Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent • Hacker News Board

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

#621

Post by msrenee » Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 11:28 PM UTC

todorus wrote: post #535

msrenee wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that refutes my argument.

Neither does it his. It is a problem for some areas to the point it will completely erode the empathy of people who have to live with it. Their stake is not an internet argument, but a daily reality to deal with. You can then argue that it's caused by mental illness and we should be empathetic, but I've talked to multiple people who actually worked in psych wards, my mother being one of them. They know they need to t…

Are the only healthcare professionals you know in psych wards? Dark humor and "dehumanize"-ing patients is standard coping for nurses, doctors, and basically anyone else who deals with the physically and mentally ill. That doesn't mean that they don't have empathy for them and understand that there's a fundamental disconnect between societal norms and their behavior.

The person I replied to posted a laundry list of complaints about when those damn homeless jerks made them uncomfortable after saying they are so hard to empathize with. It's so whiny and disconnected from the actual hardships that caused these people to behave this way. Why can't they just be clean and polite and normal?

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

#622

Post by TheDudeMan » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 3:50 AM UTC

duxup wrote: post #51

nonrandomstring wrote: post #40

The reason this act breaks a moral boundary is that it subverts a principle of "ends" [1]. A genuine random act of kindness cannot occur if it's being filmed. Filming the act turns it into a virtue display. It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means and not and end in themself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends

I dunno I disagree. Something can be kind and filmed. The issue here is how it plays out the person gifted isn’t more than a prop.

Sure, it can still be kind. But it is not an act of kindness, it is an act of social media.

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

#623

Post by Graffur » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 9:35 PM UTC

slillibri wrote: post #104

Graffur wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your opinion on Mr Beast? I just watched a video of his for the first time and he gave away over $500,000.

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.

Okay.. but it's his platform right?

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

#624

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 11:42 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #592

gambiting wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that you didn't use the opportunity to promote your brand on social media, nor did you trick her into holding the flowers for you just to disappear. I think the reaction would have been completely different if he did actually present those as a gift.

Sure, but my point was, as a reply to the thread above, now people my be hesitant to receive such a gift as genuine. Or give it, for fear of a negative response... the well is being poisoned.

[deleted]

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

#625

Post by V-2 » Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 7:37 AM UTC

glitcher wrote: post #290

V-2 wrote: post #148

This is a form of douchebaggery, sure, but "dehumanised" seems a bit out of proportion here. I'd reconsider such phrases out of respect for all the people who have been genuinely dehumanised throughout history, if nothing else.

Well, it was the victim's choice of words to describe her own feelings. I wouldn't get too pedantic over it. Granted the level of victimization is relatively minor in this case but her feelings about it surely are real. Also, I don't think there is a clear and well defined line of exactly when something becomes dehumanizing. If the definition is "only when nothing else is more dehumanizing", then almost nothing is. B…

> Well, it was the victim's choice of words to describe her own feelings.

Sure, but I'm not focusing on that individual person (which I feel sorry for), more about the state of the so-called discourse in general. Had she just said "that prankster from TikTok behaved like a total jerk", it wouldn't make a headline in The Guardian and we wouldn't be commenting : ) Which is sort of my point.

People's choice of words can be quite arbitrary, people would say they're starving when they discover their favorite sandwich shop is closed on their way to work and they're left with no lunch, and yet you probably won't run a headline like "PEOPLE REPORT THEY'RE STARVING ON CHESHIRE STREET" ;) According to one of the comments here even I, too, "dehumanized" the woman ("your attempt to gatekeep who can feel dehumanized has actually dehumanized this woman again."), apparently it becomes a "one-size-fits-all" term, which again aligns with the point I'm making.

> Also, I don't think there is a clear and well defined line of exactly when something becomes dehumanizing.

And I think it's reasonably clear and it doesn't take a degree in linguistics to decipher the meaning - to dehumanize is to demean or obscure someone's humanity. Merely doing something someone doesn't like (even if rightly so) is not quite that.

