If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   Group thinks they can stop binge drinking by posting videos on YouTube that mock drunk people out in public and shame them into sobriety   (thesun.co.uk) divider line 71
    More: Unlikely, walk of shame, YouTube, Diageo, Captain Morgan, Smirnoff  
•       •       •

4565 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jul 2013 at 9:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-14 08:02:53 AM
nope
 
2013-07-14 08:22:34 AM
I quite like the point of the video, and at some moment in our lives those could have been any one of us farkers. Psychologically speaking, public shaming is an extremely effective form of punishment (when used as pure punishment with no reward) (see advanced psychology textbook chapter on punishment vs reward).
 
2013-07-14 08:38:04 AM
I am consistently glad that the internet was still mostly used for academic purposes, and no one carried phones capable of taking video, when I was in college.
 
2013-07-14 09:23:08 AM
Brilliant!  From shame to sobriety!  What could possibly go wrong there?
 
2013-07-14 09:23:42 AM
Glad no one was able to film me the time I was so drunk in a bar, I went to the bathroom and blacked out in a handicap stall. Don't know how long I was on the floor but that was scary.

And the dude who filmed the guy falling on the escalator was an asshole. He's lucky the guy didn't get hurt by the escalator.
 
2013-07-14 09:26:46 AM
I love that whomever took that "hung over" photo at the top couldn't even be bothered to find empty cans and bottles.
 
2013-07-14 09:29:43 AM
So, what's a clearer demonstration of someone who's social functions need improvement:  A person able to navigate their path home after joining friends in the world's oldest festive traditions...or someone who camps out on the cold streets at night trying to film the aftermath in hopes that they get some attention?
 
2013-07-14 09:30:25 AM
Good thing punishment and public shame works so well for substance and chemical addictions.

Oh wait.

/you're not helping
 
2013-07-14 09:30:49 AM

JackalRabbit: nope


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

it's a JACKAL!!
 
2013-07-14 09:41:47 AM

fullyautomatic: I quite like the point of the video, and at some moment in our lives those could have been any one of us farkers. Psychologically speaking, public shaming is an extremely effective form of punishment (when used as pure punishment with no reward) (see advanced psychology textbook chapter on punishment vs reward).


No it's not. I work at a pizza joint with a bunch of high school an college students. All these videos do is encourage them to see if they can top them. For a while it was kind of funny, but now it jut makes me weep for the future.
 
2013-07-14 09:44:00 AM
Any time I see a campaign being led by an alcohol or cigarette company willingly paying for a campaign against their own product, I just assume they picked what they knew would be the least effective option.  It's all PR bullshiat, usually to get the government or religious people off their back.

Drink responsibly
 
2013-07-14 09:44:33 AM
Watching "The Boy Who Drank Too Much," starring Scott Baio as Buff Saunders, set me straight.

/no it didn't.
 
2013-07-14 09:47:33 AM
Filming drunk people can only be fun while drunk.
 
2013-07-14 09:48:40 AM
If they're addicted, they won't care. If they're young and had a good time and can't wait until next weekend, they won't care. If they're a politician, they'll issue an oh-so-sorry apology but won't care. If they're a job applicant they'll be confronted by a potential employer enjoying the shaming but who doesn't care. If it's a grand kid, grandpa will chuckle and tell you about that time back in '52 and he still doesn't care.

Etc.

The sadistic desire to punish others, especially over having had a  good time, is damn strong.
 
2013-07-14 09:57:09 AM
Worked for Hasselhoff, right? No problems after the cheeseburger thing?

/posting this with a wicked hangover
 
2013-07-14 09:57:22 AM
This sounds like a good idea up until the time they start harassing a belligerent drunk and find themselves getting their ass kicked on camera. I'd probably watch that video.

/Mind your own damn business
//Might be a bit moody this morning
///Maybe a beer will cheer me up
 
2013-07-14 09:57:39 AM

edmo: If they're addicted, they won't care. If they're young and had a good time and can't wait until next weekend, they won't care. If they're a politician, they'll issue an oh-so-sorry apology but won't care. If they're a job applicant they'll be confronted by a potential employer enjoying the shaming but who doesn't care. If it's a grand kid, grandpa will chuckle and tell you about that time back in '52 and he still doesn't care.

