I think the point is the definition of toxic masculinity that you are using differs from that of some of the other posters.
As I understand your definition toxic masculinity is the pressure society puts on people to conform to negative masculine roles.
My personal definition would be people expressing there masculinity in a way that is hurtful and belittling of others.
They both are part of the same problem where society creates and perpetuates and pushes people to toxic expressions of masculinity and that in turn hurts the public in general. Which looks something like:
Society -> Masculine Roles -> The Public
I'd call the negative expression of that chain Toxic Societal Norms and the second part would be Toxic Masculinity. In both cases it's the noun, societal norms or masculinity, that is the source of the toxicity.
> As I understand your definition toxic masculinity is the pressure society puts on people to conform to negative masculine roles.
> My personal definition would be people expressing there masculinity in a way that is hurtful and belittling of others.
It's both. The cultural norms, and people expressing them are both definitive of toxic masculinity.
The belittling is often a product of people internalizing those norms. They then ostracize or punish others who either fail to meet them in the eyes of the belittler, or are evocative to the belittler of the ways in which they, themselves, fail to meet them.
In fact, that kind of behavior is what the term "virtue signaling" is actually about: behavior that is performed to signal affiliation with and enforce the norms of some group. It doesn't actually mean the "you're all talk" kind of thing that it's broadly become.
Why wait for future generations? Some of these seem pretty horrific and worthy of derision in the here and now.
I think the biggest problem I see in looking at this trend is the utter inauthenticity of the resulting building. It fails to preserve the original building and it doesn't allow a new building to express itself.
I see value in preserving or renovating the old, I see value in creating something new. I even think a real fusion of old and new could be great. But from what I see this does none of those things. This seems more akin to putting lipstick on a pig.
But perhaps future generations will come to love the charm of this juxtaposition. Perhaps new construction will create new freestanding facades so that the real building can be swapped out easily without changing the frontage. And at the very least I can find amusement in the building of these abominations.
The copy and design of the landing page led me to believe that FreedomBox is an actual box that has all that great software preloaded and ready to go. Which made the unlabeled download button jarring. The text should be changed to something like:
FreedomBox is designed to [run on/create] your own inexpensive server at home. It [includes/is built with] free software and offers an increasing number of services ranging from a calendar or jabber server to a wiki or VPN.
There was indeed, as I understand it, a plan to sell all set up hardware, ready to go. The original stuff got delayed when the main developer had his house burn down in a forest fire or something. But the software is usable.
Apparently, they were selling some all-set-to-go boxes at LibrePlanet…
I don't mean some custom thing, it was an existing off-the-shelf product with FreedomBox preconfigured… I mean, I heard this from someone who went to LibrePlanet and came home with a FreedomBox they specifically got there.
It might be creepy, but it might not be. It is possible that the conversation influenced the ad shown. But it is also likely that ad would have been shown no matter what the prior conversation was about. If the conversation hadn't included talking about the college prior to seeing the ad it would have been a non-event. But being primed in advance makes it at least feel like a freaky coincidence or at worst nefariously creepy targeted advertising.
These kind of events happen by chance and have been happening well before almost everyone started carrying mobile recording devices in their pockets and even pre-internet.
I have no doubt that advertisers would love to have that kind of insight but I can't help but feel that the anecdote of the form, we talked about A and A showed up X minutes later, is too easily explain by coincidence. How many topics were discussed, how many ads were shown? When I read something like this I imagine the anecdote should read more along the lines of how we talked about A, B, C, D, E and F and among the dozen or so ads I saw afterwords one of them was topic A! Can you believe it? And yes, yes I can, that is a pretty neat coincidence.
On the other hand if out of all 6 of the topics discussed all of the ads that were shown afterward were related to them, maybe not all, but more than one or two. That sounds like there is something fishy going on.
I don't mean to single out this particular example, it was to be a simple comment that had more to say. So, thank you for the inspiration!
The first time it happened to me, I considered it a coincidence. And the next few times too. It must because the game is new, or they know I've been searching for new floors on my computer, ect. But it keeps happening, and it's always in the time following after it was talked about, but not searched for. It has happened for things we talked about at friends place, that is completely outside what my wife and I would do.
The most blatant I've experienced was on the Wii U. The controller with the screen powers up and shows ads for new games every now and then. We actually had a bit of fun with it, casually talking about new games and guess what happened. An ad for that particular game was shown. I'm 100% certain now, that it happens with smartphones as well.
It could be the ads came up a more conventional way - the makers are priming the publicity for the game so it shows up in magazines and ad buys etc. If you and your friends are avid gamers - you probably get some early exposure before more general ad channels buys show up.
But to really answer this question, we could build a better experiment. Write out a set of topics on index cards. You have to be careful that topics aren't new product rollouts (otherwise you really have to think about how you decided to write that topic down in the first place). Draw a card, don't talk about or search the topic for some amount of time, then inject the topic where it might be observed (talk about it and/or search for it somewhere), then for some amount of time, see if it comes up.
Also keep track of every time that you see references to each topic both before and after bringing them up.
And have a control group that you simply don't bring up at all. Make sure to have more than one, so that you still have more remaining if someone around you brings up one of your control topics.
Here's a fun experiment idea. When you are around friends and the Wii U, only talk about games that came out at Wii U launch, ideally one you don't have. Like, FIFA Soccer 13 or something. Don't ever search for that game or talk about it away from the Wii U. After a week or so of that, see if you get an ad for it.
"We were talking about new games and I got and ad for a new game!" sounds like pretty standard, non-targeted advertising. Easily chalked up to coincidence. Steam advertises new games to me, some I'm interested in and some I'm not, but I don't think Steam is reading my brainwaves.
I cannot remember that it have ever showed one while I was sitting and reading an entire evening. But as soon as we start talking it will show advertising. That could be explained that it simply detects noise in the room, but it correlating to what we're talking about more often than not.
There's an option to disable it waking up and displaying things, so I've never seen adverts on mine (but maybe there's other things shown you do want to see?)
The paper he is using is 53 cents per page according to the provided link. Ink cost is a bit harder to determine without knowing how many prints per pen. He is including free shipping, could easily be $5 to $10. There is also the matter of the time taken, the overhead of space and electricity and that doesn't even acknowledge any creativity. I'd estimate the break even point to be around $20-25. Much less than that and it would be more sensible to not bother doing anything at all.
You are correct, if Amazon Go stores end up being targets for robbery that would damage roll out of additional stores the problem is that I can't think of how any one could rob them blind. The primary problem being that there is no cash to steal in the store and the goods all have low price to bulk ratios making them just plain difficult to steal. They just aren't worth robbing. Not that someone won't try anyway.
That isn't to say they couldn't be targeted by shoplifters, but that is a huge difference from being robbed blind. And even here the store has two advantages in that login with the app is required to even enter and the whole store is covered with sensors and cameras in addition to the staff.
As for the PR fallout I'd actually be interested to see how that goes, how much biometric data Amazon was able to gather on them even with a mask and/or bulky clothes, how the security features of the store actually work.
I fondly remember seeing that product grid on Apple's website. And even though it isn't displayed as a grid I think the current iPad lineup fits the 2 axis concept pretty well. They still have the consumer/professional or consumption/creation axis. The Pro being the professional/creation end. And instead of laptop/desktop they have the size or portability axis. In the large professional there is the 12.9-inch iPad Pro, in the small professional there is the 9.7-inch iPad Pro. For the large consumer there is the iPad and finally the for the small consumer is the iPad mini.
