this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
490 points (93.6% liked)
Privacy
3309 readers
166 users here now
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is quite different, phones are useful devices that people rely on, this is not. More akin to breaking some useless annoying gadget like a toy siren or something
Privacy concerns aside, saying the glasses are literally useless is objectively wrong. They do provide functions that go above what a regular phone can do, and having a hud and hands free interaction at all times is objectively convenient.
You can argue that those convencies are very minor, and that they don't even remotely begin to justify the creepiness of constantly recording (and particularly, no reliable way for someone to tell if they're being recorded), which I entirely agree with. The things are pieces of shit, and everyone who buys one is a dick. But claiming the glasses are equivalent to a toy serious is just objectively wrong.
If you're arguing against something, and misrepresent the nature of that thing in your argument, it just makes the whole argument appear weak and contrived. You should always strongman whatever you're arguing against, not strawman it. If it's truly bad, you shouldn't need strawman arguments to argue convincingly that it IS bad.
By that logic, its equal to a phone is an equal strawman. It is a way less vital device than a phone.
Where exactly do I claim it's equally or that it's equally vital/important ?
Was the initial claim
That someone else made, not me, and I did not address at all.
Yeah, sure, you just claimed that I strawmanned their argument... Cmon.
EDIT: Also, who's doing the strawmanning here? I said that "phones are useful devices that people rely on, while [smart glasses] are not". Then, you went on a tirade how I said that smart glasses are "marginally convenient" instead of "literally useless".
Did I say that they are literally useless? Or rather, implied that they are something along the lines of "marginally convenient", thus not being "useful devices that people rely on"?
Also, I did not say anything about equivalence. I said "more akin to". Which you took as literal equivalence.
This is the wildest pedantry I've witnessed in a while.
You literally sound like a boomer complaining about Smart phones, describing them as "useless toys"
If it makes you happy you can think you won the argument
Oh, I did win the argument. You're objectively wrong. You hating smart glasses, or them being massive walking invasions of privacy, doesn't make them "useless toys". A thing can be bad without being useless. That's a literally childish understanding of concepts.
See my previous comment about strawmanning, mr. "I learned about logical fallacies 5 days ago"
EDIT: So mad you come and check the replies within 5 minutes just to downvote?
I never claimed you strawmaned their argument, I stated you strawmaned the function of smart glasses by comparing to a "useless toy". Which you objectively did. That isn't up for debate. That's a fact.
Smart glasses are, objectively, not useless. Calling them that IS a strawman, and it does very much seem to be based on a childish belief that if the thing you're talking about is overall bad, then EVERYTHING about it must be bad.
Reply point by point:
Can you read? If yes, read my previous comment.
Ah yes. Marvelous argement. I'm right, because I say I'm right^1^
1: Source: Me.
Truly, a masterclass of debate, I am humbled.
Also, if you're gonna be a dick, I'm just gonna block you. Piss off, and I sincerely hope you have truly awful day.
Well, you never actually addressed the points. But if expecting that is "being a dick", well, whatever..
My eyes glazed over as soon as I read this much.
Nothing you say after this matters for a device purpose built for non consensual and inconspicuous invasion of privacy
So I'm guessing you missed this part, then
And this probably too....
Seems like you read two words and then just decided to guess what the rest of the comment is about.
That's the general discourse in this community: ignoramuses flush logic down the shitter.
No worse. If they wanted to, structuring a well reasoned argument is challenging. Throwing out psyche bullshit np.
Then if ask, OK now structure an equally strong and passionate argument for an opposing view.
They'd just mentally be incapable. cuz that doesn't fit into pattern of reactions from a rage addict.
Up to now have been strongly defending the guy. But fuck it this is a game. Now i'm her (watch as I get elected to office).
We, as a society, a long time ago have consciously chosen to put emphasis on people feelings and avoid behaviors that predictably lead to conflict, demonization, and/or demoralization of minority or disadvantaged groups. Although in other societies these behaviors are tolerated, here they are not. Outsiders projecting their ideals upon us can go fuck themselves and the application of laws that perpetuate the societies we purposefully and intentionally no longer want to be associated with as well as can ill afford. From just the evidence presented and nothing more, it's plain to see this guy is targeting women on trains and it makes us uncomfortable and scared to ride the trains. The guy must be an out of towner cuz everyone here does not act this way. In Japan, there are separate cars for women. This change occurred from the harrassment culture that was perpetuated by manga anime and media. This change was instituted to make women in Japan feel safe again riding public transport and does not overly inconvenience men folk cuz it's only enforced during rush hours.
Someone claiming they can do whatever they want cuz it's a public space is not acceptable here and shouldn't be. It breeds a confrontational society of self righteous warmongers that throws everyone but them into unsustainable unlivable lives. I'm surprised they don't all live in tents due to unaffordable housing while we find housing from people who really no longer need it. I like a roof over my head thank you.
I get that, but don't you get satisfaction raising inconvenient facts with rage addicts to lift their irrational outrage beyond orbit?
I get satisfaction by designing complex systems and being tortured by static type checkers. So political pr0n, video games, or 2D chart p0rn does not do it for me. Don't expect my motivations to be the same as those listed addictions. In a world covered in smartphone addicts, it's really hard to imagine someone completely devoid of those addictions.
A rage addict is just someone suffering from a design flaw. I recognize they exist just like trees. A tree producing imperfect fruit does not bug me. The rage addict needs to become capable of weening themselves off the juice. I'm a white hatter. Exploiting system flaws is black hatter. Hope de-assembling nonsense arguments has been helpful.
At one time, thought feeding a rage addict would burn out their rage addiction by having them exhaust themselves. All about coming to the conclusion that it's not worth the effort. But that assumes they can learn, want to learn, or want to adapt/change permanently.
Rage addicts need to recognize they are being played. Until then it's just a broken record on a loop.
This works on any negative emotion. It takes heightened energy to sustain. So fight a war of attrition knowing you'll exhaust your opponent.
That isn't what it is! That's like pointing at a 3d printer and calling it a gun manufacturing station. Sure, it can be used for that, but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
Not sure exactly how serious you are, but you can use a 3D printer without making guns. You cannot use cameras like these in public without massively invading people's privacy.