Wow, what a groundbreaking achievement! The video of "Mr. VP" on downstreaming has managed to defy all laws of mathematics and logic by garnering more likes than actual viewers. Truly, this is the pinnacle of digital success- who needs genuine engagement when you can just buy applause? It’s fascinating to see how the magic of paid buzzers turns invisible audiences into enthusiastic fans. Why bother with pesky things like authentic interest or meaningful content when you can simply inflate numbers and create the illusion of popularity? After all, in the age of social media, perception is reality-even if that reality is as thin as a ghost’s like button.
One can only admire the efficiency: a handful of clicks here, a few paid thumbs-up there, and voilà! Instant viral sensation without the burden of actual viewership. It’s like applauding a play nobody watched or cheering for a game that never happened.
So here’s to "Vivivavi"—a content that taught us that in the digital world, it’s not about who watches, but who’s willing to fake it till they make it.
In our daily lives, the way we handle situations often shapes the quality of our relationships, decisions, and overall well-being. At the heart of this lies a crucial distinction between two seemingly similar concepts: reactions and responses. While both are ways we act upon external events or stimuli, they differ significantly in their nature, timing, and impact. Understanding the difference between reacting impulsively and responding thoughtfully can empower us to navigate challenges more effectively, communicate more clearly, and foster healthier interactions.
A reaction is an immediate, automatic, and often emotional reply to a situation or stimulus. It usually happens without much thought or consideration. Reactions are typically driven by instinct, habits, or emotions, and they occur almost instantly after an event. For example, if someone insults you and you instantly shout back in anger, that is a reaction.
A reaction is typically immediate, automatic, and driven by emotions or instincts. It often occurs without much thought or reflection, triggered by a stimulus that demands quick action. For example, feeling anger and snapping at someone who criticises you is a reaction. Reactions are usually impulsive and can sometimes lead to misunderstandings or conflict because they may not consider the full context or consequences.
A response, on the other hand, is a more thoughtful and deliberate reply to a situation. It involves pausing, considering the circumstances, and choosing the best way to act or speak. Responses are guided by reasoning, self-control, and awareness of the possible consequences. For instance, if someone insults you and you take a moment to calm yourself before replying in a composed and respectful manner, that is a response.
A response involves a deliberate and thoughtful process. It requires pausing to assess the situation, managing emotions, and choosing an action that aligns with one’s values and goals. Responding allows for better communication, problem-solving, and emotional regulation. Instead of immediately reacting to criticism, a person who responds might take a moment to understand the feedback, consider its validity, and reply calmly. This mindful approach fosters respect, empathy, and constructive dialogue.
Developing the ability to respond rather than react is a skill that can be cultivated through self-awareness and practice. It involves recognising emotional triggers, practising patience, and reflecting on the impact of one’s actions. In both personal and professional settings, mastering this distinction can lead to healthier relationships, improved decision-making, and greater resilience in the face of challenges.
The key difference between a reaction and a response lies in the level of awareness and control involved. A reaction is typically immediate and automatic, often driven by emotions or instincts without conscious thought. It happens quickly in response to a stimulus and is usually impulsive. Because reactions are spontaneous, they may not take into account the full context or possible consequences, which can sometimes lead to misunderstandings or conflicts.
In contrast, a response is a deliberate and thoughtful action. It involves pausing to assess the situation, managing one’s emotions, and choosing a course of action that aligns with personal values and goals. Responses are more controlled and intentional, allowing for clearer communication and more constructive outcomes. Responding thoughtfully helps to foster empathy, respect, and effective problem-solving.
So, while reactions are quick and emotional, responses are measured and reasoned. Developing the ability to respond rather than react can improve relationships, decision-making, and emotional resilience.
A reaction happens because it is an immediate, automatic response to a stimulus, often triggered by strong emotions, instincts, or deeply ingrained habits. When someone feels threatened, surprised, or emotionally charged, their brain and body respond quickly without much conscious thought. This is a survival mechanism that allows people to act swiftly in situations that might require urgent action, such as danger or conflict. However, because reactions are so fast and instinctive, they may not always consider the broader context or long-term consequences.
