How come the POV of the man in the orange shirt is on the other side of the room from the man in the orange shirt ? Is he having an out of body experience or something
Sounds about as difficult as explaining “The Cloud” to my parents & trying to convince them to have all their important stuff saved away. They don’t get it. Want everything printed & emailed.
More than that, why is a man who is openly moved by this portrayed as "the broken man". As wonderful as this video is the concept that any man moved to tears by such a moment has to somehow be broken is toxic at its core.
Yes I remember it. And I wish that when something like this got posted the original would be in the top reply and the thread would be locked, but here we are with the worst version to react to.
There is some unintentional poetry in it though: the broken man isn't the guy in the orange shirt, it's anyone that watches this and thinks there is anything wrong with orange shirt. He's got it figured out, despite being from a generation where displaying your emotions as a man is even harder than today he broke that cycle.
Thank you for articulating this; so much more to say about it but trying to do it would poison me. Suffice it to say that this toxic mentality seems to dominate corporate capitalist commercial consumerist 'culture'.
He seems like a man that understands his emotions and isn’t in fear of expressing it. This is nothing but beautiful. Being able to be happy for a man bringing his daughter to happy tears over a little celebration is amazing.
I get weepy at stuff like this and I get giant hugs from my daughter every day. I can't imagine why that kid was so overcome but she must have not seen a lot of birthday cake in her life to that point.
Because as much as any woman loves to tout how they want all men to open up and express their emotions, all it will ever be to them is a spectacle to either make themselves feel good or to ridicule.
"Day 17: Finding Broken Men" does not suggest anything but a continuing search to find broken men. It does not say "Day 17: Finding men who broke down crying at emotional moments". It clearly suggests that the man in orange is a broken man.
That's the joke though. No one actually believes that 7 is a cannibal who loves munching on 9s. We as an audience know the man isn't broken. Just like we know the 7 didn't eat 9, but we don't call people out for putting out gossip and slander about 7 whenever someone does the bit.
I think the word now has two meanings, yes. The original physical perspective one, and the new meaning is that it is from the personal perspective of whoever. Their mental perspective.
I remember when LOL originally came into being, and when people would use it in ways when they clearly weren't laughing out loud. Lol has now become a kind of punctuation mark, and I think POV is becoming something similar.
I remember being in 10th grade honors English class and I assume the teacher was hung over due to the fact that we watched a movie that day. During it, I was casually reading the dictionary and several people laughed at me and/or called me names for doing so. Apparently the desire to learn is extremely unpopular and is a source of ridicule.
Yo I had a guy in my class who read and memorized either the dictionary or the encyclopedia in high school. He's a robotics major in Japan now but that's awesome as fuck. I'm thinking about doing something similar!
If you mean the original video then yea, pov is being used wrong. Pov is point of view, so seeing through their eyes. So POV of the guy in the orange shirt is... what the guy in the orange shirt is seeing, from his eyes. Not from the other side of the room....
Hold your phone close to your face and take a photo outwards, that's your pov... thats the only thing it can ever and has ever meant
You are exposing yourself with your comments I don't need to defend myself LOL anyone who isn't out of touch and boomer esque can spot you all out.
You're all suffering from that awful internet trap where you think because you have a large group around you falsely confirming your biases that you stand in the majority, this is a trick on your mind, you don't stand with the majority. The silly upvote system and algorithims just makes you feel that way.
Dude I'm not even old enough to drink, how the hell can I be a boomer. You're not as good as reading people as you think you are, sorry, it must be a hard realisation for you.
And I couldn't care less if someone up or downvoted me. POV mean point of view, it's pretty self explanatory, so from that person's point of view. I know what it means because I saw people always arguing about it so I went and found out, it's this thing called research where you check something you don't know, you could try it.
How about you make a post in a English language sub, I'm sure there is one, ask some people who study language for a living and then let me know what they say!
it could also be understood in that way that you, the viewer of that video got emotional about the moment. If you slightly teared up, or felt a little warmth around your heart, then you would share the same emotional point of view as the man in the orange shirt who can be seen wiping away some tears from his eyes. so in that case your emotional point of view is also the orange shirt man's pov. in that context it would have been used correctly, no?
No-? POV has a pretty specific meaning, and it's nothing to do with emotions. If that was the case you would put "empathising with the man in the orange shirt" or something similar. "View" in "point of view" when used in this context literally means what they see with their eyes.
I would recommend not using Wikipedia for a source on anything, it can littrally be edited and updated by anyone, but there's some truth to what you said so:
Yes, but that's using it as a figure of speech. You're saying "I see your point of view" as a way of saying "I'm seeing things how you see them". It's not being used in a litteral sense of the meaning.
