Scenes have spread recently that cannot be described as a phenomenon, but they have been repeated enough to arouse suspicion, in which some heroes of social media platforms appear documenting “funny” moments that end with a luxury car being broken or scratched, or causing damage to it by direct action, or through an animal, device, or “accident” that appears spontaneous at first glance. The scene is presented in a comedic form, in which everyone laughs, and the message is passed smoothly: It’s okay… it’s just a car, even if it’s worth a million.
What is not said in these scenes is more dangerous than what is said. The camera is present before the action, the laughter precedes the shock, and the behavior that appears to be a passing recklessness is closer to a pre-prepared scene. Indeed, some of these clips do not merely document the damage, but rather celebrate it, re-publish it, and turn it into a material for boasting, as if the loss had become a show, and as if absurdity had become a language of communication with the public.
The implicit message here is not about the car, but about redefining affluence as carelessness, neglect as power, and vandalism as personal freedom. The recipient, especially young people, does not see behind the camera an insurance policy or an exception clause, but rather sees a model that is tempting to imitate: break, laugh, film, and your followers will applaud you.
But the question that is deliberately ignored: Who bears the consequences of these actions? Who pays the bill for this “laughter?” The prevailing certainty among these people is that some insurance companies will cover the loss, and this certainty is the essence of the problem. If there was no prior reassurance that the damage would not be paid out of pocket, then the crushing would not have become a subject of entertainment nor the scratching a comedic scene.
It is true that a person is free with his money, but this freedom is not absolute, and stops when the behavior is accompanied by bad faith or fraud, or with the intention of obtaining undeserved compensation. Here the act is no longer a personal matter, but rather comes close to being an illegal means of obtaining someone else’s money, even if it is dressed up as laughter and spontaneity.
The issue is no longer a car being broken, but a culture with which borders are being broken. When sabotage turns into entertainment, and violence is presented in a comedic form, silence becomes an indirect partnership. Perhaps the time has come to put an end to this absurdity, either by criminalizing fraud or criminalizing incitement to sabotage, even if it is in the context of “laughter.” The question that must remain present is:
Are we really laughing or are we participating unconsciously in paying the price?
To read previous articles by the author, please click on his name
Responsibility for what is published in opinion articles lies with the writer alone, and the newspaper does not bear responsibility for the opinions expressed in it.
