Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Elephant Parade]

Technically, the Oculus Rift discriminates against woman. A machine can discriminate, though that's not how that sort of thing would normally be phrased.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

What I want to know, and what I hope someone will help me discover, is whether or not biology plays a fundamental role in shaping people’s experience with immersive virtual reality. In other words, are systems like Oculus fundamentally (if inadvertently) sexist in their design?

She outright admits that she figured out nothing about the phenomenon, and since she can't prove the sexual limitations are artificial and therefore sexist [as her boss originally told her to do] she will rely on further information to confirm her predisposed view. Her article is entirely a confirmation of the theory that women and men simply react differently to display methods.

Once again, technical limitations are not sexism. But, if the limitations are artificial, designed to make women less disposed to using the object, then it is sexism, but that'd require some study by a team of non-ideologues interested in actually addressing the issue to determine wether or not malevolent programming is the cause.

[Elephant Parade]

What I want to know, and what I hope someone will help me discover, is whether or not biology plays a fundamental role in shaping people’s experience with immersive virtual reality. In other words, are systems like Oculus fundamentally (if inadvertently) sexist in their design?

She outright admits that she figured out nothing about the phenomenon, and since she can't prove the sexual limitations are artificial and therefore sexist [as her boss originally told her to do] she will rely on further information to confirm her predisposed view. Her article is entirely a confirmation of the theory that women and men simply react differently to display methods.

Once again, technical limitations are not sexism. But, if the limitations are artificial, designed to make women less disposed to using the object, then it is sexism, but that'd require some study by a team of non-ideologues interested in actually addressing the issue to determine wether or not malevolent programming is the cause.

If you're going by pure technicality, the current state of the Oculus Rift is sexist. It could certainly be phrased in a less misleading way, though.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Using the word as a label for a programmed entity having cross-gender compatibility faults only dilutes the meaning of the word.

[Bauglir]

It is sad, this is true. I think calling it sexist is misleading, if potentially technically correct and entirely beside the point anyway. The important part is that the existing technology fails to function for a large part of its potential market, thereby excluding those people from part of a culture they'd like to enjoy, and working on ways to improve 3D rendering technology in ways that address that would be a good direction to go in since the industry is hellbent on pouring its money into graphical stuff anyway.

EDIT: Seriously why are we nitpicking for an entire page over whether or not something is technically sexist. Protip guys: If you've pulled out a dictionary, the argument has failed. For everyone.

[Helgoland]

Rule of thumb: If your definition leads to menstruation being sexist, it's wrong.

[scriver]

Rule of thumb: If your definition leads to menstruation being sexist, it's wrong.

If you're trying to reapply or stretch a definition made in the context of human made technology to unchosen biological functions, you're stupid.

[TD1]

I don't think he was being literal. At least, any hypothesis that includes menstruation doesn't sound serious to me. Regardless, you shouldn't call someone stupid just for what they think.

Not that I know what he meant, of course, but just saying that's what I took from it.

[RAM]

Srotcaf tnaveler to ued rouivaheb sti ryav to deen dlouw ingthemos etanimircsid to redro in.

[TD1]

RAM, you're a very backwards person when it comes to opinions 

[Graknorke]

Rule of thumb: If your definition leads to menstruation being sexist, it's wrong.

If you're trying to reapply or stretch a definition made in the context of human made technology to unchosen biological functions, you're stupid.

The important thing isn't mechanical/biological, it's deliberate/accidental. Just because menstruation purely affects women doesn't make humanity (defined by biology rather than state of mind) sexist. In the same way, the OR being apparently worse for women doesn't make it sexist.

[Vector]

And there are certainly limitations to doing vision experiments with college-aged students in a field whose foundational studies are based almost exclusively on doing studies solely with college-age males.

This is why it's sexist.  Because the machines were designed for, and tested solely on, college-aged males.  The technology hasn't developed because no one bothered to develop the technology because no one bothered to make sure women were studied.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

[citation needed]

[MagmaMcFry]

I feel like the entire reason for the current discussion is that everyone is using his own definition of "sexism". I think the following would clear up a whole load of misunderstandings going on here:

- Continue the discussion as normal, but do not use the word "sexism" under any circumstances. This is there to make you actually explain what you mean by "sexism" every time you want to use it, so other people know how your definition is different from theirs.

- Try to find out which controversial statement you are actually discussing, and then reformulate it without using the word "sexism". You'll have this argument cleared out in no time.

[scrdest]

[citation needed]

Yeah, might as well HAVE been studied, just nobody noticed or bothered to do anything about the differences in the nausea rates.