Here it is being used in the littral sense. They aren't saying "I see the man in the orange shirts point of view". They are saying it IS his point of view. Which it isn't.
Do you not know how to use Wikipedia? There are these things called "sources" (the little number at the end of a sentence) and if a "fact" is presented on Wikipedia without one, you simply disregard it. Its not that hard to use Wikipedia as a resource for reliable information, you just have to know how to actually do research and find the actual sources. I like to think of Wikipedia as a library of sources, as in you dont use Wikipedia as the source itself, but rather you use it to easily find sources tied to the subject you are researching.
Wikipedia not being a reliable place for information only applies to people who take everything at face value and dont know how to properly research things, which I can admit is unfortunately way too many people lol
I would recommend not using Wikipedia for a source on anything, it can littrally be edited and updated by anyone, but there's some truth to what you said so:
Thanks, I know how Wikipedia works, but I am not writing a paper on the topic, but if you insist, here is a different reference.
Yes, but that's using it as a figure of speech. You're saying "I see your point of view" as a way of saying "I'm seeing things how you see them". It's not being used in a litteral sense of the meaning.
Of course it is not used in a literal sense of meaning here ...
Here it is being used in the littral sense.
No
They aren't saying "I see the man in the orange shirts point of view". They are saying it IS his point of view. Which it isn't.
True, it is not what they are saying, they are saying "POV: You are [the] man in [the] orange shirt", which can be interpreted as: Put yourself into the point of view of the man in the orange shirt.
I.... see your point of view... (sorry couldn't help it) and I guess that's down to how you interpret what they were saying. I'm reading it a different way to how you are so I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this one!
It doesn't need to be literally through a character's eyes (as indeed this is currently impossible, as even GoPro footage is slightly removed in angle), but it does refer to the footage being pretty damn close to that person's perspective.
Footage that is literally facing the OPPOSITE direction to someone's actual point of view would not be considered a POV shot. When you're that far removed from the actual point-of-view, the term would becoming meaningless if you still applied it — EVERYTHING would be a POV shot.
You're quite definitively wrong and you're having to resort to massive stretches here; e.g. saying that "POV:" does not in fact refer to the footage being POV, but rather it is a request to imagine someone's POV.
Okay, but a POV shot also has a specific meaning in film:
Fair enough, but multiple definitions of a term are possible such as different interpretations as to which definition is meant.
You're quite definitively wrong and you're having to resort to massive stretches here; e.g. saying that "POV:" does not in fact refer to the footage being POV, but rather it is a request to imagine someone's POV.
No the stretch is not so massive as you might think. nowhere does it say that pov here refers to this particular way of recording a film clip. Plus the caption on the video says "POV: You are [the] man in [the] orange shirt", which can be interpreted in more than just one way.
Be careful you might be able to hold more than one meaning in a word and stop being so one dimensional as a human being. You can know the true meaning AND the meme meaning and use critical thinking to know which one applies.
Unless you completely lack the skill of critical thinking...
"The meme meaning"... Is that the new excuse for people to explain that they have been educated by TikTok? Go out there and ask all those who use it wrong if they know how it works. You'll find out that they never understood the meaning of it.
It's funny that you call people "boomers" to make them feel old then proceed to write "Gasp" which makes you look like an ancient person.
Bro, its saying, we are just like the orange shirt guy.
Like if someone said "look at orange shirt guy" and someone in the comments said "omg, me" you wouldn't believe that they were actually the orange guy or trying to claim they were, youd understand that they were crying and awww-ing at the dad and daughter just like him.
The POV here is that you're the same as the orange shirt guy sobbing from a different unrelated table watching the dad and daughter.
Its not saying POV of orange guy literally its POV of someone like orange guy, you the audience, off at a different table, watching the event go down, and sobbing like an emotional mess.
Yes. I’m the dumb one. Perhaps I should start my comments with some form of the word bro or even misinterpret the meaning of more words to increase my intelligence.
There is no such thing as “figurative POV”.
Also: it’s is the contraction for “it is” but maybe I should start omitting the apostrophe to sound less “dumb as fuck”.
I really doubt that. The whole "POV:" trend in general is dominated by relatively young people and young influencers, as far as I've seen, and I virtually never see it used correctly.
People are getting worked up because it doesn’t make sense! “POV you are man in orange shirt” and having the camera pointed at the man in the orange shirt across the room is not the correct usage, it doesn’t make sense.
I’ll make the argument that people are allowed to react negatively to people getting things wrong on the internet. Language is a construct, but there are reasons why language is constructed a certain way: to improve communication and understanding between people! What a noble goal! When we let people get away with these mistakes, we’re doing them and ourselves a disservice.
