7 ms·

That sounds plausible. And I think if the first communication on the matter had been about the difference between robots and devices containing robotics technol

That sounds plausible. And I think if the first communication on the matter had been about the difference between robots and devices containing robotics technology, that would be correct. However the first communication (according to the original post) was about indecent / not in keeping with CES image. The "Oh well, it's not even a real robot" seems like an afterthought. So not really a "baseless claim". A stretch, maybe, but a pretty reasonable one, all things considered.

jeroenhd 8y ago
To me the first response sounds very much like a canned PR response written by someone with little knowledge of what goes on inside CES. CES has allowed vibrators before so I don't see why they wouldn't stroke with policy now. As another comment in this thread states, OhMiBod has been showcased for years. I think at first someone at the top (or middle management) just said "that's not relevant, someone get that project out of here", which got passed down the chain of the company to some intern writing a standard email with a useless explanation. Then, when that blew up, an actual response was formed by the PR department, then by the top of the company, complicated further by the authors of this piece contacting people unrelated to either statement and getting another explanation from them. Just a corporate communications cluster fuck. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" and all that.
- foldr 8y ago
  The chain of events you're describing illustrates how sexism actually works. It's not usually the result of a cabal of Evil Sexists deliberately doing their best to be sexists.
  - ubercow13 8y ago
    What part of that chain of events would lead to a sexist outcome? Where's the gender bias introduced?
    - foldr 8y ago
      I think CES's half-formed "this is immoral" and "this is not a robot" excuses would have been less likely if the product was targeted at men.
      - specialp 8y ago
        Without an example of them showing bias by actually giving an award to a product that is much like theirs that targets men this is sheer conjecture, and presumption of bias. Has the CES ever given an award for an adult product? Perhaps it could be due to the USA having very puritan views on sex still to this day (Violence OK on broadcast TV, but no nudity/sex).
        foldr 8y ago
        Yes, CES has previously given awards to sex toys - even to sex toys targeted at women.
      - jeroenhd 8y ago
        I won't say anything about the immorality because differentiating between male and female sexual experiences is incredibly bigoted and I don't believe this is what was meant by their message at all. I'd expect a similarly advanced fleshlight to be refused on the same grounds as this toy, despite being built for men. I don't think it's fair that this product, advanced as though it might be, is put in the same category as fully articulated sex robots.
        foldr 8y ago
        Like I said, this isn't about intentions. It's entirely possible to unintentionally differentiate between male and female sexual experiences. I don't understand why you think it shouldn't be in the same category as a sex robot. A robot doesn't have to be some kind of fake human to be a robot.
      - lawnchair_larry 8y ago
        CES did not say it was immoral, that was deceptive on the part of the author.
- undecisive 8y ago
  Again, totally plausible. I agree that the post has jumped to a conclusion, that this conclusion is sensationalist and some of their arguments require further justification. And I should point out that I very often dismiss such articles as crying wolf, especially where there is something to be gained by doing so (in this case, lots of publicity). But actually, the issue deserves some publicity. Even if it was just an intern jumping to a somewhat sexist conclusion (though it sounds slightly absurd that they would send an intern to rescind a winning entry, but then I have absolutely no understanding of the inner workings of CES) So yeah - an intentional choice has clearly been made to view this through a lens; that lens happens to be a little sensationalist. But still, it's far from a baseless accusation. (also prejudice does not necessitate malice. In my view, in the majority of cases, prejudice IS stupidity. But you can hurt a lot of people with stupidity)

jeroenhd 8y ago

To me the first response sounds very much like a canned PR response written by someone with little knowledge of what goes on inside CES. CES has allowed vibrators before so I don't see why they wouldn't stroke with policy now. As another comment in this thread states, OhMiBod has been showcased for years. I think at first someone at the top (or middle management) just said "that's not relevant, someone get that project out of here", which got passed down the chain of the company to some intern writing a standard email with a useless explanation. Then, when that blew up, an actual response was formed by the PR department, then by the top of the company, complicated further by the authors of this piece contacting people unrelated to either statement and getting another explanation from them. Just a corporate communications cluster fuck. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" and all that.

foldr 8y ago
The chain of events you're describing illustrates how sexism actually works. It's not usually the result of a cabal of Evil Sexists deliberately doing their best to be sexists.
- ubercow13 8y ago
  What part of that chain of events would lead to a sexist outcome? Where's the gender bias introduced?
  - foldr 8y ago
    I think CES's half-formed "this is immoral" and "this is not a robot" excuses would have been less likely if the product was targeted at men.
    - specialp 8y ago
      Without an example of them showing bias by actually giving an award to a product that is much like theirs that targets men this is sheer conjecture, and presumption of bias. Has the CES ever given an award for an adult product? Perhaps it could be due to the USA having very puritan views on sex still to this day (Violence OK on broadcast TV, but no nudity/sex).
      - foldr 8y ago
        Yes, CES has previously given awards to sex toys - even to sex toys targeted at women.
    - jeroenhd 8y ago
      I won't say anything about the immorality because differentiating between male and female sexual experiences is incredibly bigoted and I don't believe this is what was meant by their message at all. I'd expect a similarly advanced fleshlight to be refused on the same grounds as this toy, despite being built for men. I don't think it's fair that this product, advanced as though it might be, is put in the same category as fully articulated sex robots.
      - foldr 8y ago
        Like I said, this isn't about intentions. It's entirely possible to unintentionally differentiate between male and female sexual experiences. I don't understand why you think it shouldn't be in the same category as a sex robot. A robot doesn't have to be some kind of fake human to be a robot.
    - lawnchair_larry 8y ago
      CES did not say it was immoral, that was deceptive on the part of the author.
undecisive 8y ago
Again, totally plausible. I agree that the post has jumped to a conclusion, that this conclusion is sensationalist and some of their arguments require further justification. And I should point out that I very often dismiss such articles as crying wolf, especially where there is something to be gained by doing so (in this case, lots of publicity). But actually, the issue deserves some publicity. Even if it was just an intern jumping to a somewhat sexist conclusion (though it sounds slightly absurd that they would send an intern to rescind a winning entry, but then I have absolutely no understanding of the inner workings of CES) So yeah - an intentional choice has clearly been made to view this through a lens; that lens happens to be a little sensationalist. But still, it's far from a baseless accusation. (also prejudice does not necessitate malice. In my view, in the majority of cases, prejudice IS stupidity. But you can hurt a lot of people with stupidity)