What's everyone's thoughts?

I have just watched a video of a localish man film on his phone going up to a tent in the woods that's full of snow. Asking the homeless man if he was alright he kept answering yeah and looked like he didn't want to be disturbed. He asked the man to stop filming him, which he turned the camera round so you could still hear the audio.
I think he did some good things for him but,
Do they film for awareness or to show the world their good deed?

Sounds like typical ‘look at me’ Facebook shite that’s actually hiding a myriad of insecurities.

Can’t stand people that do that. Smacks of desperation for attention rather than actually doing a good deed.

People do good deeds for that end- not to virtue signal; virtue signalling is selfish/self centred. (A subject discussed (in outline) centuries ago in Plato's Republic.)
Virtue signalling has reached a historical zenith in these Fb/twitter times.

As soon as you start filming it starts being about you and not the homeless person. I'm all for raising awareness of the plight faced by the homeless but for me this sort of stuff just smacks of self promoting, like craving Instagram douchebags.

A good deed is when you plan to get nothing in return, apart from the good feeling of helping somebody.

So in this instance it wasnt a good deed. Its someone doing something to receive attention/praise in return.

If what he did was of help to the homeless man then I don't care whether he filmed it or not. If his intention was to show the world what a great guy he is then so be it - he still helped the homeless man.

Perhaps those of us who have done nothing should back off with the criticism.

spadesclaret wrote:If what he did was of help to the homeless man then I don't care whether he filmed it or not. If his intention was to show the world what a great guy he is then so be it - he still helped the homeless man.

Perhaps those of us who have done nothing should back off with the criticism.

How do you know none of the people criticizing have helped the homeless? If only we'd filmed it for posterity..

SammyBoy wrote:How do you know none of the people criticizing have helped the homeless? If only we'd filmed it for posterity..

Of course I don't know. However, if someone who has done good but not filmed it is criticising someone who has filmed themselves doing good then I feel they are as bad, or good, as each other.

If someone who has done nothing is criticising the person filming then they are worse.

spadesclaret wrote:Of course I don't know. However, if someone who has done good but not filmed it is criticising someone who has filmed themselves doing good then I feel they are as bad, or good, as each other.

If someone who has done nothing is criticising the person filming then they are worse.

At face value somebody recording themselves giving a homeless person a coffee from Greggs is good, I agree. The fact that in all likelihood the underlying motivation behind filming is to satiate personal narcissism and further their own social media vanity project is to me quite sad. It's possible to look at the situation from more than a binary good/bad perspective.

Great things can be achieved, if people don't care who gets the credit...

Quickenthetempo wrote:What's everyone's thoughts?

I have just watched a video of a localish man film on his phone going up to a tent in the woods that's full of snow. Asking the homeless man if he was alright he kept answering yeah and looked like he didn't want to be disturbed. He asked the man to stop filming him, which he turned the camera round so you could still hear the audio.
I think he did some good things for him but,
Do they film for awareness or to show the world their good deed?

He was probably trying to cottage him.

As per most of the above. A good deed is only a good deed if its done for no reason or expectation of anything or recognition in return.

The minute you film it, photograph it, tell the world about it it loses its value. To you and to the person you did it for.

Clearly there are causes, and charities where awareness is critical. But a general good deed. Just do it if you wanna do it.

bartons baggage wrote:He was probably trying to cottage him.

Was his tent a toilet??

Most homeless people have been evicted from council/housing association homes for nonpayment of rent ie getting the housing benefit paid to them instead of the landlord then spending it on drugs/alcohol or for wrecking houses and disturbing neighbours. Any bleeding heart could bring them in to kip on their settee but they don't. The real crime is the closing of mental hospitals for care in the community, people who are ill should be in secure places where they are warm, fed and medicated instead of out there in the community, cost cutting at its worst a national disgrace. A lot of the genuine homeless fall into this category and anybody who is on the street due to deliberate actions ie rent etc to themselves not the landlord are mentally ill so should be committed and looked after as surely the choice of say Calderstones or the Culvert is a litmus test for sanity.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:As per most of the above. A good deed is only a good deed if its done for no reason or expectation of anything or recognition in return.

The minute you film it, photograph it, tell the world about it it loses its value. To you and to the person you did it for.

