How Far Can You Go to Resist Filmers of a Viral Video? (nytimes.com) 350
The New York Times tells the story of a pervasive new nuisance: public videography with smartphones:
Recently I saw eight seconds of video that capture this problem in its most extreme form. A boy and a girl, who appear to be of high school age, are walking into Panda Express when a third teenager with blond hair stops them in the doorway. He brings with him the energy of the hustler or the man-on-the-street interview host, and the couple are temporarily frozen, caught between suspicion and courtesy. It is a space where things could go either way. "Hey, hold on, excuse me — I have something really important to ask you," the blond kid says to the girl. "The moment I saw you, my eyes were just — oh, my God, I love you, please could — bleagh!" The "bleagh" is the sound he makes when the other boy punches him in the face...
But perhaps what is most remarkable is the distinct moment of resignation that he and his girlfriend share when they realize what the blond kid is doing. Around the time he gets to "my eyes," she turns away and steps inside, while Overalls Kid calmly sets his smoothie on the ground in preparation to jack his interlocutor in the mouth. The sound of the impact is meaty. The video ends with both of them stumbling out of the frame, Blond Kid reeling and Overalls Kid winding up for another blow. It's an efficiently cut bit of action that rewards repeat viewings, but it left me with one question: How do we feel about that punch?
I think we can agree that a punch would not be justified if Blond Kid were professing his love sincerely. But he isn't. He's professing his love while an unidentified fourth party records the whole thing, presumably as part of the "hit on another guy's girlfriend" internet challenge. In this context, he is using other people as props, a bad behavior that society should discourage. But what are we willing to condone in order to discourage it? Our collective culture has just begun to decide how we feel about this kind of activity, which has been invented by new technology and will only become more prevalent in the future.
The article ultimately argues that internet video apps belong to generation Z "the way heroin belongs to junkies. Seen from this perspective, Overalls Kid is part of a history of violent resistance to foreign influence that Americans will recognize in everything from the Boston Tea Party to Al Qaeda to the Ewoks.
"Our reams of fretting essays about how much the kids love phones tend to ignore who gave them phones in the first place."
But perhaps what is most remarkable is the distinct moment of resignation that he and his girlfriend share when they realize what the blond kid is doing. Around the time he gets to "my eyes," she turns away and steps inside, while Overalls Kid calmly sets his smoothie on the ground in preparation to jack his interlocutor in the mouth. The sound of the impact is meaty. The video ends with both of them stumbling out of the frame, Blond Kid reeling and Overalls Kid winding up for another blow. It's an efficiently cut bit of action that rewards repeat viewings, but it left me with one question: How do we feel about that punch?
I think we can agree that a punch would not be justified if Blond Kid were professing his love sincerely. But he isn't. He's professing his love while an unidentified fourth party records the whole thing, presumably as part of the "hit on another guy's girlfriend" internet challenge. In this context, he is using other people as props, a bad behavior that society should discourage. But what are we willing to condone in order to discourage it? Our collective culture has just begun to decide how we feel about this kind of activity, which has been invented by new technology and will only become more prevalent in the future.
The article ultimately argues that internet video apps belong to generation Z "the way heroin belongs to junkies. Seen from this perspective, Overalls Kid is part of a history of violent resistance to foreign influence that Americans will recognize in everything from the Boston Tea Party to Al Qaeda to the Ewoks.
"Our reams of fretting essays about how much the kids love phones tend to ignore who gave them phones in the first place."
Prank your friends (Score:5, Insightful)
not strangers. Otherwise you're just being a dick.
Re: Prank your friends (Score:4, Insightful)
Might also buy you a bullet between the eyes, depending on the jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Taser better and less chance of going to jail. Plus it's fun watching them jerk like a fish.
Re: Prank your friends (Score:4, Informative)
Choose wisely.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, this is probably far too accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Prank your friends (Score:5, Insightful)
I have an easy fix for you: stop carrying a lethal weapon on yourself.
Then you won't have to worry about killing people for no good reason.