On the other hand, a response is carried out because it involves conscious thought, reflection, and self-control. When a person chooses to respond, they take a moment to pause, assess the situation, regulate their emotions, and decide on the most appropriate action based on their values and goals. Responses are typically more measured and thoughtful, aiming for constructive outcomes and better communication. People respond, rather than react, when they want to ensure their actions align with their intentions and when they seek to maintain healthy relationships or resolve conflicts effectively.
The main differences between responses and reactions in everyday situations involve the level of thought, timing, emotional control, and impact on outcomes.
A reaction is usually immediate and automatic, happening almost instantly after a trigger without conscious thought or consideration. It is instinctive and driven by emotion, often serving as a short-term release of discomfort or a defence mechanism. In contrast, a response is slower and more deliberate. It involves pausing, thinking through the situation, and making a conscious choice about the best course of action.
Reactions are typically emotional and impulsive, often influenced by past experiences or subconscious triggers. They can escalate conflicts or create negative consequences because they prioritise immediate emotional relief over long-term outcomes. Responses, on the other hand, are rational and controlled. They involve analysing the situation, considering possible outcomes, and choosing words or actions that align with your values and goals.
Reactions often lead to regret or further problems, as they may be aggressive, defensive, or counterproductive in the long run. Responses are solution-oriented and constructive, aiming to improve the situation or resolve conflict thoughtfully and effectively. So, if someone insults you and you immediately snap back in anger, that's a reaction. If you pause, consider your feelings and the context, and then reply calmly or choose not to engage, that's a response.
You can practice responding more thoughtfully in everyday situations by adopting several practical strategies that help you pause, reflect, and choose your actions deliberately instead of reacting impulsively.
When you notice yourself feeling triggered or emotionally charged, take a brief pause and focus on your breath. Even a single deep breath can give you the space to calm your initial reaction and allow your mind to process the situation more clearly
Regular mindfulness exercises-such as meditation, mindful walking, or body scans-can increase your awareness of your thoughts and emotions. This awareness helps you recognise when you’re about to react and allows you to choose a more thoughtful response
Before replying in a conversation, take a moment to reflect on what you want to say and its potential impact. This helps ensure your response aligns with your intentions and values
Pay attention to situations or topics that tend to provoke strong reactions in you. By becoming aware of your triggers, you can prepare yourself to respond more thoughtfully when they arise
Instead of immediately defending your position, ask clarifying questions and listen carefully to the other person’s perspective. This not only shows respect but also gives you more information to form a constructive response
Keep a journal to reflect on situations where you reacted impulsively. Analyze what triggered your reaction and consider alternative ways you could have responded. This practice builds self-awareness and helps you improve over time
Practice responding in challenging scenarios with a friend or therapist. Role-playing can help you build confidence and develop better strategies for handling real-life situations thoughtfully
Learn and use stress management techniques like deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, or visualisation. Lowering your stress levels can make it easier to pause and respond thoughtfully, even under pressure
Start your day by setting intentions about how you want to handle difficult interactions. Reminding yourself of your goals can keep you focused on responding thoughtfully throughout the day
If you feel overwhelmed, step away from the situation for a moment. A short break can help you regain composure and approach the situation with a clearer mind
By consistently practising these techniques, you can shift from reacting impulsively to responding thoughtfully, leading to better communication, stronger relationships, and improved emotional well-being.
However, the things that have been put forward will be very different from the case of The VP's content videos. Let's try to pay attention. The video "Giliran Kita" by the VP, which has more dislikes than likes, can indeed be seen as a form of public response rather than a mere reaction. The high number of dislikes compared to likes and the large volume of comments indicate that the audience is not simply reacting impulsively but engaging critically with the content. This suggests a conscious evaluation or response from viewers who are expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with the message or the messenger.
The public’s negative response is linked to doubts about Gibran’s credibility on the topic of bonus demography, especially given his previous admission of not liking to read and perceived lack of intellectual preparation. This fuels a thoughtful response where viewers question the authenticity and seriousness of the video rather than just reacting emotionally. Many observers interpret the video as a political image-building effort targeting young people, which leads to a strategic response from the audience. The public’s dislike can be seen as a critique of perceived political motives rather than just an emotional outburst.
Comments and discussions around the video emphasise demands for genuine action and solutions rather than mere rhetoric, reflecting a mature, issue-focused response from the public. The disproportionate dislikes reflect a broader value conflict between the public’s expectations for authentic leadership and the perceived superficiality of political messaging. This response signals a challenge to Vivivavi’s political legitimacy and credibility.