Clearly there are causes, and charities where awareness is critical. But a general good deed. Just do it if you wanna do it.

I disagree. A good deed is a good deed. Anyone who feels the need to promote their good deeds is generally a tosser though.

TheFamilyCat wrote:I disagree. A good deed is a good deed. Anyone who feels the need to promote their good deeds is generally a tosser though.

It loses any value though imo if its done purely for ones ego or 'likes'

Facetubes full of them. 'Carried an old ladies shopping today!' Good for you. Im sure some people only do it for the recognition.

I understand your point but if someone has benefited, then it has to be a good thing even if it is a by product of someone boosting their ego.

I doubt the recipient is bothered about their motive if they've got a sandwich/ brew/ fiver or whatever as a result of it.

Look at me im helping the homeless. look at me i have a new job. look at my new car . look at my fit bird. look at my bicep . look at my trainers. look we are at the airport.look i just cooked this meal . look we just walked. me me me me me i i i i me me me.
I like social media it highlights the want to be people from the real deal people. Only thing is you wouldn't hear the real people as they don't require the comfort blanket of social media like all the mindlesd masses.

Sooner some teenage agraphobic brings the whole lot crashing down the better. Id rather be in North Korea than this bollock brains dystopia.

People who films these acts are doing so for selfish gain.

UpTheClaretsFCBK wrote:People who films these acts are doing so for selfish gain.

Spot on. That is the sad reality of what our society has become. Social media fuelled zombies who cant wait to film their next big fbook post. I don't like to think I am better than these mindless dregs. I know it.

UpTheClaretsFCBK wrote:People who films these acts are doing so for selfish gain.

It doesn't alter the fact that the good deed has been done and some unfortunate person has gained from it.

spadesclaret wrote:It doesn't alter the fact that the good deed has been done and some unfortunate person has gained from it.

But would that same person be doing it if the weren’t going to get their coveted likes and shares?

I have my doubts.

It personally costs me between £15-£20 every time I go to Manchester now, I can’t help myself when it comes to giving to the homeless.

spadesclaret wrote:It doesn't alter the fact that the good deed has been done and some unfortunate person has gained from it.

That's not the point some of us are making. We're talking from the 'giver' POV. Not the receiver. The receiver has benefited, which is brilliant. It's the 'giver' that I have a problem with. Because they are 'giving to gain' - they expect something back from it, otherwise I very much doubt they would have done it in the first place. I can only speak for myself, but that's the problem I have when people on social media do this sort of thing.

They are giving to gain exposure, more attention to themselves. Who they are actually helping doesn't matter to them. They are just the vehicle the person is using to get the attention they crave.

In Canterbury there was a girl begging. There are lots of beggars. I wondered what she was doing there. I could see other folk wondering too, either trying to support her, or perhaps to get off with her. She wasn't entirely without female allure. I wondered if it were a police woman or some other kind of scam. She was on her own and 'looking vulnerable' and maybe a pick-up of some sort for whoever. It looked a bit like a ten bob note stuck to the ground, as if it were some kind of 'candid camera' event.

I then saw her 'not begging' with another homeless person and saw she was part of a street gang. That was the summer. A few weeks back she was on the local news, I was absolutely amazed. Her and her partner had been sentenced to 10 years in jail each at Maidstone Crown Court for abusing their one month old child so much, that it had had to have both legs amputated and that the child was also deaf in one ear. The child protection service of whatever it is, said that it was the worst case of child abuse they had come across and that the child was only just saved from death. My suspicions turned out to be correct.

I'm not posting this to vilify the homeless of to create or to reaffirm any prejudices, only to warn folk against being caught up in any misplaced altruism, via any notion (it's massively implied in culture) of do-good-ism, or out of any wishes regarding magnanimity and having got so far in life, I would extend that warning regarding the massive implication in culture regarding the UK's current magnanimity directive from the press, to all one's natural prejudices 'it' is telling us all to just ditch, regarding race, gender, sexuality, nationhood issues that are being pre-emptively forced upon the UK populace via media.

Pstotto wrote:In Canterbury there was a girl begging. There are lots of beggars. I wondered what she was doing there. I could see other folk wondering too, either trying to support her, or perhaps to get off with her. She wasn't entirely without female allure. I wondered if it were a police woman or some other kind of scam. She was on her own and 'looking vulnerable' and maybe a pick-up of some sort for whoever. It looked a bit like a ten bob note stuck to the ground, as if it were some kind of 'candid camera' event.