Re: Prank your friends (Score:5, Insightful)
What sort of environment did you grow up in?
I grew up in Eastern Europe (Romania) in the '80s and early '90s - you know, the same Eastern Europe that completely collapsed at that time. Then I moved to Western Europe by mid '90s - same Western Europe that used to burn down asylum homes during the early / mid '90s to send people like me "back home".
So, yes, I've lived through my fair share.
Asking because if you grew up in an area where you were regularly subject to physical violence I don't think you would feel this way.
I used to feel that way, but my way through the fear was a different one. I learned martial arts. Eventually I learned to fight well enough that if somebody who hold a gun to my face was close enough that he could take my wallet out of my outreaching hand, me beating him into ER with his own gun would actually be more likely than him being able to discharge his gun at my face. I'm actually training that every now and then with my more advanced students (with softair pistols, not with actual guns, of course).
But this is actually the important part: carrying a gun for self-defense is about fear, not about defense. Once a bullet is under way to you, you can't stop it with another bullet. And "sensing people's intentions" on their face is BS. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesn't. I've been in enough altercations to know that 1st and 2nd hand. Relying on that, and your gun, to keep you safe, is a lot of false-positives accidents waiting to happen, and you eventually nonetheless dying in an act of violence you didn't foresee.
I have students, friends, parents etc asking me how they can "defend with a knife". You can't. You can attack with a knife. You can do so preemptively. Same goes for a handgun. I don't indent to say there's anything wrong with that, if you think - and the law agrees - it's the only way to save your skin. But call it what it is: it's an attack, it's not a defense, except in very, very rare cases. (Yes, the law will call that a "self defense situation". Still doesn't change the fact that what you did was putting a bullet into another person's body, not preventing a bullet from entering yours.)
Now the beef I have with OP is this: if you're going to spend a near-daily amount of time to train how to put bullets into people, and call it "for defense", and in the next sentence you "hope it doesn't happen with a prankster", you're an idiot. You better put a daily amount of time in learning to handle yourself, it will give you better results because the escalation ramp is way, way more diverse than just shooting whatever is in front of you.
Re: Prank your friends (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd also like to mention that if somebody wants my wallet threatening violence, and made me believe that he'd go away once he got it, I'd give it to him.
I'm not in the business of killing for at most $200 or so, which is what I carry around in my wallet on average. I'm actually not even in the business of killing for $10.000 or $20.000, which is why he can also have my laptop, my credit card and my car keys if he asks. Besides, there's no guarantee that I'd win the fight - any fight. So the small chance that I could end up dead over my wallet or my car keys is just not worth the risk. If I win the fight, I'd prefer the other person to not die, which is why I'd prefer to not draw a gun - snatching a purse, robbing someone etc. is not an offense punishable by death. Or at least shouldn't be, unless the society this happens in is very, very sick.
I'd start fighting is when I need to save skin - mine or somebody else's.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm also doing martial arts, so I mostly agree.
And "sensing people's intentions" on their face is BS.
True. Unless you have the strange habit to assume everyone coming towards you with a bright smile is an assailant.
I have students, friends, parents etc asking me how they can "defend with a knife".
You can defend against one, if you are skilled, but the general rule is: run.
The above is true for a gun, too. It is not really self defense to shot one. Most of the time I would call it murder. Especially under th
Re: Prank your friends (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I used to feel that way, but my way through the fear was a different one. I learned martial arts. Eventually I learned to fight well enough that if somebody who hold a gun to my face was close enough that he could take my wallet out of my outreaching hand, me beating him into ER with his own gun would actually be more likely than him being able to discharge his gun at my face. I'm actually training that every now and then with my more advanced students (with softair pistols, not with actual guns, of course).
This,
I've trained in Krav Maga (Israeli self defence system) for the last 5 years, part of this training is how to perform knife and pistol disarms, which when you understand how to defend yourself amount to little more than fun party tricks as you'd be daft to ever even attempt it in real life.
