Google's Brin says smartphones are antisocial, 'emasculating'

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 91
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    I'm sure they'll tell you lasik is needed so you can see the Emperor's new clothes.


     


    They need to be a lot less conspicuous to use/wear than currently pictured. The original DynaTAC was a bit odd when it was first released, but eventually as the devices became smaller and more widespread they also became less peculiar to the general public.


     


  • Reply 42 of 91
    muppetry wrote: »
    To be fair, the primary modern meaning of the verb  "to emasculate" is just "to weaken". It does derive from an archaic word meaning castrate, and, specifically in relation to males, it can have the meaning that you quoted, but he may have been using it correctly in the sense of weakening interpersonal interactions. Still a dorkish comment though.

    The thing is, he used the word expecting people to take its so-called primary meaning, when society is most likely to take the "losing masculinity" meaning because it's actually more common. That's like expecting people to understand that "intimate with" does not mean "had sex with," because the societal norm is to interpret as exactly that (sex).

    Especially in societies like the USA where sex is an abnormally hightened obsession because of repression and insecurity around the topic.
  • Reply 43 of 91
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dysamoria wrote: »
    The thing is, he used the word expecting people to take its so-called primary meaning, when society is most likely to take the "losing masculinity" meaning because it's actually more common. That's like expecting people to understand that "intimate with" does not mean "had sex with," because the societal norm is to interpret as exactly that (sex).

    Especially in societies like the USA where sex is an abnormally hightened obsession because of repression and insecurity around the topic.

    1) It's funny but its not his problem that too many people have such a limited lexicon. I can't imagine any adult that would read his quote to not be able to consider that a word can have multiple meanings.

    2) Sex and gender are oft used interchangeably but sex typically refers to biology whilst gender typically refers to cultural or social differences. This means that you are pretty stuck with male and female for sex but society can create a virtually unlimited number of genders. One general example, a transvestite could be male by sex and female by their gender association. Also, in case this isn't known in 2013, it appears that referring to another human being by their chosen gender role is apropos and trumps the sex role, and gender neuter 'it' doesn't appear to ever be appropriate, even among the fringe cultures that actually strive for androgyny.
  • Reply 44 of 91
    Sure, it's the phone that's doing the emasculating, and not Sergey himself.

    http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.jpg
  • Reply 45 of 91
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 2,207member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    Well, that's the "modern" meaning, but as recently as the 1970's it meant "unmanly."  That's just a very recent veneer of PC language really.  
    The literal meaning of the word is to "remove one's masculinity."  

    Besides, "weak" is hardly any different.  It's somehow culturally okay for women to be weak, but not men.  "Weak" is a dig against "wimpy" men. 
    If you want to insult a woman you use macho adjectives like "pushy" and "angry," if you want to insult a man you call him "weak" or "sensitive."    

    Which is why it's offensive, but also just so over-the-top stupid when you consider a skinny, nerdy geeky guy is who said it.  
    It's just a horrible, horrible, thing to say IMO but more stupid than anything else.  

    It doesn't even make sense at all because how is checking your phone all the time "weak" or unmanly?  Checking your phone all the time is actually a power position thing.  It's purpose is to let everyone in the room know that you have a cool smartphone, that you know how to use it, and that important messages might be on it for you.  It says that you are rich, important, and connected.  

    It's about as manly as it gets really.

    Never underestimate the level to which technology geeks, especially those in positions of capitalist power, can fail to comprehend human socialization and attempt to pressure to change it for purposes of making money. Look at the industrialization of food and the way industry tried, and succeeded, in re-programming housewives and people in general back in the 50s and on...
  • Reply 46 of 91
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 2,207member
    maccentric wrote: »
    Sure, it's the phone that's doing the emasculating, and not Sergey himself.

    http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.jpg

    Thank you, Internet!
  • Reply 47 of 91
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    I wonder if Google's Motorola division got the news. Unless, of course, the "firewall" is still up between Google and Motorola. (Yeah. Right.)

    Anyway, I think we're on the verge of a new Twitter hashtag.
    #Glasshole anyone? Is that trending yet?
  • Reply 48 of 91
    sockrolid wrote: »
    I wonder if Google's Motorola division got the news. Unless, of course, the "firewall" is still up between Google and Motorola. (Yeah. Right.)

    Anyway, I think we're on the verge of a new Twitter hashtag.
    #Glasshole anyone? Is that trending yet?
    Trademark that term and make a twitter account before anyone else does!

    EDIT - Nevermind there's already a twitter account for it that hasn't posted in three and half years. Shucks.
  • Reply 49 of 91
    Double post
  • Reply 50 of 91
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,991member
    Mate, if someone comes into a public toilet wearing a pair of those Google Glass things, they are going head first into the urinal because of the constantly filming camera.
  • Reply 51 of 91
    Don't bother to take your glasses off Sergey, before I punch you. The hospital will cut those out afterwards
  • Reply 52 of 91
    Google seems to be having trouble explaining what is its vision for its new hardware products.
    He trashes the smartphone but the Glass depends on it to fully work. He says smartphones are antisocial but wants you wearing something that will always be in your face even if you are not using it, and everyone will be oblivious wether you are using it or not... great way to promote trust. Actually you will probably use it more since it will always be there.
    Sure people stare at their smartphones and don%u2019t interact with others around, but Glass will be no different. People might seem to be staring at others but there are limits to how many things one person can pay attention to at the same time! Social behavior can only change if people choose to interact with others around. With technology always present there will always be another choice to not interact.
    Brin says "Is this what you're meant to do with your body?" That is a perfect question for "Glass"!! Are we meant to use his technology in our body? What for? So that he can feed us what his company thinks is important, paid by advertisers? Now that is emasculating...
  • Reply 53 of 91

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    Patent denied.