Etc.

The sadistic desire to punish others, especially over having had a  good time, is damn strong.


So reckless driving shouldn't be a thing?
 
2013-07-14 10:00:59 AM
Euphoric RECALL!
 
2013-07-14 10:02:31 AM

namegoeshere: I am consistently glad that the internet was still mostly used for academic purposes, and no one carried phones capable of taking video, when I was in college.


ditto.
 
2013-07-14 10:13:59 AM

FrancoFile: So reckless driving shouldn't be a thing?


I've done some of that. But sober. So your point is?
 
2013-07-14 10:14:36 AM

glmorrs1: fullyautomatic: I quite like the point of the video, and at some moment in our lives those could have been any one of us farkers. Psychologically speaking, public shaming is an extremely effective form of punishment (when used as pure punishment with no reward) (see advanced psychology textbook chapter on punishment vs reward).

No it's not. I work at a pizza joint with a bunch of high school an college students. All these videos do is encourage them to see if they can top them. For a while it was kind of funny, but now it jut makes me weep for the future.


That's like the breathalyzers they used to put in bars. They had to take them all out again when customers were competing for high score.
 
2013-07-14 10:15:04 AM
I keep a picture of my post-faceplant daughter in a hospital bed for exactly the same reason.
That said this video won't accomplish anything and will only serve to amuse other drunken idiots.
 
2013-07-14 10:16:07 AM

mcmnky: namegoeshere: I am consistently glad that the internet was still mostly used for academic purposes, and no one carried phones capable of taking video, when I was in college.

ditto.


What was this utopian time of which you speak?
 
2013-07-14 10:24:57 AM

FrancoFile: edmo: If they're addicted, they won't care. If they're young and had a good time and can't wait until next weekend, they won't care. If they're a politician, they'll issue an oh-so-sorry apology but won't care. If they're a job applicant they'll be confronted by a potential employer enjoying the shaming but who doesn't care. If it's a grand kid, grandpa will chuckle and tell you about that time back in '52 and he still doesn't care.

Etc.

The sadistic desire to punish others, especially over having had a  good time, is damn strong.

So reckless driving shouldn't be a thing?


This swerving, terse and irrelevent response is a really good example of "proof by by weak best counterargument". User FrancoFile is trying to imply that user edmo approves of reckless driving. However, there is nothing in edmo's comments to suggest this. FrancoFile has taken edmo's comment that seems to support people having a good time, and interpreted it as support for reckless driving. In FrancoFile's mind, he probably thinks that people who do reckless driving are having a good time. Maybe they are. But FF tries to turn that around and assert the converse i.e. that those who have a good time are guilty of reckless driving, and from there he has decided to accuse edmo of supporting reckless driving. There is no support for this position in edmo's comments.

Further, FF has used a short and sarcastic format for his comment, and what appears to be an unnatural colloquialism (i.e. FF would not normally use it if not to get an effect). The affect* FF is trying to achieve is a kind of off-hand casualness. He tries to show that he is not worried about the issue, that it does not occupy his mind, and that he could "take it or leave it" as it were. Obviously, on an internet forum, some effort was made to actually type out the comment itself. And for this reason one should normally be suspicious of those who post while saying (or trying to suggest) that they don't really care. Particularly in the case of "<plonk>" comments, but I digress.

Now the playing down, sarcasm and rhetorical question** all imply some sort of emotional involvement on FF's part. Was a family member flattened by a reckless driver? Was FF once urinated on by a drunk? Certainly, this emotional angle suggest that in actual fact FF really does not know the difference between having a good time and reckless driving. He actually sees the two as synonymous. If we give FF the credit of saying he does not do reckless driving himself, we are forced to conclude, based on his world view inferred from his comment, that he does not have a good time.

He evidently lives a miserable, empty life, devoid of parties and social interaction. His is a live of consuming, bitter envy, expressed in pointless little comments such as the above on forums. A sad man in every way, his impact on the human race is that if a feather, broken and torn and smeared with bird poo.