First thing with defending against a weapon is, if you wait for your opponent to have a weapon ready, a knife or pistol in your face it's already too late. You may as well meekly roll over and do whatever they
Re: Prank your friends (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm rather fast and I practice consistently year around drawing,
Have you considered simply moving to a first world country where you wouldn't need to practice lethal force just to "feel safe"? Or just grow a penis rather than compensating with your boomstick.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't carry except for a limited amount of time within a year when required.
So what you're saying is Florida is not a first world country (evidently) at all times and you need a boomstick to feel safe. Quite sad indeed.
Your statements aren't polarising. Most people in the thread seem to agree that the need to carry a weapon some times is asinine unless you live in some 3rd world shithole.
Re: (Score:3)
wait, do you recall silly fella approaching under (fake, alright) impression of being mesmerized by the beauty?
is this "act like a murderer", or where have we been teleported by now?
Re: (Score:3)
let's lay some basic notes to make the discussion equal in the knowledge.
This is the concept of the prank I fear:
https://www.usatoday.com/video... [usatoday.com]
Notes:
it seems dark with very few escape routes just the entrance and exits to a garage.
Anyone can think that might be real because people want to play dress up, and people love to imitate movies.
The clown strikes the head ( when observed via film it looks dumb )
Then the clown starts doing the chase.
Don't know about you, this is enough proof for me that someone is
Prank the pranker challenge (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
not strangers. Otherwise you're just being a dick.
I should point out that Candid Camera is 73 years old at this point. While they sometimes used shills, they filmed unsuspecting strangers most of the time. When video cameras became popular and cheap, there was "America's Funniest Home Videos". Those could involve only friends and family, but also strangers. None of this is really new, there are just more ways to distribute the result now, which may encourage more of this sort of thing, but it's not new and pulling those sorts of pranks on strangers (or tar
Re: (Score:2)
Candid camera never went out of it's way to 'prank' a person beyond the funny
aspects. Violent outcomes were never shown or known on the pranks. Nor do I recall
anyone getting angry. every few months they did show the blooper real and that was
funny too.
For example showing how people almost chewed there fingers while eating a burger.
painting a sign that said don't look behind the sign and watching them spin the sign.
someone in a scary costume or a fake tree scare. looking up and then watching others
trying to s
Re:Prank your friends (Score:5, Insightful)
Candid camera showed considerably better judgement in the nature of the prank, preferring the absurd to the inflammatory or frightening. They may have caused some frustration but had the good sense to let the target in on the gag before it went to anger. There is a vast difference between Candid Camera and the act like an asshole (one might argue that it wasn't acting) and video people getting angry crap.
Re: (Score:3)
They knew when the joke stopped being funny.
Very few people these days do.
Re: (Score:3)
I should point out that Candid Camera is 73 years old at this point.
I don't recall Candid Camera deliberately trying to make people angry just so they could film that .
Re:Prank your friends (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a new thing, we had TV shows where they did it. In the UK there was Beadel's About, for example.
The only think that has changed is that now it's on the internet and largely unregulated.
The vid (Score:3)
was probably staged anyway
Re: (Score:2)
Does not suggest that at all. More likely true crap of the situation.
Re: (Score:3)
was probably staged anyway
Sadly no. The vast majority of these stupid pranks are challenges that purposefully involve members of the public.
I can not agree (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we can agree that a punch would not be justified if Blond Kid were professing his love sincerely.
If you walk up to a couple and start professing love to someone a guy is with, how can you not expect violence?
It doens't matter what your own motive is in the matter, that is simply a situation where 9 out of 10 people would expect the guy to get punched.
Even if you truly felt that way it's something you would tell the woman away from the guy she is with. If you are doing it when they are out together as a couple, for a lot of guys that is a direct physical challenge. It's incredibly stupid under any conditions.
They sad thing is the guy throwing the punch will probably be charged with something, when he was basically baited into action...
Re: (Score:2)
That was my thought as well. The guy was asking for it and had he been sincere it would have changed nothing (except we wouldn't see it since he wouldn't have had a camera man along).
