This kind of mass bullying where the human is forgotten reminds me of the discussions on the scots wikipedia tildes thread. I'm glad to see that prolific people are trying to fight this and remind...
This kind of mass bullying where the human is forgotten reminds me of the discussions on the scots wikipedia tildes thread. I'm glad to see that prolific people are trying to fight this and remind people to remember the human. It's a sad state of affairs that we have to keep reminding the world of this.
Stories like these remind me to be vigilant whenever I see something questionable or hurtful being posted. Too many times in my youth I let offensive content such as jokes and images slide without fully understanding the impact it can have.
Don't they need to have communication over chatting apps like WhatsApp with their classmates/friends? Especially during corona when I assume they don't go out to hang out? Now that I think of it,...
Don't they need to have communication over chatting apps like WhatsApp with their classmates/friends? Especially during corona when I assume they don't go out to hang out?
Now that I think of it, even I personally didn't have a smartphone before I went to college, that is until a few years ago (disregarding the time I had a barely functioning smart-ish phone to keep when I went outside). Do they use your/your wife's phone for chatting? (Which is what I did for whatsapp, telegram and others could be used over laptop too).
Underneath the obvious issue, there's a secondary one here that I want to make sure gets seen for what it is: this letter is addressed to parents who are pranking their kids on video for the...
Underneath the obvious issue, there's a secondary one here that I want to make sure gets seen for what it is: this letter is addressed to parents who are pranking their kids on video for the purposes of laughs, views, and entertainment.
I always had a certain respect for pranks that aren't damaging. I was thinking about this the other day because someone linked a short video (can't find the original higher quality one, but here's...
I always had a certain respect for pranks that aren't damaging. I was thinking about this the other day because someone linked a short video (can't find the original higher quality one, but here's a reupload) and it spawned a conversation about the nature of pranks - it was interesting to me that there was agreement from all that this kind of prank was looked upon positively across a variety of facets, whereas other 'pranks' were often not.
When did attempting to elicit negative emotions from someone at any cost become an acceptable form of 'pranking'? I look upon this kind of behavior with disdain... what purpose does it serve other than one that is self-serving amusement at the expense of others? What are we teaching our children by exhibiting this kind of behavior? That it's okay to deride and insult others so long as the end goal is your own amusement?
A prank is a way of creating a tension and release, and I think it can be done well. In this case though, I think there's a lot higher threshhold for what's acceptable when it's an adult pranking...
A prank is a way of creating a tension and release, and I think it can be done well.
In this case though, I think there's a lot higher threshhold for what's acceptable when it's an adult pranking a child, and I think an even higher threshhold when that then gets broadcast. I have an issue with parents broadcasting their kids on public social media in general, but when done with ill intent like this -- creating an emotional reaction in the child and then spreading it far and wide -- it feels completely exploitative. I have a hard time not seeing it as a big breach of trust and a violation of the parental role. They're creating a deliberately embarrassing situation for the child and then adding to the embarassment by sharing it publicly.
I have to wonder how many kids growing up right now will be mortified when they're older and come to understand the ramifications of everything their parents shared online about them.
It blew my mind when it finally landed that memes are people, too. I think part of the problem is the objectification of appearances, which seems to be playing out here. "Look at this freaky...
It blew my mind when it finally landed that memes are people, too. I think part of the problem is the objectification of appearances, which seems to be playing out here. "Look at this freaky face!" ignores that it's attached to a person with feelings.
An interesting perspective crossed my mind after reading the article, and I had a similar reaction to @knocklessmonster when I realized what the article was actually talking about -- I was simply...
An interesting perspective crossed my mind after reading the article, and I had a similar reaction to @knocklessmonster when I realized what the article was actually talking about -- I was simply mind-blown that parents would be pranking their kids like that.
Then I realized, this has been happening for quite some time... I don't know if any of you ever had the Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark books when you were younger, but those books formed a lot of my childhood, and certainimages in the books could be construed as "look at this scary face" -- but the obvious difference here is, is it morally acceptable to use the face of a living, breathing person (or for that matter, any non-fictitious person) for such scares, instead of relying on creative minds to invent one? I think not; since when I think back to the days before the internet, before this person might have even been aware their photograph had made it to another community and been posted around some local newspaper or message boards, I think it would still have been generally viewed as distasteful, especially without explicit release from the subject.
There are obvious exceptions for people who volunteer their looks for entertainment, such as carnival or circus workers, but obviously the difference here is that nobody else should be able to volunteer you as "one of the sideshow" without your consent -- an idea I wholeheartedly support.
Ooph - this is a horrible trend no matter the platform, but it's even more galling on TikTok, which has been criticised for filtering videos by disabled people (among others). Originally TikTok...
Ooph - this is a horrible trend no matter the platform, but it's even more galling on TikTok, which has been criticised for filtering videos by disabled people (among others). Originally TikTok argued that that filtering videos was their attempt to "protect" certain demographics from bullying (in a misguided and paternalistic way), but the later article I linked suggests it's more about TikTok wanting a particular "look" to videos in the feed. Abled, rich, and beautiful.
