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.
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 : )
> 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.
The blast on TikTok might rate but she's not portrayed in a negative light. Personally I just find it all very weird.
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.
>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"