TL;DR he played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.
Re:I can not agree (Score:5, Insightful)
They sad thing is the guy throwing the punch will probably be charged with something, when he was basically baited into action..
Nothing sad about booking that guy - any action warrants a proportionate response (e.g., tell the blond kid he's being a creep and walk away). Otherwise, you risk continual escalation (what if the blond kid shoots back in 'self-defence'?)
What's sad is fathers should model what being a man to juveniles. But here you're justifying an even more foolish response to a foolish action to teenagers whose brains are still developing.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed sad. It was a sore provocation and we have to consider the age of the boy. One could argue that if people reacted a bit more strongly to assholes, less people would be assholes. Note that a punch in the nose, while strongly aversive, does no long term damage.
Speaking of proportionate response, the criminal "justice" system tends to be about as proportionate as killing a mosquito with dynamite when it comes to minor offenses. The process of being charged and going through the process would have the bo
Re: (Score:3)
Note that a punch in the nose, while strongly aversive, does no long term damage.
The article explicitly mentioned: the punch was into the mouth. Which does long term (actually permanent) damage if you lose a tooth. Especially in third world countries where dental care is not covered by public health care.
Re: (Score:3)
That is the problem, all right. When you're dealing in retribution, a bit here, a bit there, and all of a sudden you're talking real multigenerational violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing sad about booking that guy - any action warrants a proportionate response (e.g., tell the blond kid he's being a creep and walk away). Otherwise, you risk continual escalation (what if the blond kid shoots back in 'self-defence'?)
Without a lot more context, you don't know that it wasn't a proportionate response. It isn't hard to come up with a scenario where it would have been a very restrained response. Maybe she's had a "secret admirer" for some time, who has risen to the level of stalking and making threats. And maybe it was the guy who got punched. We don't know. And by "we," I mean "you."
Re:I can not agree (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing sad about booking that guy - any action warrants a proportionate response (e.g., tell the blond kid he's being a creep and walk away).
If life were only that simple. If the dude was arrogant enough in the first place this just encourages the behaviour. Chances are you can't just walk away from this situation since the purpose of this act is to elicit a reaction for the video.
What's sad is that some people think that walking away from a bully always works. Most of the time it results in the bully escalating the behaviour. It doesn't stop a teenagers.
Re: (Score:3)
There was no attacker. Unless you want to call the brute the attacker.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
'Fighting words' is *extremely* narrow, this case wouldn't qualify:
http://www.langston.com/Fun_Pe... [langston.com]
https://pages.uoregon.edu/tgle... [uoregon.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
Or we could look at actual statues: [ca.gov]
California Penal Code 415.
Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment and fine:
. . .
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.
It's not clear cut, but it's a viable defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Even then, you have no permit to legally come with violence in response to somebody being nasty and inappropriate. You can suggest to f*ck-off, and many times so, you may lose balance and sacrifice remains of your smoothie over dude's personae, if he is conscious enough to receive the lesson, maxing on the limits of proportionate response. You may be forced to leave the place, if being there is sick endeavor because of somebody behaving asocial, while staff of the place couldn't be helping for some reason.
Re:I can not agree (Score:4, Insightful)
The correct response is for the girl to tell the guy to get lost and stop being a creep.
Her boyfriend should step in to back her up if needed, but take no action other than that - after all, she is not his possession and it's entirely her choice to decide if she wants to go with the creep or continue on with her boyfriend.
I know my wife would come out with a cutting but probably still funny comment that would totally put the guy in his place.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed.
I've had this happen to me in Nashville. Walking through a beat up neighbourhood, nobody around, a large man walks up to us.
"How you doing?" he asked.
"Doing ok," I replied.
He nodded at that, just kept walking. As he went past us he told me, "That's a mighty fine looking woman."
Her response? Amusement but no reply. My response? Squeezed her hand gently and kept walking.
What, I'm meant to get upset that someone else agrees she's nice? She's meant to get upset at a compliment? We're meant to kick off an
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. Sensible enough we can hope to find him guilty of assault.
