There most people thought it was all well and good to spend 50M to advertise a 100k kindness. This is just business.
Here people (IMO correctly) see this a virtue signaling and not kindness.
To me there is really no difference, Dominos did not do kindness, neither did this tiktok douche. All calculated to mislead people into thinking you are better. Vile scam artists.
At the end of the day, the public still gets a park. Good has been done.
Fixating on motivates is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There aren't "good people" or "bad people". There are just people, and motives are almost always mixed.
The people who are smearing this kid are acting worse than the kid himself. I'll drink your downvotes. Yes, I think you're being nastier than the kid, who was doing some boring grifting.
He was unemphatic, but you're being downright cruel. "Vile scam artist" "TikTok douche". He's a human being, and what he did was wrong, but I nevertheless think he's morally superior to most of you, who are dehumanizing him much more thoroughly than he dehumanized the woman.
His behavior was bad, and yours is worse.
In case of dominos the ratio is so much out of whack that the profit motive completely drowns the good.
In case of this tiktok dude what good was being made at all? Some emotional buttons were pushed in watchers? Do it hundreds of times and they are desensitized to actual goodness. All in the name of what, a few bucks to be made?
So bringing your park example to extreme: someone murders, is bad, but vilifying him would still be worse?
I'll leave you with a quote from Batman: "criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling#Narcissists_and_abuse...