The predominance of dislikes over likes on the VP’s "Giliran Kita" video is best understood as a response, conscious, critical, and value-driven engagement from the public expressing scepticism, disappointment, and demand for authenticity and real leadership, rather than a mere impulsive reaction.
A value conflict occurs when there is a disagreement or clash between individuals or groups due to differences in their systems of values, beliefs, principles, or norms. This conflict arises when the values that one party holds as important or true contradict the values held by another party, leading to tension, disputes, or disagreements in social relationships.
Value conflicts are a natural part of social life because people and groups often have different beliefs, attitudes, needs, and goals. Such conflicts can happen in various contexts, including organisations, communities, and between cultures, and they often involve struggles over status, power, or limited resources.
In simple terms, a value conflict emerges when there is a mismatch between what different parties consider right, good, or important, causing disagreements that can be either open or hidden. While value conflicts can sometimes lead to negative outcomes, if managed well, they can become a source of creativity, positive change, and deeper understanding between differing parties.
In Indonesia, the situation involving the retired generals’ demand to replace the Vice President clearly reflects a value conflict. This conflict arises from fundamentally different beliefs and principles regarding legality, legitimacy, governance, and political ethics.
At the core of this conflict is the value of constitutional integrity and rule of law. The retired generals emphasise strict adherence to legal procedures and constitutional provisions, particularly concerning the legitimacy of political appointments. They view the Constitutional Court’s decision as a violation of legal norms, which threatens the foundation of lawful governance. For them, upholding the constitution is paramount and non-negotiable.
On the other hand, the current political leadership and its supporters may prioritise political pragmatism and continuity, focusing on stability, political alliances, and practical governance over strict legal formalism. This difference in prioritising legal principles versus political expediency creates tension.
Furthermore, there is a value conflict regarding political independence and anti-corruption. The retired generals express concern about the influence of former President Mulyono’s circle within the current administration, which they perceive as undermining clean governance and political renewal. This reflects a clash between the value of political transparency and accountability versus the reality of entrenched political networks.
This conflict is not merely about personalities but about competing visions of how government should function: one based on strict legal and ethical standards, and the other more flexible, possibly accommodating political realities.
So, the retired generals’ demand for the Vice President’s replacement highlights a deep value conflict between constitutional legality and political pragmatism, as well as between demands for clean governance and existing political power structures.
The concerns of these retired generals are further confirmed by the content of the VP's next video about Hilirasi. It can be analysed through the lens of the difference between reaction and response. The disproportionate number of likes compared to viewers, especially when artificially inflated by paid buzzers, suggests a reaction rather than a genuine, thoughtful engagement. This kind of reaction is often automatic, driven by external incentives (such as payment) rather than a conscious, informed decision to support or engage with the content. It is a surface-level engagement that does not reflect a deep understanding or meaningful consideration of the message.
A response involves deliberate thought, weighing the content, and considering its implications before engaging. It reflects an internal cognitive and emotional process where the individual consciously decides how to react, often considering longer-term impacts and values. In this case, the use of paid buzzers to generate likes bypasses this process, indicating the absence of genuine, mindful responses.
According to social media engagement theory, reactions such as likes, comments, or emojis are forms of engagement but can be either authentic or manipulated. When engagement is artificially boosted, it becomes a form of impulsive reaction, not a true response that reflects audience sentiment or thoughtful interaction.
As explained in psychological perspectives, reactions are often driven by subconscious biases or external stimuli and happen quickly without reflection. Responses, however, are slower and involve conscious regulation of emotions and thoughts. The scenario you describe fits the pattern of reaction: a quick, possibly orchestrated act to create an impression rather than a considered response.
The inflated "likes" on the video, likely driven by buzzers, exemplify a reaction rather than a response. It is a superficial, immediate engagement motivated by external factors, lacking the thoughtful, deliberate consideration that characterises a true response. This distinction highlights how social media metrics can sometimes misrepresent genuine public opinion or engagement, reflecting reactive behaviours rather than mindful responses.
Value conflicts significantly influence both how people react and how they respond in interpersonal or social situations. When there is a clash of values-meaning differences in deeply held beliefs, principles, or goals-this can trigger strong emotional reactions because values are central to a person’s identity and worldview.