Someone saying nice things to someone else is not fighting fucking words.
Saw this a while back (Score:3)
That was my thought too.... (Score:2)
Personally I've always wondered why someone doesn't punch out the cameraman in these kinds of things.
I was wondering the same thing, why do the cameramen in theses staged arrangements get off scott free?
I don't know about punching them, but I can imagine as soon as something like that event happened, look around, grab the camera away from the cameraman, then go spread ketchup on it and hand it back to them. You would get in way less trouble I think for light property damage that didn't even harm the phone,
Re: (Score:2)
Adding bit of ketchup to the game-play seems to be appropriate turn, much better than finding yourself held responsible for the injury to somebody who had his prank odd. The overalls guy should be reconsidered more than the silly other, actually.
Say again? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think we can agree that a punch would not be justified if Blond Kid were professing his love sincerely.
I don't know where the author grew up, but in the various towns I lived in as a youth (stretching all the way from California to the midwest to the south) if you walked up to a guys girlfriend and starting macking on her in his presence, you were gonna get floored. That's just seen as an in-your-face challenge.
Re: Say again? (Score:3)
More of that toxic masculinity I keep reading about. The more enlightened male would of course allow his woman every opportunity to make a considered and deliberative choice each time some rando started putting the moves on her. To immediately and instinctively shut down unsolicited sexual propositions on her behalf would just be gauche.
Re: Say again? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between flirting and getting in someone's face weirdly. Professing your love to a strange woman in front of her companion is just NOT normal behavior. It suggests you're dangerously unhinged and therefore a potential threat.
A good punch in the face might be mean, but it discourages people from faking that behavior and if real it sets the crazy person back long enough for you to get away before THEY do something physical first.
Re: Say again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mace/Pepper spray was invented for such occasions and less hard on the knuckles.
Re: (Score:2)
Quick tip, if a man is mad enough, pepper spray doesn't work. Use the bear spray, it will down a marine.
Don't ask me how I know.
Re: (Score:2)
I do know, and you are right, you have about 5 to 15 extra seconds or more with pepper spray than with bear mace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Physical violence BEFORE the other one comes with such - don't you really expect to be accountable, or worse - facing arms involved for defense of that other? His friend joining to give you the next lesson? It starts with crap, but you move to the bigger crap very likely. Good for you, if you get away just with disposed knuckle and pride of a lesson given. Wishful thinking it may be.
Professing fighter's first task is to avoid the fight altogether.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was just peaceful proposal, even if inappropriate one. Nasty, disruptive, made-up. Pretty bad, yet: responded with the act of physical violence.
Re: Say again? (Score:3)
what the hell, why are you encouraging physically scarring people for life on their face for being annoying?
Re: Say again? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Say again? (Score:5, Insightful)
More of that toxic masculinity I keep reading about.
Well quite, and you're demonstrating that you're a part of it.
Why punch the guy? If I punched every massively annoying dickhead I encountered, then a few of my co-workers would have black eyes, along with the odd builder, a couple of Jehova's witnesses and the guy who keeps parking on the pavement because he thinks his car is so special.
Why reach for violence when someone isn't a threat to you?
To immediately and instinctively shut down unsolicited sexual propositions
Yeah because escalating with violence is guaranteed to shut things down quickly and effectively. :eyeroll:
Re: (Score:2)
Usually there's a no-uncertain-terms face-to-face warning first. If he tries a second time, he's given a free personal planetarium.
Yep. I am old. (Score:2, Troll)
I think âoehe had it comingâ should be an acceptable defense for this response, if charged. Might not win, but it should be okay as a plea. Then the lawyers can advance potions of the âoeshould have known betterâ and âoeI know jackassery when I see itâ subsections for debate.
Iâ(TM)ve been punched in the face. Given sufficient time to reflect, I deserved it.
Re: Yep. I am old. (Score:2)
Dammit. Both Apple and slashdot are fuckheads for not dealing with these character set issues.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a jarjar phone. Deal with it.
