read about this.

> Design a universe that has meaningful goodness without suffering

Without meaning offense, “you try it” is one of the weaker defenses of religion I’ve heard…

Post reply on HN