In terms of reactions, value conflicts often provoke immediate, emotional, and sometimes defensive or aggressive responses. Because values are closely tied to one’s sense of self and moral judgments, encountering opposing values can feel threatening or invalidating, leading to quick, instinctive reactions such as anger, frustration, or withdrawal. These reactions tend to be automatic and less controlled, reflecting the emotional intensity of the conflict.
On the other hand, responses to value conflicts involve a more deliberate and thoughtful process. A person who is aware of the value differences and manages to regulate their emotions may pause to understand the other party’s perspective, evaluate the situation, and choose a constructive way to engage. This thoughtful response can help reduce misunderstandings and foster dialogue, even when fundamental values differ. However, such responses require self-awareness, empathy, and communication skills, which are not always easy to apply in the heat of conflict.
What happened to the content of the VP's video is an early signal of a conflict of values between the people and a public official. Early signs indicating the presence of value conflicts between the public and government officials often manifest as perceived conflicts of interest and distrust. One common early symptom is when the public begins to suspect that officials prioritise personal or group interests over the public good, leading to concerns about corruption, nepotism, or misuse of authority. This suspicion can arise from visible behaviours such as officials receiving gifts or gratuities, holding multiple positions simultaneously, or making decisions that appear biased or unfair.
Another early sign is the emergence of disagreements and disputes over policies or decisions, especially when these policies seem to ignore or conflict with the values, needs, or expectations of the community. Such disagreements often stem from differences in how values are prioritised or interpreted by officials versus the public. For example, when public policies are developed in a technocratic or elitist manner without sufficient public engagement, it can exacerbate value conflicts and lead to social tensions.
Value conflicts can significantly affect public trust in government by fueling political polarisation and social tensions. When the values held by government officials differ sharply from those of the public, it often leads to a perception that the government is out of touch or acting against the people’s interests. This perception undermines trust, as citizens feel that their core beliefs and needs are ignored or marginalised. For example, political polarisation caused by conflicting ideologies or interests can make it difficult for society to reach consensus, increasing social conflict and reducing confidence in government institutions.
Moreover, when government actions are seen as favouring certain groups or involving unethical practices like corruption or lack of transparency, public distrust deepens. This erosion of trust hampers cooperation between citizens and the government, making it harder to implement policies effectively and slowing down development. The decline in trust can also lead to public apathy, where people disengage from political processes such as elections, weakening democratic participation and governance legitimacy.
So, a discrepancy between the number of likes and actual viewers on the video by the VP—can indeed be interpreted as a form of value conflict between the Indonesian public and the Vice President.
This conflict arises because the public’s values emphasise authenticity, transparency, and genuine engagement, while the artificial inflation of likes through paid buzzers or other means contradicts these values. Such a situation creates a perception that the government or its representatives are prioritising image management or political gain over honest communication and accountability. This clash reflects a deeper social tension where the public demands sincerity and meaningful participation, but experiences what feels like manipulation or superficiality instead.
From a social construction perspective, as discussed in discourse analysis theories like those of Peter L. Berger and Teun A. Van Dijk, knowledge and social realities are constructed through communication and shared meanings. When the public perceives that the official narrative or media portrayal is constructed artificially as by inflating likes without real viewership challenges the legitimacy of that narrative and creates cognitive dissonance. This dissonance fuels skepticism and distrust, which are hallmarks of value conflicts.
Moreover, the conflict is intensified by the diversity of perceptions in society, shaped by different educational backgrounds, political interests, and social contexts. Some groups may accept or support the official message, while others reject it as inauthentic or manipulative. This fragmentation underscores the value conflict, as differing interpretations of what constitutes honesty, legitimacy, and public service clash.
In summary, the phenomenon of disproportionate likes versus viewers on the "VP's" video symbolises a value conflict between the public’s demand for genuine engagement and the perceived artificiality of the government’s communication strategy. This conflict reflects broader issues of trust, transparency, and social legitimacy in the relationship between Indonesian society and its leaders.
And as a closing, let's sing Bread's song, Aubrey—this song is very melancholic and touching, often interpreted as a reflection on platonic love, a love that only lives in imagination and memories, not in reality. We'll start from,
But who’s to blame?
For a love that wouldn’t bloom
For the hearts that never played in tune.
Like a lovely melody that everyone can sing,
Take away the words that rhyme, it doesn’t mean a thing.