* yes, affect
** actually no such thing on forums
 
2013-07-14 10:39:57 AM
While you may not agree, such a point of view does has a longstanding tradition.
Consider this famous, yet obscure poet:

"Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.
Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks,
who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent."
 
2013-07-14 10:43:37 AM

Mister Buttons: Any time I see a campaign being led by an alcohol or cigarette company willingly paying for a campaign against their own product, I just assume they picked what they knew would be the least effective option.  It's all PR bullshiat, usually to get the government or religious people off their back.


THIS

It's a clever campaign. "Look at how dumb drinkers are". And that'll work on the humourless puritans - they'll think it's the booze industry doing their job, but for people with a sense of humour, we are laughing along with them, because we've all been there. I'm even looking at those videos and thinking "you know what, I really haven't had a serious night out with the guys for a while".

You'll get people to stop getting drunk when the downsides far outweigh the upsides. I've been out, got drunk, had a good time with friends and then fallen over on the pavement and grazed my face and you know, the evening was still worth it. We all know the odds of something seriously bad happening because it hardly ever happens to us or our friends.
 
2013-07-14 10:48:59 AM
nextimpulsesports.comwww.mystatecollegelawyer.comweeklysnooze.files.wordpress.comcl.jroo.me
 
2013-07-14 10:53:32 AM

OKObserver: Brilliant!  From shame to sobriety!  What could possibly go wrong there?



Someone is going to get hurt. You can't fark with people's livelihood and expect no consequences.
 
2013-07-14 10:54:10 AM
Is this going to work as well as slut-shaming?
 
2013-07-14 11:03:58 AM
Drinks maker Diageo hopes the one-minute film will encourage one million youngsters to drink responsibly.

Quick, someone explain to these people how addiction works.

/Step 1: We admitted that we were embarrassed by a YouTube video, and could not repair our reputation.
 
2013-07-14 11:10:05 AM
They're using those videos to shame people into sobriety? I use them to laugh at later.

/party neighborhood
//you all look like complete idiots when you get wasted
 
2013-07-14 11:11:54 AM

Chafed Willi: Worked for Hasselhoff, right? No problems after the cheeseburger thing?

/posting this with a wicked hangover


She wasn't trying to shame him. She was trying to show the world what he was actually like.
 
2013-07-14 11:13:49 AM
Only rich people should be allowed to drink.
 
2013-07-14 11:13:51 AM

StoPPeRmobile: OKObserver: Brilliant!  From shame to sobriety!  What could possibly go wrong there?


Someone is going to get hurt. You can't fark with people's livelihood and expect no consequences.


Your livelihood involves you going out, getting wasted, and acting a fool in public?
 
2013-07-14 11:14:58 AM
I don't know what's worse: nosy HRs and recruiters perusing that site to see who they'll fire or not hire, or drunkards discouraged into getting or staying drunk because they live in a society where jobs are a luxury item in the first place.
 
2013-07-14 11:18:58 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: StoPPeRmobile: OKObserver: Brilliant!  From shame to sobriety!  What could possibly go wrong there?


Someone is going to get hurt. You can't fark with people's livelihood and expect no consequences.

Your livelihood involves you going out, getting wasted, and acting a fool in public?




No, I'm not a politician.
 
2013-07-14 11:20:57 AM
If there's one thing Diageo wants to do, it's discourage people from drinking.
 
2013-07-14 11:29:45 AM

THE GREAT NAME: FrancoFile: edmo: If they're addicted, they won't care. If they're young and had a good time and can't wait until next weekend, they won't care. If they're a politician, they'll issue an oh-so-sorry apology but won't care. If they're a job applicant they'll be confronted by a potential employer enjoying the shaming but who doesn't care. If it's a grand kid, grandpa will chuckle and tell you about that time back in '52 and he still doesn't care.

Etc.

The sadistic desire to punish others, especially over having had a  good time, is damn strong.

So reckless driving shouldn't be a thing?