    Previous artwork




     


     


    Same here: definitively prior art! image


     


  • Reply 54 of 91
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    mstone wrote: »
    They need to be a lot less conspicuous to use/wear than currently pictured. The original DynaTAC was a bit odd when it was first released, but eventually as the devices became smaller and more widespread they also became less peculiar to the general public.

    <img alt="" height="377" src="http://static.flickr.com/3051/3049532570_324bf59c13.jpg" style="border:0px none;" title="MARTIN COOPER Inventor of the Mobile Phone" width="253">

    The usage model of a phone is different though. With Glass, it really needs to be on your face constantly. With a phone, users can put it away when it's not being used.

    There will be improvements to design and cost, but it's a bit troubling that they're trying to sell the first version of Glass as fashionable, note the DVF promotional video. Models can make anything look good, but it seems like it's going to be the Wayne Knights of the world that will latch onto it and make us curse Dr. Brin for making them.

    It is very impressive all that stuff can fit in a tiny body.
  • Reply 55 of 91
    checking your phone is an addiction, put plastering it in front of your face is not?
  • Reply 56 of 91


    the product that isn't even a product should be renamed the 'headband'. no glasses involved.

  • Reply 58 of 91
    dbtincdbtinc Posts: 134member


    No, the guy's a jerk. I'm switching to Bing ...

  • Reply 59 of 91
    vorsosvorsos Posts: 302member


    I don't recall Apple ever trashing any of their current/past products in favor of their next unreleased gadget. That's more of Microsoft's territory. Example:


     


    "XP Service Pack 3 is amazing. It really ties up all those loose security ends."


    Three months later: "Vista is amazing. It really is the most secure Windows ever! XP is garbage which you should uninstall immediately!"


    Two years later: "Windows 7 is the most secure Windows ever! What's Vista?"


     



    PhilBoogie View Post

    Don't bother to take your glasses off Sergey, before I punch you. The hospital will cut those out afterwards


    "Sergey is so immature to make a statement like that!"


    "Yeah, let's give 'im a swirlie!"


    "What are you, a fag? Just punch him!"


     


    Well done, way to take the high road, g'nite everyone.


     



    SolipsismX View Post


    dysamoria View Post

    The thing is, he used the word expecting people to take its so-called primary meaning, when society is most likely to take the "losing masculinity" meaning because it's actually more common. That's like expecting people to understand that "intimate with" does not mean "had sex with," because the societal norm is to interpret as exactly that (sex).

    Especially in societies like the USA where sex is an abnormally hightened obsession because of repression and insecurity around the topic.




    1) It's funny but its not his problem that too many people have such a limited lexicon. I can't imagine any adult that would read his quote to not be able to consider that a word can have multiple meanings.



    2) Sex and gender are oft used interchangeably but sex typically refers to biology whilst gender typically refers to cultural or social differences. This means that you are pretty stuck with male and female for sex but society can create a virtually unlimited number of genders. One general example, a transvestite could be male by sex and female by their gender association. Also, in case this isn't known in 2013, it appears that referring to another human being by their chosen gender role is apropos and trumps the sex role, and gender neuter 'it' doesn't appear to ever be appropriate, even among the fringe cultures that actually strive for androgyny.


     


    dysamoria is saying that the fluid spectrum of human sexuality is completely lost on the typical American, who sees anything outside of one or two clear classifications as something to be disgusted with and mock derisively.

  • Reply 60 of 91

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post




    From what I've seen in photos, videos, and articles from establishments commenting on those wearing them, the placement of the mirror is slightly below one's eyebrow and the users look like they're gazing up taking one's eyes off from whomever they may be interacting with.



    So honestly, I'd rather have some person looking down being visibly rude and inconsiderate as opposed to some guy mimicking a zombie looking around aimlessly.



     


    I agree totally.  I rather see someone "busy" by looking down, then deer in headlights look into space not knowing if they were thinking, ignoring, busy, etc.  If he was really serious about bashing the "smartphone" then he quit Android period.  Stop all production of the software to any smartphone.  Stop taking any money from sales of Android and all it's products.  Put a big red LED or flashing light in the middle of the "glasses" he is wearing so people know when someone is using them.  Then MAYBE someone may take you seriously.


     


    Someone needs to tell him putting up a product that is 1500-2000 bucks for what a free to couple hundred dollar "smartphone" can do, and trying to sell the product with the cheaper item is "bad" for you.  Then why would someone spend massive amounts more for another product that would be "bad" for you???

Sign In or Register to comment.