Don't they even let you install a third party keyboard that uses ascii for basic punctuation?
Re: (Score:2)
Jarjar always blames the place he's at for his accent.
Maybe
"âoehe had it comingâ" and
"âoeshould have known betterâ"
Re: (Score:2)
Or... you could turn off "smart" quotes in your preferences.
(or "stupid" quotes as everybody else calls them)
Re: (Score:2)
This reflects on you, and all the other owners of retarded phones.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The classic phrase from the old west movies, "them's fightin' words!" has an actual, legal basis, as defined by a series of law suits up to and including at the US Supreme Court. They are not protected speech, under the First Amendment. Fighting words are ones that are intended to incite violence, and, when uttered, actions taken against them are not necessarily held to the same legal standard as they would be otherwise.
It's pretty clear in this case (and similar ones), that the agent provocateur intends
Re:Yep. I am old. (Score:4, Informative)
It's pretty clear in this case (and similar ones), that the agent provocateur intends to elicit a specific reaction. He gets what he deserves.
You should be careful because the law around this changes depending on what state you are in.
Re:Yep. I am old. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty sure the guy was in an angry state.
Re: Yep. I am old. (Score:3)
And you would be stupid to react with violence, which is a crime, while on camera.
They have recorded your behaviour and you can't possibly deny it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Provoking is not aggression. As it was not even provoking aggression - guy or girl herself could have been done with a swearword or even with their turn of the play. Guy deliberately chose to respond with a violence. If he is doing this everywhere, her miniskirt triggers attention, he might be on the way into the trouble.
Facial Recognition to the rescue (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch civility return
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has good enough facial recognition to recognize anyone in their videos. I am sure Youtube and Tiktok can whip together the same. As most of these prank videos are in it for the likes which in turn sends ad dollars their way just hit them where it hurts. Pass a law which says all earnings from a video need to go to all participants in a video other than the author automatically. proceeds will only go to the author if they can provide a documented consent form to facebook/youtube/tiktok etc. Watch civility return
There may be no need for a law as they probably would need a release or risk having the people featured forcing the video to be taken down and possible suing for damages. IIRC, there is a difference between someone in a public place being incidentally in a video and being a featured part of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this might fall under "Reasonable expectations of reasonable people" for the guy and the girl. and the interviewer broke the 4th.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So what? People in the backgrounds of movies are called extras and are being paid too.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the difference is that someone being forced into the perspective vs. being paid and part of the perspective of the action. I myself and a few friends have accidently been in movies for entire scenes without pay. We were also on park bench's in NYC in central park having conversation and focused on ourselves. We were never the focus of the camera, I do find it funny that my friend is in "Kiss Me, Guido" and literally body blocks the actor and keeps walking and cursing.
Re: (Score:2)
Along the same lines. If you commit a crime just to increase your clout and get followers.
Instead of sending the person to prison, just have them delete their social account and any large following they accumulated. Let them restart from scratch.
Now, I'm not saying this punishment would work for everybody, but for some idiots, like the guy who blocked a train to make a viral video, or the guy who pretended to pass out in a car to make a viral video. Doing this would be better than sending them to prison (wh
Viral? (Score:4, Insightful)
How does anybody know that a video will go viral, when it is still being filmed?
You don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe someone's filming a virus?
Re: (Score:2)
Or filming people who are contagious? Given the current pandemic and statistics about infected people, wouldn't that mean that almost all videos shot in public spaces are viral?
Spontaneous? Yeah right (Score:2)
It's a naive fantasy that you can make a video, and it's so great that throngs of people suddenly start watching it. Oh sure, maybe it has happened a few times, but the vast majority of "viral" videos become widespread through carefully orchestrated marketing campaigns.
It's a lot like the naive fantasy that if you can just "get a patent" your invention will make you rich. The reality is that you still have to convince people to use your invention, in order to make money. And that is done through good old fa
Re: (Score:2)
Dancing Baby video.
