Octopus Overlords

“TikToker Miranda Baker posted several videos on Friday saying she and her boyfriend gave Laundrie a ride at 5.30pm on August 29 - three days after Petito's last confirmed sighting at the Fairfield Inn and Suites in Salt Lake City, Utah.”

“TikToker”?!

First, wouldn’t that be pronounced with a long ‘o’?
Second, are we really doing this now? Referring to people by the social platforms they use? Jesus.

Anyway, apparently BF (only, no GF) approached this couple and offered them $200 for a ride.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:51 pm
“TikToker”?!

First, wouldn’t that be pronounced with a long ‘o’?

I rule "TikTokker." If there were a TikToke I would know about it.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:51 pm Second, are we really doing this now? Referring to people by the social platforms they use? Jesus.

The Oxford English Dictionary added "YouTuber" to its lexicon in 2016.

OOers will never fall into that habit.

As my first post after blinking awake I wrote something disparaging about so-called "tiktokkers" before realizing it may not be appropriate for the thread.

I don't think it's strange to be indentified by your hobby or profession. E.g. footballer, drummer, machinist, etc. The outrage comes from our disgust at people being able to make a living (occasionally exorbitant) at something we consider superficial and inauthentic.

That said, I'll say tiktokker but I'm not stylizing it. I write Iphone too, because screw brands.

The term I hate and seethe at is social influencer. To me you are nothing. Less than nothing.

Many of them work very hard at what they do. If it seems distasteful, the blame is as much society's, and in some ways our own. We may not be the ones clicking on sponsored makeup tips videos, but there are likely many things we do engage with that feed into the same shallow systems and unethical economies. E.g. is spending the afternoon watching Fox Sports (or whatever) more enriching than The Kardashians?

Though I do agree the term itself (social influencer) is eye-rollingly arrogant.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:38 am OOers will never fall into that habit.

More like social influenza.

"Social influencers" have been here all along, they just weren't recognized as such. The difference was that prior to social media they were fewer, as they had to make the 'big time' to become known. Go back to the 50s, 70s, 90s, you name it. They were always there, and they were usually household names. They just didn't have YouTube or TikTok accounts. Instead they had magazine columns, books, cooking shows, specials, did the talk show circuit or had their own. If you add fashion, then the options go through the roof. Celebrity endorsements were just a form of social influence - just ask Michael Jordan.

It's nothing new. It just feels off now that people are doing it at home with no claim to fame (which is false - fame is the only prerequisite to being famous.) But honestly, the reaction our generation has toward it reminds me of the reaction to the idea of online dating 20 years ago, as something that wasn't 'real' and could never be legitimate because it wasn't how it was normally done, and the internet wasn't 'real.'

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:38 am OOers will never fall into that habit.

Touché, good sir, touché!

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:09 pm "Social influencers" have been here all along, they just weren't recognized as such.

This. "Influencer" is a just another way of saying "celebrity." I believe the term originated in the marketing industry in the 2000s, as a way to refer to individuals who weren't celebrities in the traditional sense but had sizable, engaged audiences on social media. (This is informed speculation - I work in communications and this is how I began to encounter the word.)

As a marketing term it's understandable. To self-apply it is something else. You don't see a lot of people anoint themselves celebrities or gurus.

I don't think I'd call it synonymous with celebrity. Rather I'd say it's someone who uses their celebrity to influence choices (usually commercial) for a profit.

In many cases now it's just a cycle - they gain fame from peddling their influence (which, in many cases, starts at zero or is limited to a very small niche), which gains them more fame, which expands their influence, which gains them more fame, and so on. That's what social media really brought to it.

But I have no issue with people self-applying it. It's a job as much as anything, especially when the celebrity comes directly from their effectiveness at the job.

My impression is mostly that those who claim to have influence have little. That or they're not very humble. But I guess social media influencer is slightly less verbose than social media content creator and more elegant than product/service shill.

It's also relevant that it's a trendy thing to be. Claiming the title makes them (in their eyes) cool and impressive. Personally, while I respect that they're working hard at it and if it is paying their bills and giving them their jollies, more power to them. But that doesn't mean I don't still see most of them in the same light as infomercial hawkers and home shopping channel salesmen.

Now, those who are genuinely into a particular subject, make their absolute best and honest recommendations, support their activity and it's community in the process and are able to profit from it - that's something respectable. Hell, is it all that different from being a game reviewer at that point?

Also, we’re old farts. The young padawans absolutely are influenced and in awe of the top social media ‘influencers’.

Even my normally very level-headed, old-souled 17YO seems to get a bit starry-eyed with these types.

For that generation, YouTube, Tiktok, etc fame is just as impressive as fame from more traditional methods. Sports, music, movies, etc.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:02 pm For that generation, YouTube, Tiktok, etc fame is just as impressive as fame from more traditional methods. Sports, music, movies, etc.

