5 ms·

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 h

by V-2 4y ago

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.

password54321 4y ago
Used for profit without consent can very well feel dehumanising.
- V-2 4y ago
  If this headline went: "Woman used for profit without consent", wouldn't you consider it a bit of a clickbait upon examining the actual content of the article? (Not technically untrue, I give you that)
  - kzrdude 4y ago
    I wouldn't, that sounds accurate. 58 million views or whatever - she's being used for profit.
giarc 4y ago
I agreed until I read that news stories covering the video described her as an "elderly woman" and a "heartbreaking tale". She might be "senior" by definition, but it doesn't mean she would describe herself as "elderly".
- dwringer 4y ago
  That seems almost to be the crux of the issue. From the article: > A friend contacted Maree that evening, sharing the uploaded video. At the time, Maree “didn’t think much of it”. > But after seeing the TikTok video featured in media reports describing her as an “elderly woman” with a “heartbreaking tale,” she said she “felt dehumanised”. > “I feel like clickbait,” she said. It really sounds like she agreed until she read that as well.
treis 4y ago
Maybe I don't get it but this doesn't even rate as douchebaggery to me. At worst it's a minor inconvenience but mostly it's free flowers. The blast on TikTok might rate but she's not portrayed in a negative light. Personally I just find it all very weird.
- carbadtraingood 4y ago
  Do you have quiet times where you collect yourself? Get lost in your own thoughts or read a book? Imagine me coming up to you during those times and interrupting them, while secretly filming your response. You find out later you've been filmed, and that the person who interrupted you is getting paid for the footage they collected of you without your knowledge. Millions of people have now seen how you react when interrupted, and are leaving comments about how much you look like you "needed" interrupting. Maybe a coworker or relative sees you.
  - treis 4y ago
    >Do you have quiet times where you collect yourself? Get lost in your own thoughts or read a book? >Imagine me coming up to you during those times and interrupting them Minor inconvenience >while secretly filming your response. Weird >You find out later you've been filmed, and that the person who interrupted you is getting paid for the footage they collected of you without your knowledge. Weird but not really any skin off my back. >Millions of people have now seen how you react when interrupted, and are leaving comments about how much you look like you "needed" interrupting. Weird >Maybe a coworker or relative sees you "I saw you on Tiktok" "Yeah, it's so weird"
- davegauer 4y ago
  This may not work since I don't know anything about you, but: imagine you discovered this was your own mother (or grandmother or...) in the video.
carbadtraingood 4y ago
She's not being treated as a human, she's being used as a prop. There are many levels of dehumanizing, and treating your subjects like objects rather than people is a form of dehumanization.
parkingrift 4y ago
Who are you to gatekeep whether a person felt dehumanized? Your attempt to gatekeep who can feel dehumanized has actually dehumanized this woman again.
glitcher 4y ago
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. But more importantly, when using strong wording to describe human emotions, it's not to be taken too literally. Otherwise next you'll be arguing with this woman about what you think she felt.
- V-2 4y ago
  > 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 : )

by V-2 4y ago

password54321 4y ago

Used for profit without consent can very well feel dehumanising.

V-2 4y ago
If this headline went: "Woman used for profit without consent", wouldn't you consider it a bit of a clickbait upon examining the actual content of the article? (Not technically untrue, I give you that)
- kzrdude 4y ago
  I wouldn't, that sounds accurate. 58 million views or whatever - she's being used for profit.

giarc 4y ago

I agreed until I read that news stories covering the video described her as an "elderly woman" and a "heartbreaking tale". She might be "senior" by definition, but it doesn't mean she would describe herself as "elderly".

dwringer 4y ago
That seems almost to be the crux of the issue. From the article: > A friend contacted Maree that evening, sharing the uploaded video. At the time, Maree “didn’t think much of it”. > But after seeing the TikTok video featured in media reports describing her as an “elderly woman” with a “heartbreaking tale,” she said she “felt dehumanised”. > “I feel like clickbait,” she said. It really sounds like she agreed until she read that as well.

treis 4y ago

Maybe I don't get it but this doesn't even rate as douchebaggery to me. At worst it's a minor inconvenience but mostly it's free flowers. The blast on TikTok might rate but she's not portrayed in a negative light. Personally I just find it all very weird.

carbadtraingood 4y ago
Do you have quiet times where you collect yourself? Get lost in your own thoughts or read a book? Imagine me coming up to you during those times and interrupting them, while secretly filming your response. You find out later you've been filmed, and that the person who interrupted you is getting paid for the footage they collected of you without your knowledge. Millions of people have now seen how you react when interrupted, and are leaving comments about how much you look like you "needed" interrupting. Maybe a coworker or relative sees you.
- treis 4y ago
  >Do you have quiet times where you collect yourself? Get lost in your own thoughts or read a book? >Imagine me coming up to you during those times and interrupting them Minor inconvenience >while secretly filming your response. Weird >You find out later you've been filmed, and that the person who interrupted you is getting paid for the footage they collected of you without your knowledge. Weird but not really any skin off my back. >Millions of people have now seen how you react when interrupted, and are leaving comments about how much you look like you "needed" interrupting. Weird >Maybe a coworker or relative sees you "I saw you on Tiktok" "Yeah, it's so weird"
davegauer 4y ago
This may not work since I don't know anything about you, but: imagine you discovered this was your own mother (or grandmother or...) in the video.

carbadtraingood 4y ago

She's not being treated as a human, she's being used as a prop. There are many levels of dehumanizing, and treating your subjects like objects rather than people is a form of dehumanization.

parkingrift 4y ago

Who are you to gatekeep whether a person felt dehumanized? Your attempt to gatekeep who can feel dehumanized has actually dehumanized this woman again.

glitcher 4y ago

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. But more importantly, when using strong wording to describe human emotions, it's not to be taken too literally. Otherwise next you'll be arguing with this woman about what you think she felt.

V-2 4y ago
> 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 : )