I remember disabled folks pointing out the hypocrisy a year or more ago - TikTok would filter videos made by disabled people but keep up ones that bullied them. Looks like not a lot has changed.
Is it morally wrong to use the image of a human being (as substitute to a monster) to scare children for laughs? Yes, absolutely. That’s not even worth debating. Is it morally wrong to scare...
Is it morally wrong to use the image of a human being (as substitute to a monster) to scare children for laughs? Yes, absolutely. That’s not even worth debating.
Is it morally wrong to scare children for laughs at all? I'm not sure.
This kind of mass bullying where the human is forgotten reminds me of the discussions on the scots wikipedia tildes thread. I'm glad to see that prolific people are trying to fight this and remind people to remember the human. It's a sad state of affairs that we have to keep reminding the world of this.
Stories like these remind me to be vigilant whenever I see something questionable or hurtful being posted. Too many times in my youth I let offensive content such as jokes and images slide without fully understanding the impact it can have.
Don't they need to have communication over chatting apps like WhatsApp with their classmates/friends? Especially during corona when I assume they don't go out to hang out?
Now that I think of it, even I personally didn't have a smartphone before I went to college, that is until a few years ago (disregarding the time I had a barely functioning smart-ish phone to keep when I went outside). Do they use your/your wife's phone for chatting? (Which is what I did for whatsapp, telegram and others could be used over laptop too).
Underneath the obvious issue, there's a secondary one here that I want to make sure gets seen for what it is: this letter is addressed to parents who are pranking their kids on video for the purposes of laughs, views, and entertainment.
Parents. Pranking their own kids. On mass media.
I always had a certain respect for pranks that aren't damaging. I was thinking about this the other day because someone linked a short video (can't find the original higher quality one, but here's a reupload) and it spawned a conversation about the nature of pranks - it was interesting to me that there was agreement from all that this kind of prank was looked upon positively across a variety of facets, whereas other 'pranks' were often not.
When did attempting to elicit negative emotions from someone at any cost become an acceptable form of 'pranking'? I look upon this kind of behavior with disdain... what purpose does it serve other than one that is self-serving amusement at the expense of others? What are we teaching our children by exhibiting this kind of behavior? That it's okay to deride and insult others so long as the end goal is your own amusement?
A prank is a way of creating a tension and release, and I think it can be done well.
In this case though, I think there's a lot higher threshhold for what's acceptable when it's an adult pranking a child, and I think an even higher threshhold when that then gets broadcast. I have an issue with parents broadcasting their kids on public social media in general, but when done with ill intent like this -- creating an emotional reaction in the child and then spreading it far and wide -- it feels completely exploitative. I have a hard time not seeing it as a big breach of trust and a violation of the parental role. They're creating a deliberately embarrassing situation for the child and then adding to the embarassment by sharing it publicly.
I have to wonder how many kids growing up right now will be mortified when they're older and come to understand the ramifications of everything their parents shared online about them.
It blew my mind when it finally landed that memes are people, too. I think part of the problem is the objectification of appearances, which seems to be playing out here. "Look at this freaky face!" ignores that it's attached to a person with feelings.
An interesting perspective crossed my mind after reading the article, and I had a similar reaction to @knocklessmonster when I realized what the article was actually talking about -- I was simply mind-blown that parents would be pranking their kids like that.
Then I realized, this has been happening for quite some time... I don't know if any of you ever had the Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark books when you were younger, but those books formed a lot of my childhood, and certain images in the books could be construed as "look at this scary face" -- but the obvious difference here is, is it morally acceptable to use the face of a living, breathing person (or for that matter, any non-fictitious person) for such scares, instead of relying on creative minds to invent one? I think not; since when I think back to the days before the internet, before this person might have even been aware their photograph had made it to another community and been posted around some local newspaper or message boards, I think it would still have been generally viewed as distasteful, especially without explicit release from the subject.
There are obvious exceptions for people who volunteer their looks for entertainment, such as carnival or circus workers, but obviously the difference here is that nobody else should be able to volunteer you as "one of the sideshow" without your consent -- an idea I wholeheartedly support.
Ooph - this is a horrible trend no matter the platform, but it's even more galling on TikTok, which has been criticised for filtering videos by disabled people (among others). Originally TikTok argued that that filtering videos was their attempt to "protect" certain demographics from bullying (in a misguided and paternalistic way), but the later article I linked suggests it's more about TikTok wanting a particular "look" to videos in the feed. Abled, rich, and beautiful.
I remember disabled folks pointing out the hypocrisy a year or more ago - TikTok would filter videos made by disabled people but keep up ones that bullied them. Looks like not a lot has changed.
Is it morally wrong to use the image of a human being (as substitute to a monster) to scare children for laughs? Yes, absolutely. That’s not even worth debating.
Is it morally wrong to scare children for laughs at all? I'm not sure.
I don't see anything wrong with the lady. She looks like a normal woman, albeit a bit old.