What's more, you can do it in your bedroom, and apparently without any necessary support or (initial) sponsorship.

As far as I understand, there are no gatekeepers. Most TikTokers suck, but it's a medium where someone can become a star on the basis of sheer talent and productivity.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:02 pm Also, we’re old farts. The young padawans absolutely are influenced and in awe of the top social media ‘influencers’.

Even my normally very level-headed, old-souled 17YO seems to get a bit starry-eyed with these types.

For that generation, YouTube, Tiktok, etc fame is just as impressive as fame from more traditional methods. Sports, music, movies, etc.

The first time I heard someone referred to as a YouTube personality, as if that's a profession, I couldn't roll my eyes hard enough. But if they're working at it and making a living, why not? YouTube personality can be as much a career as any other kind of self-employment, I reckon.

As for social influencers, the Black Mirror episode "Nosedive" has a great take on that. If you have Netflix, it's worth a watch.

Still no word on Gabby....



For like, the last 10 posts.

I can't imagine there's going to be a good ending to this, but I do hope there is closure regardless. I went from not knowing anything about this last week to seeing it explode on the news, nationwide.

On the plus side, his lawyer will probably get stiffed on his fees.

I wish for a positive ending to this saga even though it seems unlikely. I hope this doesn't come across wrong, but here goes...

This whole media phenomenon (above and beyond the facts of the apparent crime) illustrates the HUGE imbalance in the value we assign to certain kinds of victims and (implicitly) the value we deny to others.

Here we have a case of a young, pretty white girl who has gone missing and possibly been murdered. Social media is riveted, and regular media follows. It's a candidate for crime story of the year and maybe the decade.

Meanwhile, how many of us would even have heard of this if the couple had been black or brown? Or if they had been middle-aged and fairly poor? Or even just kind of unattractive?

We are parsimonious with our concern. We should think about that.

Oh, I'm absolutely aware the only reason this is national news is because it involves an attractive young white woman - no doubt.

Yep. First I saw of it in the news, and the accompanying picture, that was my first thought.

Sooo, consider it…thought?
thoughten
Thoughted
Thoughtified
Thoughticated

Yes and Yes. Totally because of the fact she was an attractive young white woman. Also of interest I reread my original posts and I made it more then clear that I was projecting what I thought the alleged killer was thinking. I was not saying well, here's what I would have done or encouraged him to do. You guys kinda jumped all over my ass for nothing. My apology still stands but in the future I might not be as willing to roll over and apologize for something that if you guys read my posts a little better instead of immediately jumping to the idea that "Drazzil's encouraging depraved violence again" etc.

Really if you guys chose to dog pile me for every little thing, the dogpile just loses value.

That said I meant it when I said I loved you guys. You've always been a fount of wisdom (most of it useful). So take this as you will.

When I first read about it some time back, I thought it was newsworthy because their trip was something of a social network phenomenon that people were following. Unfortunately, you are probably right.

@Drazzil: FWIW it seemed clear to me that you posted that from a ‘alleged murderous bf’ POV.

Freyland wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:19 pm When I first read about it some time back, I thought it was newsworthy because their trip was something of a social network phenomenon that people were following. Unfortunately, you are probably right.

That’s a good point. Both are probably true. They were already being followed online, so when something went wrong, there was more of a splash than say had it happened to a “non-streamed/posted” journey.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pm Here we have a case of a young, pretty white girl who has gone missing and possibly been murdered. Social media is riveted, and regular media follows. It's a candidate for crime story of the year and maybe the decade.

Meanwhile, how many of us would even have heard of this if the couple had been black or brown? Or if they had been middle-aged and fairly poor? Or even just kind of unattractive?

I don't think that's entirely accurate here.

While I don't deny that her looks play a part here (more on that in a second) in the popularity of the story, I honestly think the thing that caught the eye of the country (certainly the thing that made me take note of the case) was this:

That fact Brian came back without her and just sat there (as did his family) and tried to just ignore that fact, without a single comment. How his family's comment was that they were going to 'stay in the background on this'... How her family was begging them to just say something, anything... I mean - I've never heard of anything like that - certainly not 'live' as it was going down.

To me, that was (and remains) the part that stood out to the public mind.


Now, in regard to 'an attractive person' being a celebrated victim (vs the forgotten unattractive victim)... Also, I hope this doesn't come across wrong, but here goes...
I think that's psychologically natural/unavoidable to some degree. An attractive individual is perceived to live "the good life". When we see or hear of "them" victimized/murdered - it paints a more severe picture than if you hear about a old fat bum that was perhaps hit by a car. It's on the same level as a celebrity or royalty being involved in something mundane and people paying attention while normally they wouldn't. "the attractive" are their own small kind of royalty. Gabby is also an interesting example of it too, because she isn't just a pretty face - she is also flawed, and on a human attraction level, I think that makes her even more relatable, and (for instance) even more guys will privately feel heroic in still liking her past that flaw. I guess I mean: she is a sympathetic pretty girl, not just some 'full of herself' obnoxious pretty girl. BTW, Gabby may actually be a 'full of herself' obnoxious girl for all I know - but she didn't come across like that in the very small view I had into her world. Clearly troubled though. But, my point here is just - I don't know if we can 'woke' ourselves out of this one.