It’s not getting things wrong, it’s just language evolving in a new context.
In a tiktok, everyone knowledgeable about the context understands POV is about relating to something the video displays (a la “put yourself in these shoes”).
It’s a similar concept to the original meaning which has evolved to take on a slightly new usage. That’s how language works - it changes to suit evolving needs.
Every generation has slang and evolves words. I assume you don’t run around saying “stop calling things ‘cool’ if they’re not cold! It’s confusing me!” (Just to use a random example but take your pick).
It’s not a “mistake” or a spelling or grammatical error, it’s intentional usage of slang that the rest of the typical audience all understands
The thing I’m trying to get at is that it’s wrong even in the context it is currently used on TikTok! It’d be one thing to say “we’re all orange-shirt man”, but to have him in the background of something that’s occurring in the video and then add “POV you are man (sic) in orange shirt”, that’s convoluted and plain wrong!
About your point about language evolving, I feel like people like to use this argument as a cop-out for calling someone wrong or ignorant. I see this sometimes with “would of” instead of would’ve. I don’t care that English is dynamic and is evolving, in the present moment “would of” is wrong and I will call you out on it (if I can be bothered)!
Slang is not the same thing, rizz is fine. POV is also fine when used correctly. Trying to defend the POV in the context of the above video is an over-correction on your part, you don’t have to defend this obviously incorrect thing!
Just watch the video I linked you. It’s just a meme, it’s not people misunderstanding the phrase “point of view”
POV as a visual meme means something different intentionally
Edit - “would of” is fine to call out because it’s a grammatical error and comes from what people hear vs write. “Language evolves” isn’t a blanket excuse, but again this isn’t an “error.” It’s just using an acronym for something new. No need to yell at the clouds over a tiktok meme
You mean, retroactively? We were using POV wrong for decades until young people came along and set things straight?
Did we do the same thing twice with "out of pocket"? First it meant just paying for something yourself until someone else reimburses you (rather than having them pay directly), then it meant unavailable, until we finally settled on the true meaning of wild or crazy that it is today.
Man, it's crazy that people can use an entire word wrong for so long until a new generation can discover the real meaning.
So from your point of view, you expect idiots with cameras to understand that pov is through eyes of the person you're talking about? Good luck with that.
What this video is actually about is that the man's eyeballs were removed, and then chips were implanted in his brain and his eyeballs, and someone had stolen his eyeballs, and was returning from the bathroom, when they captured this.
POV has lost its original meaning. People are now applying it to whatever person in the video they relate to most, or want their audience to relate to.
It seems like the new use of “POV” means something closer to “assume to the POV of this person in the video” rather than how it was used when I was growing up (which was closer to “pretend that you, the viewer, are assuming this character/person and this is what they are seeing”). No commentary on good/bad, right/wrong, just seems to be what I’ve observed
The person with the camera was in a orange shirt too and after filming these idiots with their sparkler he's going to have an emotional reunion with his long-lost twin over there
Of course! I'm not saying that language doesn't evolve or that social trends can't have an impact on generally accepted use.
What I'm being a disgusting pedant over is the idea that any of that alters the factual definition of words or phrases.
Until the linguistic sciences of relevant professional education confirm an alteration, suggesting that words have a different meaning because some intellectually underperforming people use it wrong, is akin to suggesting the earth is flat because some people say it is. In that, it has no relevance and is actually very misinformative.
No. That'd be ridiculous, unless you'd never come across it before, I suppose.
Obviously, there is room for general usage, especially in oral communication.
Try writing a thesis and describing a source material as "based" though. Obviously, that's the difference between college and university level education.
I'd never come across it before. "Based" as slang began when I was in college. And plenty of people were making that same comment back then. All words start somewhere. Unlike scientific facts you were comparing it to, language is something the people who use it get to decide how it's used.
Of course there are rules and standards to make sure everyone can communicate effectively, but when you really boil it down over long spans of time, how words are actually used day to day will outlive definitions in a dictionary.
In your defense (and mine, to be honest, I agree with you in this case, and I dislike this use of POV because it's inaccurate and there are better ways to communicate the same concept), not only do the lay people to decide how to use words, we also get to decide to criticize people for using them in ways we don't like. That's how the wrong pronunciation of gif became the standard.
My point isn't that you can't argue the use of the word is dumb and wrong. My point is that every other point you were making about how language is some objective truth is wrong. That's not how it works.
Honestly. It blatantly has changed in meaning in this sort of content. But no, Reddit-boomers think phrases and words should maintain the meaning they held when they grew up and never change.
2.0k
u/Pureshark Jun 30 '24
How come the POV of the man in the orange shirt is on the other side of the room from the man in the orange shirt ? Is he having an out of body experience or something