I think there are plenty of people who want to help, in principle. People also tend to get overwhelmed in a crisis situation and suffer extreme performance anxiety. It's not like we don't know that there are biological underpinnings for this. Consider the effects of epinephrine/adrenaline. It boosts some senses, making you more alert to danger while dulling sensations of physical pain, etc., priming you for fight or flight. However, it also compromises your higher cognitive abilities, memory, etc. PET scans have demonstrated drops in blood flow to areas of the brain handling those things. That is why people trained for emergency situations (EMTs, firefighters, soldiers, etc.) often drill and drill and drill and do so when possible in situations that are close to real emergencies as possible. Such training may reduce the level of epinephrine produced in such situations, or at least increase tolerance to it, while also converting the behaviors required in those situations from ones that require a lot of cognition to ones that are as close to natural instincts as possible. The simple fact is that most people don't have that kind of training and the average person, not very smart to start with, drops a hefty chunk of IQ points in a crisis.

That is only one reason people are bad in a crisis. I already mentioned the group dynamics issue where people in a group can often end up waiting for someone else to act so they can follow, lack confidence in their own abilities, etc., etc. There is also the concern about liability, etc. and an AC that replied to you also said pretty much exactly that in their post: that they had been burned before trying to help and now refuse to.

Right, but I think that would be an example of what I am talking about really. You were upset that their attention was constantly focused on you and it felt aggressive and unsettling. I think it is likely it would have been the same if they were simply staring directly at you, especially right at your eyes.

Well, that's the thing isn't it. The answer to that question is basically everyone. Restaurant, theater, retail store, bank, DMV, anywhere along the road in any public area, etc.; if you go out to eat, you are on camera basically the whole time. Virtually every business has a camera on you, including restaurants. You could argue that it's not pointed directly at you, but that's meaningless for a security camera. If you're in frame, it's pointed at you. The human eye is different. It has high resolution concentrated in central vision, with low resolution in peripheral vision. Being pointed directly at you means something and we instinctively know if means something because of millions and millions of years of evolution that have programmed us to instinctively understand what eye focus can mean. Now, the ubiquitous cameras also provoke those same instincts, but at a lower level. Admittedly one that is causing many people some degree of constant stress, but a lot of people have simply accepted that (and its continuous expansion) as the status quo.

Sure, it's creepy. It is pretty necessary for it to be legal though. There are a lot of very good reasons to allow recording people in public. The fact that it is legal is the only reason that, for example, police actions can be recorded in public. Even when it is legal, we still hear plenty of stories about police officers arresting people, assaulting them, stealing their property and destroying it, etc., etc. recording. Ultimately, the social good is largely inseparable from the social bad. Also, much of the behavior that people object to with cameras recording them, they would probably object to equally as much if it were done without a camera. For example someone on a train being stared at intently by a stranger is probably also going to feel like the person is creepy even when the person is not using a camera. Ultimately, if that kind of behavior goes too far, with or without a camera, there are legal concepts like harassment that can apply. It's not all clean an cut and dried, but I would say that, in a lot of cases, it is not really a camera recording that is the primary problem.

Hmm. I've been watching TV for most of my life. Based on thousands upon thousands of examples of people filming in public places, that absolutely, 100% happens a lot. There may be nuances like news programs trying to get releases for people they interview directly or focus on, but that's often after the fact and not really always done.

I'm not making that assumption though. Clearly people sometimes get upset about that also. I am just noting that it seems like the vitriol over these glasses seems to be a bit higher than over other recording devices, or at least it seems like people are classing them differently. Consider the fact that, currently, there are five replies and one flamebait moderation on my fairly modest post. I mean, reading my post, does it seem like flamebait? Nevertheless, it appears that the mere suggestion that people's response to these devices might be a little elevated made someone angry enough to waste a mod point on that. I have seen plenty of people suggest that such glasses type devices should be outlawed while not demanding that cell phone cameras, etc. be outlawed. There can be other reasons for that of course. Other forms of recording devices are considered to be relatively established at this point, whereas devices like this are relatively "new" (not really new at this point). I still think that the primal aggression of direct gaze may be a factor, but I am not saying it is the only factor.

"Has anyone ever faced a civil or even criminal suit for perhaps not merely standing by, but also filming and posting someone's struggle or untimely demise?"

I thought I had an answer for the "standing by" part, with the Kitty Genovese murder in 1964, a case that had influence for decades. While the killer was arrested and executed, no-one else was arrested, though. I thought that there had actually been a judicial ruling about a citizens responsibility in such events, but if there is, it's not from this. Here's TFS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There is a serious question of why people get so upset about glasses that record as opposed to cell phones, etc. I have a theory on it and that is that, despite all the emphasis on eye contact, humans actually find it really aggressive and threatening. Traditional camcorders, cameras, and taking cell phone video all either outright block the eyes or at least the eyeline. You are not staring at them, you are staring at your phone. I think that is, at least in part why devices like smart glasses make people more aggressive than other recording.

The clear counterargument to that though, in the case of face mounted recording devices, is that they don't force a choice between helping/calling police or filming. True, that should not be a real dilemma, the obvious choice should be to help. The thing is, that problem in crowds of no-one stepping forward to help does not exist purely because of people recording. There are lots of reasons people don't put themselves forward in situations like that. One of them is the assumption that someone else will be able to handle it better than them, or simply waiting for someone to step forward and lead, etc. There are also concerns about liability, possibly about self-endangerment and a dozen or more anxieties and neuroses that can cause the problem. Recording with a cell phone probably exacerbates the issue though, by giving people an activity that, in the moment, their mind can rationalize as doing something. If recording is a less active and more passive process, leaving people free to actually do something and taking away their excuse for rationalization, it might encourage more people to actually help.

Mileage may vary, of course. On balance though, it seems like head mounted recording devices are more of a solution to the problem you were talking about than an exemplar of it.

Mod parent up!

Yes! Just Say No!

I blame Alanis Morisette.

Anyways, I'd say yes to ironic, especially if people do not recognize that within themselves (regarding what ragebait is and how it works).

Well said.

Well played. You are truly a master ragebaiter.

If you're referring to the Carlin quote, he recognized the difference but had to deliver the line to an audience made up of a goodly portion of people who were already drunk and/or stoned.

If you're referring to what I wrote, the IQ test (which I recognize is not actually accurate because of cultural bias, but it's a phrase that everyone understands) then an IQ of 100 is designed to be the midpoint, with half the population above and half under. Unless it's changed in the last quarter century, it was intended to measure the mean.

There seems to be little doubt that the majority of voter suppression in the US comes from the Republican party (see various court cases that have ended up with, for example consent decrees that are later ignored). So, logically, unless they are really, really bad at planning it, it seems pretty clear which way they sway election. Also, consider your claimed position, that claiming a stolen election will sway independent voters away from the party whose members make the claim. Considering all of the activity from the Republicans (and specifically the ones in actual positions of power, like Trump) over claims that the 2020 Presidential election was somehow stolen, compared to the relatively minor activity over claims that the 2024 election was stolen, how do you justify that as a reason for votes to shift towards Republicans to Democrats?