What do you do when someone pranks you?

[gnome]

Seems to me there is a right way to do "pranking". The person being pranked ideally should be confused or maybe startled for a moment rather than frightened or humiliated. If anyone is the "butt" of the joke it should be the prankster. The "prankee" should be ultimately informed of what was actually going on, and be realistically expected to join in the laughing at the end.

Could it be described as a form of placing the person unwittingly into the "straight man" role of a comedy act? I'm now wondering if there are some old Vaudville rules or traditions that outline how to treat an audience-participant.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

a huge chunk of the content of prank channels are all staged. it's the teenager copycats that don't realize it.

i don't like every prank ever pulled, but pranks can be pretty fun. some of it is really good, like jackass or eric andre, genuinely funny to me. i definitely don't want a world where there's no pranks

"Prank" is a very vague term, though I wonder if a lot of the most objectionable things being discussed here even qualify.

Relentlessly antagonizing and intimidating strangers and recording their exasperated reactions for the amusement of an audience doesn't strike me as a "prank". There's no joke element to it at all, it's just acting outrageously for the sake of attention.

Thinking about some of the most noxious forms of "prank" streamers and it's basically people intentionally provoking a fight with strangers.

 

[gnome]

I think you miss the point that a lot of what are rererred to as "pranks" on YouTube and other social media can also be classified as harassment or abuse.

Side note, from the definition you posted:


I've always disliked that type of prank.

Fake job interviews (which is what an audition amounts to) are a particularly low thing to do to someone. Getting someone's hopes up for an opportunity just so you can laugh when they find you've been wasting their time is ********. Particularly if they are currently unemployed, but also if they are employed and took leave time to go to a fake interview.

A sketch about it can be legendarily funny. But to actually do that to someone is low.

 

[gnome]

I also sense an irresponsible ambiguity in the question "does this prank deserve getting shot?"

The question instead should be "Does what the prank's target perceives is going on warrant the response?"

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I also sense an irresponsible ambiguity in the question "does this prank deserve getting shot?"

The question instead should be "Does what the prank's target perceives is going on warrant the response?"

The whole point of these pranks is to provoke an overheated reaction out of their victims. Not shedding any tears when such a reaction is something a bit more stern than the antagonizer anticipated.

 

[Ziggurat]

Could it be described as a form of placing the person unwittingly into the "straight man" role of a comedy act? I'm now wondering if there are some old Vaudville rules or traditions that outline how to treat an audience-participant.

Interesting thought.

There was a TV show called the Carbonaro Effect which was sort of a prank show. The premise was that the "host", who was a magician, would do magic tricks in seemingly normal situations but under the pretense that nothing unusual was happening. So for example, there was an episode where he would seemingly pack an incompressible object into a box smaller than the object in order to ship it. The humor would then be the confusion of the unwitting person who couldn't figure out what was going on. So it sort of fit your model.

My only complaint about the show is that they used video editing tricks to make the magic seem better than it actually was. But I would put it solidly in the not antisocial category, even more so than the statue pranks, and perfectly acceptable in my opinion.

 

[dirtywick]

"Prank" is a very vague term, though I wonder if a lot of the most objectionable things being discussed here even qualify.

Relentlessly antagonizing and intimidating strangers and recording their exasperated reactions for the amusement of an audience doesn't strike me as a "prank". There's no joke element to it at all, it's just acting outrageously for the sake of attention.

Thinking about some of the most noxious forms of "prank" streamers and it's basically people intentionally provoking a fight with strangers.

i agree, there's definitely a place for light hearted, college style pranks. i also think absurdist stuff like what sasha baron-cohen does is great.

but there's also the stuff you're talking about, live streamers being nasty in public. a lot of those guys just turn on tts and let their chats prank them by saying awful things when they're not doing it themselves. it's a strange thing to see absolute shamelessness. but i think a lot of that is being chased off the major streaming platforms anyway, particularly after all the swatting.

 

[gnome]

The whole point of these pranks is to provoke an overheated reaction out of their victims. Not shedding any tears when such a reaction is something a bit more stern than the antagonizer anticipated.

Not far away from you. What I mean to say is, if the target of the prank believes they are being assaulted, that's the context in which it should be considered. The fact that it was meant as a prank shouldn't come into it.

 

[gnome]

Interesting thought.

There was a TV show called the Carbonaro Effect which was sort of a prank show. The premise was that the "host", who was a magician, would do magic tricks in seemingly normal situations but under the pretense that nothing unusual was happening. So for example, there was an episode where he would seemingly pack an incompressible object into a box smaller than the object in order to ship it. The humor would then be the confusion of the unwitting person who couldn't figure out what was going on. So it sort of fit your model.