It's almost what the word 'attractive' means.

If not before, then certainly now.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:34 pm If not before, then certainly now.

Not sure I follow what this is in reference to, because I added the last two sentences after your post.


Ahhh. She is clearly troubled. Yes.

Unagi wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:29 pm
Now, in regard to 'an attractive person' being a celebrated victim (vs the forgotten unattractive victim)... Also, I hope this doesn't come across wrong, but here goes...
I think that's psychologically natural/unavoidable to some degree. An attractive individual is perceived to live "the good life". When we see or hear of "them" victimized/murdered - it paints a more severe picture than if you hear about a old fat bum that was perhaps hit by a car. It's on the same level as a celebrity or royalty being involved in something mundane and people paying attention while normally they wouldn't. "the attractive" are their own small kind of royalty. Gabby is also an interesting example of it too, because she isn't just a pretty face - she is also flawed, and on a human attraction level, I think that makes her even more relatable, and (for instance) even more guys will privately feel heroic in still liking her past that flaw. I guess I mean: she is a sympathetic pretty girl, not just some 'full of herself' obnoxious pretty girl. BTW, Gabby may actually be a 'full of herself' obnoxious girl for all I know - but she didn't come across like that in the very small view I had into her world. Clearly troubled though. But, my point here is just - I don't know if we can 'woke' ourselves out of this one.

It's almost what the word 'attractive' means.

I think everything you say here supports my point. We care about high-status victims as people. People get personal narratives. We ignore low-status victims or, at best, aggregate them as statistics (the opposite of personal narrative).

That a pretty white girl victim is flawed/obnoxious/whatever doesn't do anything but add to the narrative flavor.

Well they found a body. The only good news is that they may have found her. I can't imagine how horrible it would be never know as a parent. What a horrible story.

Link

A body was found Sunday in a national forest in Teton County, Wyoming, according to County Coroner Dr. Brent Blue.
Additional details were unavailable, Blue told CNN over the phone.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 6:03 pm Link

A body was found Sunday in a national forest in Teton County, Wyoming, according to County Coroner Dr. Brent Blue.
Additional details were unavailable, Blue told CNN over the phone.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:57 pm
I think everything you say here supports my point. We care about high-status victims as people. People get personal narratives. We ignore low-status victims or, at best, aggregate them as statistics (the opposite of personal narrative).

I'm not sure I was even trying to counter you. I was saying I didn't know if there was anything to hope to ever see changed of it. As Forrest Gump's mother never said - attraction is as attraction does.

Even in an ideal world where everyone sincerely cares about the low-status victim equally, there is a limited bandwidth for the media and our attention/time. If 500 women go missing and presumed murdered each year, at a national level, even in that ideal world, there will be stories that attract more attention than others. Obviously attractiveness is one of those attractions.... youth is big too... Anyone looking for Clicks or Views will try and pick the ones most likely to get em...

Now we certainly don't live in that ideal world anyhow... And the media are one thing... I'll share one thing that stood out to me in this whole thing about 'victim status' fairness (or lack there of)...

It was the Utah traffic stop. Now, I think those cops did basically the exact right thing for what they confronted (never mind 20/20 here). They helped keep the couple from being in a lot of legal trouble for what seemed to clearly be more of a mental-health crisis. They -seriously- helped coach Gabby to answer the question about 'did you purposely mean to cause him physical harm?' part of their interview... Something they only seemed to come up with at the last minute, as a "Oh we could use this to help them." idea. And it worked, she answered correctly ("No...") and they immediately steered away from this being a criminal event, something they would need to at the very least cite Gabby for, and instead just separate them for the night. When I watched that transpire, I thought it was wise, kind, and thoughtful of the cops, but then it struck me how a black couple being stopped would (and I don't mean to generalize, but I believe it's likely true) that they would likely not seen the same amount of concern and angst and thought and care put into their case, as Gabby had put into hers.

Which isn't to say they shouldn't have given Gabby this care. And I guess, I feel that way with the media on these things too.... While I wish there was a way for people to see and care about all (hypothetical) 500 missing women, I'm not upset with them putting light on this one.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 6:12 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 6:03 pm Link

A body was found Sunday in a national forest in Teton County, Wyoming, according to County Coroner Dr. Brent Blue.
Additional details were unavailable, Blue told CNN over the phone.

Honestly, that's all the sympathy I wished to see in this. My previous 'call out' was just how you seem to just be so animated and thrilled to share with us the most ugly of reads on everything. I certainly understood you were 'speaking as a deranged Brian'.... I just didn't like zeal with which you took the role, if that makes any sense.