This swerving, terse and irrelevent response is a really good example of "proof by by weak best counterargument". User FrancoFile is trying to imply that user edmo approves of reckless driving. However, there is nothing in edmo's comments to suggest this. FrancoFile has taken edmo's comment that seems to support people having a good time, and interpreted it as support for reckless driving. In FrancoFile's mind, he probably thinks that people who do reckless driving are having a good time. Maybe they are. But FF tries to turn that around and assert the converse i.e. that those who have a good time are guilty of reckless driving, and from there he has decided to accuse edmo of supporting reckless driving. There is no support for this position in edmo's comments.

Further, FF has used a short and sarcastic format for his comment, and what appears to be an unnatural colloquialism (i.e. FF would not normally use it if not to get an effect). The affect* FF is trying to achieve is a kind of off-hand casualness. He tries to show that he is not worried about the issue, that it does not occupy his mind, and that he could "take it or leave it" as it were. Obviously, on an internet forum, some effort was made to actually type out the comment itself. And for this reason one should normally be suspicious of those who post while saying (or trying to suggest) that they don't really care. Particular ...


TGN starts logically, albeit pedantically, and gradually increases the personal attacks against me.  Then in the last paragraph they increase exponentially.

TGN did this for one of three reasons
1) He's attempting to troll, but only succeeding at a rate of 6/10 by trying to hard in the last paragraph
2) He's ironically commenting on the pop-psychology and philosophy 101 arguments that proliferate on Fark
3) He really means what he says, in which case I will favorite him as "moran"

/no problem with being drunk
//I sell alcohol for a living
///ad campaign is stupid and largely ineffective; better to use norming
//punish people who are a danger to others, who are an extreme danger to themselves, or who violate the social contract so egregiously that they become a major nuisance and/or cost to society
/fun has nothing to do with it
 
2013-07-14 11:34:57 AM
FrancoFile:

TGN did this for one of three reasons
1) He's attempting to troll, but only succeeding at a rate of 6/10 by trying to hard in the last paragraph
2) He's ironically commenting on the pop-psychology and philosophy 101 arguments that proliferate on Fark
3) He really means what he says, in which case I will favorite him as "moran"

/no problem with being drunk
//I sell alcohol for a living
///ad campaign is stupid and largely ineffective; better to use norming
//punish people who are a danger to others, who are an extreme danger to themselves, or who violate the social contract so egregiously that they become a major nuisance and/or cost to society
/fun has nothing to do with it
This defensive, self-conscious and diversionary response proves NAME's analysis was indeed correct.
 
2013-07-14 11:35:11 AM
And the difference between this and bullying is what exactly?
 
2013-07-14 11:38:16 AM

FrancoFile: THE GREAT NAME: FrancoFile: edmo: If they're addicted, they won't care. If they're young and had a good time and can't wait until next weekend, they won't care. If they're a politician, they'll issue an oh-so-sorry apology but won't care. If they're a job applicant they'll be confronted by a potential employer enjoying the shaming but who doesn't care. If it's a grand kid, grandpa will chuckle and tell you about that time back in '52 and he still doesn't care.

Etc.

The sadistic desire to punish others, especially over having had a  good time, is damn strong.

So reckless driving shouldn't be a thing?

This swerving, terse and irrelevent response is a really good example of "proof by by weak best counterargument". User FrancoFile is trying to imply that user edmo approves of reckless driving. However, there is nothing in edmo's comments to suggest this. FrancoFile has taken edmo's comment that seems to support people having a good time, and interpreted it as support for reckless driving. In FrancoFile's mind, he probably thinks that people who do reckless driving are having a good time. Maybe they are. But FF tries to turn that around and assert the converse i.e. that those who have a good time are guilty of reckless driving, and from there he has decided to accuse edmo of supporting reckless driving. There is no support for this position in edmo's comments.

Further, FF has used a short and sarcastic format for his comment, and what appears to be an unnatural colloquialism (i.e. FF would not normally use it if not to get an effect). The affect* FF is trying to achieve is a kind of off-hand casualness. He tries to show that he is not worried about the issue, that it does not occupy his mind, and that he could "take it or leave it" as it were. Obviously, on an internet forum, some effort was made to actually type out the comment itself. And for this reason one should normally be suspicious of those who post while saying (or trying to suggest) that they don't really ...