My only complaint about the show is that they used video editing tricks to make the magic seem better than it actually was. But I would put it solidly in the not antisocial category, even more so than the statue pranks, and perfectly acceptable in my opinion.

Aww, now I'm disappointed in that show. It's cheating if the viewer doesn't see what someone in person would..

 

[Ziggurat]

Aww, now I'm disappointed in that show. It's cheating if the viewer doesn't see what someone in person would..

Yeah, I liked it better before I noticed that too. It also varies between episodes how much of that sort of editing they do. Sometimes it's pretty obvious what the magic trick is, if you're thinking about it as a magic trick, but it's done in a context where the person isn't expecting a magic trick and so doesn't make the connection.

 

[dudalb]

Robert Heinlein, through his avatar Lazurus Long on Practical Jokes

:

A “practical joker” deserves applause for his wit according to its quality. Bastinado is about right. For exceptional wit one might grant keelhauling. But staking him out on an anthill should be reserved for the very wittiest.

 

[Garrison]

Yeah 'prank' seems to be a synonym for cruel and vindictive behaviour where when the recipient gets angry and retaliates out comes the 'it was just a prank bro' line.

 

[theprestige]

Have you seen those videos of people dressed up as statues, pose completely still, and then move when people get really near them? There is often an initial fear reaction where the person thinks it was a statue but when it starts to move they don't immediately recognize it as a person instead of a statue. I think that qualifies as a prank. Would you qualify it as antisocial? Do you think we shouldn't tolerate it?

I think the distinction Hans made back on page 1 is useful here between trickery and malice. The fear from the moving statue comes not because there's something intrinsically scary happening. The person has been fooled, and acts the fool, because there's nothing actually dangerous about a person being dressed as a statue, and there are no real moving statues. The fear only comes from our human shortcomings in processing information, but the information is all there if we just process it. Statues don't move, statues don't harm people, people dressed as statues are not any more dangerous than anyone else.

I'm ok with the statue pranks.

I'm okay with there being grey areas in my paradigm.

Come to think of it, what I can recall seeing is Living Statues who move to startle people who are already aware of and engaging with them. Like if someone isn't sure it's a statue or not, and goes to examine it more closely. They get a bit of a startle, and then everyone laughs together. Or they alreayd know it's a Living Statue, and are trying to wind him up.

It helps that Living Statues and their antics are already an accepted part of society. It's hard to hold a grudge against a talented busker who sets up shop every day in a plaza with heavy tourist foot traffic, working hard to balance surprise and delight to earn some coin.

Compare with the scumbag who disguises himself as a shrubbery on the sidewalk, in order to jump-scare unsuspecting passerby, for no other reason than the satisfaction he gets from startling them, and the clout he gets from filming his scumbaggery and posting it online.

The classic mode of the Living Statue is an interaction between him and the person he's startling, with any passerby welcome to looky-loo and maybe put some money in his hat.

The mode of the Shrubbery Scumbag is an interaction between him and his online followers, with the person he's harassing just a hapless victim. You meet a Living Statue, you've had a fun experience with a skilled artisan. You see a Shrubbery Scumbag, you've had an unpleasant experience with a low and antisocial "prankster".

Pace arth, Just A Prank Bro needs to be shot.

 

[HansMustermann]

"Prank" is a very vague term, though I wonder if a lot of the most objectionable things being discussed here even qualify.

Relentlessly antagonizing and intimidating strangers and recording their exasperated reactions for the amusement of an audience doesn't strike me as a "prank". There's no joke element to it at all, it's just acting outrageously for the sake of attention.

Thinking about some of the most noxious forms of "prank" streamers and it's basically people intentionally provoking a fight with strangers.

That has been my contention all along, yes. As an analogy, it's like asking "what do you do if someone touches you?" (And no, I'm not doing an argument from analogy. It's just for illustration purposes.) Well, a touch can be anything from someone accidentally bumping into you on the street or being pressed against you in a crowded train, to someone punching you in the face, to someone 'touching' you with a knife or with their dick. There is no single concrete^* answer covering all that.

Again, it's not an argument from analogy. The argument can be made on its own that a "prank" covers everything between stuff pretending to sneeze and blow a garbage bin away (actual example), to someone pretending to throw your toddler over the railing from second floor (look it up, the video actually exists), to calling in a fake bomb threat or emergency (historically, LOTS of people found it HILARIOUS to call in a fake emergency as soon as telephones were introduced), to something that genuinely looks like an assault or kidnapping attempt to a reasonable person. It's a VERY wide spectrum. There is no one answer that fits all.

