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

611–620 of 634 posts

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

#611

Post by whiddershins »

lelandfe wrote: post #610
whiddershins wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t view religion as needing defending.

I view it as a wonderful resource that people deny themselves through overweighting their own cleverness.

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

#612

Post by oasisbob »

supercheetah wrote: post #507
oasisbob wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're implying social Darwinism being an expected natural consequence, you may want to research the history and abuses of the idea before accepting it and throwing it around so glibly.

Not even close to the same thing. Someone doing something to themselves that puts themselves in mortal danger isn't anywhere on the same level as wanting to eliminate an entire group of people based on some arbitrary attribute. They should definitely be warned, and perhaps be put into therapy with a professional, but self harm isn't social darwinism. It's just a mental health issue.

People who celebrate the deaths of others due to their lack of perceived intelligence is absolutely an example of natural selection being applied to an inappropriate, scientifically devoid situation.

I agree that self-harm isn't social Darwinism. People sharing amusing stories of self-harm and chuckling about "cleaning the gene pool" absolutely is.

Natural selection is not the right tool to downplay and excuse harm to others, and has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution.

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

#613

Post by oasisbob »

pdonis wrote: post #432
oasisbob wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're implying social Darwinism being an expected natural consequence, you may want to research the history and abuses of the idea before accepting it and throwing it around so glibly.

> If you're implying social Darwinism I don't think the GP was referring to social Darwinism, just plain old Darwinism, of the "Darwin Award" variety.

My point is that exactly. The "Darwin Award" variety IS a facetious form of social Darwinism.

It's not related to the science of evolution, it's using the principles of natural selection for social commentary.

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

#614

Post by lelandfe »

whiddershins wrote: post #611
lelandfe wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t view religion as needing defending. I view it as a wonderful resource that people deny themselves through overweighting their own cleverness.

That you favor religion as a resource means your walk is orthogonal to any issues of faith I have. My call to serve as a pastor was hard to justify when I saw suffering. The utility of my faith just isn't a part of the calculus.

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

#615

Post by whiddershins »

lelandfe wrote: post #614
whiddershins wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t view religion as needing defending. I view it as a wonderful resource that people deny themselves through overweighting their own cleverness.

That you favor religion as a resource means your walk is orthogonal to any issues of faith I have. My call to serve as a pastor was hard to justify when I saw suffering. The utility of my faith just isn't a part of the calculus.

It’s hard for me to understand your POV. I empathize, but I can’t grok it.

What you call hypocrisy I call a mystery or an enigma or something that it might takes decades of work to understand.

How can you be called by something that doesn’t exist? Or you are saying it does exist but isn’t good. Or the practice isn’t good.

I just don’t understand why lacking a good explanation for the existence of suffering that you, personally, can wrap your mind around would be such a deal breaker.

I’m sure it makes sense to you. I just don’t think that way, at least not anymore.

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

#616

Post by pdonis »

oasisbob wrote: post #613
pdonis wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're implying social Darwinism I don't think the GP was referring to social Darwinism, just plain old Darwinism, of the "Darwin Award" variety.

My point is that exactly. The "Darwin Award" variety IS a facetious form of social Darwinism. It's not related to the science of evolution, it's using the principles of natural selection for social commentary.

> It's not related to the science of evolution

Yes, it is, at least to the extent that intelligence and common sense are selected for, and their opposites are selected against, in our current selective environment.

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

#617

Post by Invictus0 »

justin66 wrote: post #607
Invictus0 wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#618

Post by fragmede »

fastball wrote: post #381
scotty79 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest thing to do would be to disclose the profits from the video and share it with her.

Aren't the profits from TikTok videos still approximately "fuck all"?

Who knows how much the average TikTok star makes, but the higher end are making bank. Like $500k/yr

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-money-tiktokers-mak...

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

#619

Post by Sporktacular »

Sporktacular wrote: post #165
powerhour wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason I have someone change my oil -- I don't want to spend the time myself, I can afford it, and they'll probably do a better job.

You're right. His team of image consultants, publicist and spokesman are probably best able to handle this.

Yeah, it's called sarcasm guys. Grandparent's question was rhetorical, as to say 'that seems out of keeping with a low budget tiktok producer'. Parent goes on to explain why anyone would conceivably have a spokesman. Sheesh.

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

#620

Post by sbf501 »

fastball wrote: post #376
sbf501 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think society will need to start coming to terms with this. The concept of "it is public, so it is fair game" can no longer be applied.

I feel like you kinda have it backwards though, at least in regard to the parent comment. The objective standard of "you're in public so it's fair game" doesn't care if you have ultra-high resolution footage, if you're hiding in a bush, if you're doing X or Y so it's very easy to apply. Meanwhile "someone can't be the focus without consent" is a somewhat subjective standard that could easily become hard to apply.

Let's start from the beginning, do you understand what "consent" means?
Post reply on HN