Geez dude, can you be more obvious?
 
2013-07-14 11:38:52 AM

Z1P2: And the difference between this and bullying is what exactly?


A long as Facemybook is involved, it's bullying.
 
2013-07-14 11:38:56 AM

Z1P2: And the difference between this and bullying is what exactly?


I wouldn't say bullying.  More like slut-shaming, but for drunk people.  At least it's more unisex than typical slut-shaming.  Still reprehensible, though.
 
2013-07-14 11:48:50 AM
FrancoFile: So reckless driving shouldn't be a thing?
StopperMobile: Geez dude, can you be more obvious?

Separated at birth?
 
2013-07-14 11:56:52 AM

THE GREAT NAME: FrancoFile: So reckless driving shouldn't be a thing?
StopperMobile: Geez dude, can you be more obvious?

Separated at birth?




American hostpitals, what are you gonna do.
 
2013-07-14 12:05:35 PM
THE GREAT NAME:  The affect* FF is trying to achieve is a kind of off-hand casualness. He tries to show that he is not worried about the issue, that it does not occupy his mind, and that he could "take it or leave it" as it were. Obviously, on an internet forum, some effort was made to actually type out the comment itself. And for this reason one should normally be suspicious of those who post while saying (or trying to suggest) that they don't really care. Particularly in the case of "<plonk>" comments, but I digress.

Now the playing down, sarcasm and rhetorical question** all imply some sort of emotional involvement on FF's part. Was a family member flattened by a reckless driver? Was FF once urinated on by a drunk? Certainly, this emotional angle suggest that in actual fact FF really does not know the difference between having a good time and reckless driving. He actually sees the two as synonymous. If we give FF the credit of saying he does not do reckless driving himself, we are forced to conclude, based on his world view inferred from his comment, that he does not have a good time.

He evidently lives a miserable, empty life, devoid of parties and social interaction. His is a live of consuming, bitter envy, expressed in pointless little comments such as the above on forums. A sad man in every way, his impact on the human race is that if a feather, broken and torn and smeared with bird poo.

* yes, affect
** actually no such thing on forums

-----
WRONG!! FAIL!!!!!
You mean *effect not affect
. I just love it when people try to seem smart with this one and screw it up. I am a perfectionist when it comes to our language, and this type of thing irks me beyond measure. Please remove whatever college degrees you may have from the wall and place immediately into the shredder. I keep this one bookmarked just for this:  http://www.dailywritingtips.com/affect-vs-effect/
Affect is a verb, exception joined with  -ion like affection. Effect is a noun, defined as the result of a cause. Used in your sentence it would be:  The effect [result of a cause] FF is trying to achieve is a kind of off-hand casualness. Or you could say: FF is trying to affect us in a kind of off-hand casual way.
 
2013-07-14 12:10:05 PM
Wow.  One snarky comment, and one snarky reply, and I've unleashed a troll-storm.

I think I'm done Farking for a while...
 
2013-07-14 12:12:37 PM

fullyautomatic: WRONG!! FAIL!!!!!
You mean *effect not affect. I just love it when people try to seem smart with this one and screw it up. I am a perfectionist when it comes to our language, and this type of thing irks me beyond measure. Please remove whatever college degrees you may have from the wall and place immediately into the shredder.


Dude, it's a message board post, not a English doctorate thesis. People make typos, a lot (or is it alot??? Oh no) of them write these things on their phones. No one's impressed by your lording your knowledge of 8th grade grammar over us.
 
2013-07-14 12:13:09 PM

FrancoFile: Wow.  One snarky comment, and one snarky reply, and I've unleashed a troll-storm.

I think I'm done Farking for a while...


FrancoFile: Wow.  One snarky comment, and one snarky reply, and I've unleashed a troll-storm.

I think I'm done Farking for a while...




Effective affection.

t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-14 12:58:30 PM

fullyautomatic: THE GREAT NAME:  ...affect...
-----
WRONG!! FIAL!!!!!


See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect. Try to keep from soiling your diaper again until you get to the third paragraph of the intro.

PS spelling fail: it's FAIL not FIAL
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report