I then saw her 'not begging' with another homeless person and saw she was part of a street gang. That was the summer. A few weeks back she was on the local news, I was absolutely amazed. Her and her partner had been sentenced to 10 years in jail each at Maidstone Crown Court for abusing their one month old child so much, that it had had to have both legs amputated and that the child was also deaf in one ear. The child protection service of whatever it is, said that it was the worst case of child abuse they had come across and that the child was only just saved from death. My suspicions turned out to be correct.

I'm not posting this to vilify the homeless of to create or to reaffirm any prejudices, only to warn folk against being caught up in any misplaced altruism, via any notion (it's massively implied in culture) of do-good-ism, or out of any wishes regarding magnanimity and having got so far in life, I would extend that warning regarding the massive implication in culture regarding the UK's current magnanimity directive from the press, to all one's natural prejudices 'it' is telling us all to just ditch, regarding race, gender, sexuality, nationhood issues that are being pre-emptively forced upon the UK populace via media.

I saw a woman of similar description the other dsy. Attractive girl but clearly in a rut. I didnt even realise she was supposedly homeless at first. She asked me for money saying she had just got to london and was struggling. I didnt give her anything. Next minute shes with two other homeless guys walking by me wirking out their next tactic, brazen as ****.

In york two weeks ago a guys sat there by a man in a suit whos talking to and helping him.

On the way back 3 of them are there talking about 'swapping shift'

Its a joke. And while id not like to be homeless myself its about time the pandemic was sorted.

I agree. In Padiham a few Christmasses ago there was a Romanian women selling the Big Issue at Tesco There must have been a least 20,000 folk that day, coming into the store and more or less everyone coming in and out of the store was giving her a quid. She might have earned £20,000 in a day. Not a bad career.

I would also like to extend the warning list to religion, 'respecting diversity' immigration (it's not essential for an country), class, drug use, education, town and country, preaching tolerance without any caveats etc. i.e. not just 'go with the flow' willy-nilly, as media gets us all giddy.

UpTheClaretsFCBK wrote:But would that same person be doing it if the weren’t going to get their coveted likes and shares?

I have my doubts.

It personally costs me between £15-£20 every time I go to Manchester now, I can’t help myself when it comes to giving to the homeless.

You have just complained about people bragging about being charitable while bragging about being charitable.

Bfcboyo wrote:Spot on. That is the sad reality of what our society has become. Social media fuelled zombies who cant wait to film their next big fbook post. I don't like to think I am better than these mindless dregs. I know it.

Boyo, I've known people through Fakebook during tragedies who've posted themselves making heart shapes with their hands, or having a group hug with the family. They all have screwed up faces as though they're going to cry, with some dumb slogan written underneath.

These same people then go on holiday and have their photos taken next to a yacht or a sports car, whilst posing with a s**t eating grin.

The UK began it's mass rewarding of ignorance in the 90's and has continued to decline ever since.

Saatchi... Hirst, Emin, Madonna, Blair. Hmm... Where do you think this 'mass-rewarding of ignorance' came from? It seems to be about the destruction of the middle-class by the elite under the auspices of pseudo-proportional media representation. What's that about? Dumb-down says Obama and Blair. Say a prayer for England. I will.

That Florence Nightingale was a self promoter as well, did you see her picture on all those ten pound notes? Swanning around with her candle.

I do find 'Celebs' good deeding with a camera crew right behind them to be utterly false, tedious and narcissistic.
If you're gonna do it, sneak out, do your good deed and sneak back in. No back patting, no one knowing, totally unacknowledged apart maybe from the beneficiary who might proffer a 'thankyou'.

boiledclaret wrote:Boyo, I've known people through Fakebook during tragedies who've posted themselves making heart shapes with their hands, or having a group hug with the family. They all have screwed up faces as though they're going to cry, with some dumb slogan written underneath.

These same people then go on holiday and have their photos taken next to a yacht or a sports car, whilst posing with a s**t eating grin.

The UK began it's mass rewarding of ignorance in the 90's and has continued to decline ever since.

Are we blaming Big Brother, Paul Abbott or Blair?