Of course I can't stop anyone from using words very liberally. One can say they feel dehumanized because someone shortchanged them at the counter, or cut in line (after all, cutting in line often involves treating others like they don't exist, or as if they were objects - not to mention the "for profit" label certainly applies, if time is money).

Similarly I can't (nor do I intend to) stop anyone from thinking that such silly, intrusive pranks actually "spread love and compassion", even though as the article points out, a lot of people tend to agree ("it attracted largely supportive comments"). Those people, along with the TikToker himself, obviously have the right to feel that way too, yet somehow being sceptical about the vailidity of this interpretation is suddenly fine and doesn't constitute "gatekeeping", go figure : )

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

#626

Post by TheRealNGenius » Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 9:50 AM UTC

TheRealNGenius wrote: post #262

nonrandomstring wrote: post #40

The reason this act breaks a moral boundary is that it subverts a principle of "ends" [1]. A genuine random act of kindness cannot occur if it's being filmed. Filming the act turns it into a virtue display. It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means and not and end in themself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends

Tell that to mr beast.

what in the ever mother loving fuck did 9 year old beasturds just downvote me lol.

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

#627

Post by greyhair » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 11:55 AM UTC

bshipp wrote: post #536

gnicholas wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when the act is intentionally captured on video by its performer, not only is it already very debatable that it is an act of "kindness"... but it is also obviously NOT "random"! I was about to propose to my girlfriend and was setting up my DSLR on a tripod to take photos via IR remote (she thought we were just going to take photos of us at sunset). Then a guy came walking by and offered to take the photos for us. I…

Usually you can tell a plant by their lack of opposable thumbs and green pallor.

This is one of those rare replies where I wish I could just dance away at the upvote. But I can't, so I'll leave this note instead. Thank you.

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

#628

Post by greyhair » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 12:10 PM UTC

alias_neo wrote: post #384

phkahler wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Even car accidents... I hate when a real car accident is attributed to a drunk driver when it was not. There are plenty of wrecked cars from actual drunk driving, you don't need to lie to get an example. Some people think their intentions justify their actions, even when their actions can accurately be described as "lie" or "cheat" or "for profit" or some other dishonest thing. This may be effective in many cases,…

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…

When I was young, and broke, an old guy bought my lunch one day when I was traveling. He left before I even got the bill, but the waitress told me he was a regular, and he left a simple note. And the note said something along the lines of "I was once young like you, and I know how scarce money can be when you are young. I hope that when you are older, that won't be a problem for you, and that you will pass along the favor"

Which I have done on a couple occasions, including the note, so they understood my motivation. I am hoping that when they get old, they'll pass it on.

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

#629

Post by greyhair » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 12:15 PM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #474

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.

Some supermarkets have two output buffers after a checker, seems easy to offer to pay just as the person in front finishes or to wait around a little to pay for the next person. You might also just pass 5 to 10 x 20 USD cash (or local equivalent) to the cashier and have that applied to the next person in line, and let them work out how to split any leftovers on their own. I've never done either of those things myself…

My wife and I donate cash to the local food bank. Cash is actually more useful to them than food donations. Occasionally they have particular drives, generally for laundry and cleaning supplies. Those we buy outright.

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

#630

Post by greyhair » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 12:27 PM UTC

ComputerCat wrote: post #387

giarc wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be honest though, they aren't intended to spread love and kindness, they are intended to get views. It's nothing more than a ruse to get views. If the creator was so inclined to spread love and kindness, he'd donate some of the millions he makes off these exploitive videos to charities.

I think true acts of kindness are difficult to achieve because something that you might find "kind", I might not, and vice versa. I think if you truly want to make people happy and do nice things for them you need to know them, their situation, what they're doing well with, what they're struggling with. Being tricked into holding random flowers wouldn't have made my day.

True acts of random kindness are rare only because most people aren't in need of random help that often. There is a wide range of things that would fall under the umbrella of 'just being polite' that are more expected social behavior than actual kindness.

And you can be kind to people that aren't in dire straights or in need.