Re: (Score:2)
That was launched from Ally McBeal and had a marketing agency behind it.
https://www.vulture.com/articl... [vulture.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot like the naive fantasy that if you can just "get a patent" your invention will make you rich. The reality is that you still have to convince people to use your invention, in order to make money. And that is done through good old fashioned marketing.
Getting a patent on an idea and then doing nothing is not a naive fantasy. It's patent trolling, and because you have no development, manufacturing or marketing costs it can be an easier road to riches than actually selling a produt.
I can sorta relate (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had this happen to me as a teen, except there was no second guy: the girl flattened me.
Re: (Score:2)
to really stop it, (Score:4, Insightful)
punch the person holding the camera.
Re: (Score:2)
To really stop it you have to nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Let them do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Start shit, get hit (Score:2)
Good citizens deserve a safe, courteous society and I don't care what is done to those who choose to disrupt that including lethal force.
Learn to behave or bleed. Courtesy is dead because there are no consequences for anything. Immediate brutal correction is all the average idiot understands so beat them the fuck down.
Give respect, get respect. Start shit, get hit. That's natural justice.
Grey zones exist (Score:4, Insightful)
There are things that are fine and legal.
There are things that are not legal but still fine because of specifics that can't easily be codified into law.
There are things that are not fine but understandable - things people do that can't really be justified but impinge enough on the meaning in our lives that decent people will do anyhow, and accept the risk of consequences
There are things that are not understandable ranging all the way to monstrous
Hitting the dude probably fits in the "not fine but understandable" bucket.
Lol (Score:3)
"What are we willing to condone?"
Asskickings. Without hesitation. Next question.
No. (Score:4, Informative)
"I think we can agree that a punch would not be justified if Blond Kid were professing his love sincerely"
Speak for yourself. Some of us still have a working moral compass.
The absolute disrespect it takes to profess your love to a woman you KNOW is in a relationship, because her partner stands RIGHT THERE, is deserving of getting your features rearranged.
Granted, it would elevate my respect for the disrespected if they did not lash out with violence but I see absolutely no reason to think overall boy handled things wrongly even if that had been sincere. It was a proper solution, just not the most mature one.
By the way, before some soyboy asshat gets any ideas, the disrespect here wasn't merely towards overall boy. It was towards the girl as well. If you respect a woman, you will for one not put her on display like this and two accept that she has chosen a mate. If she previously didn't know you existed, perhaps you'd want to introduce yourself first before professing your love or if she did know you, she clearly did not think you were better than the guy she currently has.
So what the fuck is your business acting like that... at all?
Grow some skin (Score:3)
I can readily agree that everyone and anyone involved with making prank videos involving people who did not give prior consent to be in them (they can still involve the element of surprise if timing and/or nature are kept secret) is some kind of jackass, but not that it is acceptable to initiate physical violence against them. Nothing positive lies down that road. Physical violence is reserved for cases of physical violence, which may include threat (e.g. it is perfectly acceptable in my view to do any necessary amount of harm to someone who points a gun at you in order to get them to stop.)
There are other, less obvious cases in which I think violence is warranted, but using physical violence for mere annoyance is not one of them.
With that said, I do believe that people who involve others in their schemes unwillingly should be subjected to some form of appropriate and restorative punishment, whether that's a fine with the proceeds paid to the unwitting victim, or just frankly anything else that will successfully dissuade them from continuing.
Violence (Score:3)
>"I think we can agree that a punch would not be justified if Blond Kid were professing his love sincerely."
It isn't justified regardless. I can certainly understand the desire, however.
>"Overalls Kid is part of a history of violent resistance to foreign influence that Americans will recognize in everything from the Boston Tea Party"
That wasn't a violent resistance, it was actually a good example of non-violence resistance.
Re: (Score:3)
yes and the challenge is older than phones, guys betting or daring each other to do such things is a BIT older than cell phone. And history includes the fist fight parts too.
Re: (Score:3)
There is, in my country at least. If you take pictures of me, you're wrong. If you publish them, be prepared to be sued the pants off your ass.