Is deadly force a reasonable response when someone just sneezes 3m (about 10 ft) from you and blows away a couple of garbage bins? No, because there was no reason to assume any imminent danger to your person. Nothing there is aimed at you. He's not threatening to sneeze/fus-ro-dah you into Shor's Hall or anything.

Is it a reasonable response when a clown charges you with a bloody machete? Yes, it damn well is. It fits the exact legal definitions of assault and of self defense. Which rely on just: did you have reasonable grounds to expect imminent harm? As in, it doesn't matter what the assaulting guy was thinking, it doesn't matter what your actual intelligence is, would a reasonable person of average intelligence interpret it as imminent danger?

So yeah, I think the question in the thread title and some of the generalizations done along the way are really (perhaps unintentional) equivocations, by way of backing up into the super-category that includes a lot of milder cases. It's just not useful to expect a single reasonable response for something that ranges all the way from someone charging you with a machete, to someone peacefully reading a flaming book next to you.


^* as in, not something as generic as "it depends."

 

[dirtywick]

Yeah 'prank' seems to be a synonym for cruel and vindictive behaviour where when the recipient gets angry and retaliates out comes the 'it was just a prank bro' line.

bonus points if they did it in "the hood"

 

[theprestige]

That has been my contention all along, yes. As an analogy, it's like asking "what do you do if someone touches you?" (And no, I'm not doing an argument from analogy. It's just for illustration purposes.) Well, a touch can be anything from someone accidentally bumping into you on the street or being pressed against you in a crowded train, to someone punching you in the face, to someone 'touching' you with a knife or with their dick. There is no single concrete^* answer covering all that.

Again, it's not an argument from analogy. The argument can be made on its own that a "prank" covers everything between stuff pretending to sneeze and blow a garbage bin away (actual example), to someone pretending to throw your toddler over the railing from second floor (look it up, the video actually exists), to calling in a fake bomb threat or emergency (historically, LOTS of people found it HILARIOUS to call in a fake emergency as soon as telephones were introduced), to something that genuinely looks like an assault or kidnapping attempt to a reasonable person. It's a VERY wide spectrum. There is no one answer that fits all.

Is deadly force a reasonable response when someone just sneezes 3m (about 10 ft) from you and blows away a couple of garbage bins? No, because there was no reason to assume any imminent danger to your person. Nothing there is aimed at you. He's not threatening to sneeze/fus-ro-dah you into Shor's Hall or anything.

Is it a reasonable response when a clown charges you with a bloody machete? Yes, it damn well is. It fits the exact legal definitions of assault and of self defense. Which rely on just: did you have reasonable grounds to expect imminent harm? As in, it doesn't matter what the assaulting guy was thinking, it doesn't matter what your actual intelligence is, would a reasonable person of average intelligence interpret it as imminent danger?

So yeah, I think the question in the thread title and some of the generalizations done along the way are really (perhaps unintentional) equivocations, by way of backing up into the super-category that includes a lot of milder cases. It's just not useful to expect a single reasonable response for something that ranges all the way from someone charging you with a machete, to someone peacefully reading a flaming book next to you.


^* as in, not something as generic as "it depends."

Anyone who's been on a road trip with siblings knows the "I'm Not Touching You!" game, where not touching is absolutely a form of harassment by touching.

 

[arthwollipot]

Two irresponsible, anti-social objects collide and remove each other from society, one to the morgue and one to prison. Assuming there's no collateral damage, sounds like a happy ending to me.

A person dead is a happy ending?

 

[arthwollipot]

Pace arth, Just A Prank Bro needs to be shot.

Nobody needs to be shot unless they present a very clear and present danger.

 

[jeremyp]

Interesting thought.

There was a TV show called the Carbonaro Effect which was sort of a prank show. The premise was that the "host", who was a magician, would do magic tricks in seemingly normal situations but under the pretense that nothing unusual was happening. So for example, there was an episode where he would seemingly pack an incompressible object into a box smaller than the object in order to ship it. The humor would then be the confusion of the unwitting person who couldn't figure out what was going on. So it sort of fit your model.

My only complaint about the show is that they used video editing tricks to make the magic seem better than it actually was. But I would put it solidly in the not antisocial category, even more so than the statue pranks, and perfectly acceptable in my opinion.

The absolute classic prank show where the "mark" is (usually) not the target of the prank is Trigger Happy TV.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A person dead is a happy ending?

under these circumstances, it's certainly not a tragedy.

To quote George Constanza: You know, we're living in a society.

Not going to cry because a person deliberately engaging in anti-social behavior to achieve the tiniest bit of celebrity status is harmed at the hands of another anti-social person. I guess they were counting on others to be more reasonable and ethical than they were. Big mistake. If two irresponsible idiots remove themselves from the public and do so without harming any uninvolved parties I call that a win-win.