[First] Kogan Aura Smart Watch (Pink Transparent) $9.99 Delivered @ Kogan

Related Stores

Kogan

Marketplace

• 

  tenpercent on 02/04/2025 - 07:06

  -1

  Might be good for parents with fussy kids who want a smart watch because all their friends have one.

  Nah the other kids will just tease them:

  Ha ha ha! Little scalebearer has a Kogan watch! Ha ha ha! Povo!

  .

  So for sons who have adopted "toxic masculinity"

  Can you define "toxic masculinity" for those of us who haven't yet read the little red book of modern wokeism?

• 

  BargainBenno on 02/04/2025 - 07:48

  +4

  Just shows the profit in these watches if they can sell them at $10.

• 

  Buyingcrap on 02/04/2025 - 08:34

  Bro saw a pink watch and got triggered

  • 

    scalebearer on 02/04/2025 - 09:13

    Who did?

• 

  JakDac on 02/04/2025 - 11:02

  Is it pink BAND now for $10 ?

  • 

    corky on 02/04/2025 - 11:05

    Looks that way 🙄

• 

  afu on 02/04/2025 - 11:10

  It is back up to $49.99 now

• 

  I like GoodDeals on 02/04/2025 - 11:10

  Is the Watch strap or watch for 9.99 ?

  • 

    scalebearer on 02/04/2025 - 11:20

    It was $10 earlier this morning, it's now at $50, more than the $30 for the black one.

    Must have just been some old stock for the pink watch that they wanted to shift quickly.

    • 

      tenpercent on 02/04/2025 - 11:40

      -3

      Nah it must be that way because of toxic femininity. People are not willing to buy the black watch because they believe their lady bits willl automatically fall off after putting on a non-pink accessory. /s

      There is a black one, but it is triple the price.
      So for sons who have adopted "toxic masculinity" and think pink makes you homosexual, changing the strap will come at additional cost.

      Come to think of it, that is probably the reason why this is $10 and the black one is $30.
      People are not willing to buy the pink watch because they believe their gentleman bits will automatically fall off after putting on a pink accessory.

      

      tenpercent on 02/04/2025 - 11:40 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
      • 

        scalebearer on 02/04/2025 - 12:02

        What is your problem?

        • 

          tenpercent on 02/04/2025 - 12:03

          @scalebearer: I'm wondering the same thing…

          So for sons who have adopted "toxic masculinity" and think pink makes you homosexual, changing the strap will come at additional cost.

          Come to think of it, that is probably the reason why this is $10 and the black one is $30.
          People are not willing to buy the pink watch because they believe their gentleman bits will automatically fall off after putting on a pink accessory.

          • 

            scalebearer on 02/04/2025 - 12:06

            @tenpercent: What point are you trying to make?

            • 

              tenpercent on 02/04/2025 - 12:08

              -2

              @scalebearer: Your inconsistent and propagandised sexist thinking.

              • 

                scalebearer on 02/04/2025 - 12:16

                @tenpercent: What is inconsistent, propagandised or sexist about my thinking?

                • 

                  tenpercent on 02/04/2025 - 14:25

                  @scalebearer: You claimed both:
                  1. When the pink one is cheaper it's because people don't want it because "toxic masculinity", and
                  2. When the pink one is more expensive it was only cheaper because they had excess stock they wanted to get rid of.

                  Pick one.

                  The two statements appear to be inconsistent in their explanations for the price difference between the pink and black watches. Statement 1 suggests that the price difference is due to "toxic masculinity" and people's unwillingness to buy the pink watch, while Statement 2 implies that the price difference is due to the fact that the pink watch was a one-time sale or old stock.

                  These statements demonstrate inconsistent, propagandised, and sexist thinking in the following ways:

                  • Inconsistent thinking: The author initially suggests that the price difference is due to people's unwillingness to buy the pink watch because of "toxic masculinity" and sexist attitudes. However, when the price of the pink watch suddenly increases to $50, the author quickly changes their explanation to "old stock" without addressing the original issue. This inconsistency suggests that the author is not committed to their original argument and is willing to abandon it when it no longer serves their purposes.
                  • Propagandised thinking: The author's initial statement relies on a stereotype about people who exhibit "toxic masculinity" and their supposed attitudes towards pink products. This stereotype is a common trope in modern wokeism, but it is not necessarily supported by evidence. The author's use of this stereotype to explain the price difference suggests that they are relying on propagandistic thinking rather than critical analysis.
                  • Sexist thinking: The author's language and tone in both statements are sexist and derogatory, particularly towards men who allegedly exhibit "toxic masculinity" (presumably meaning not effeminate enough). The author's use of phrases like "gentleman bits" is condescending and demeaning, and suggests that they view men who do not conform to certain expectations as inferior. This kind of language is not only sexist but also perpetuates negative attitudes towards men who do not fit into narrow definitions of masculinity.
                  • 

                    scalebearer on 02/04/2025 - 14:37

                    @tenpercent:

                    1. When the pink one is cheaper it's because people don't want it because "toxic masculinity", and

                    Please show me where I said this.

                    2. When the pink one is more expensive it was only cheaper because they had excess stock they wanted to get rid of.

                    This is correct, because once the price jumped to $50, it is labelled as "presale" with an estimated shipping date in June.
                    This would suggest that any stock in their warehouses are now gone and they would have to order in a new batch for any future orders.

                    Pick one.

                    Even if we were to assume your 2 assertions had some validity, why do you think this is an exclusive or?

                    The two statements appear to be inconsistent in their explanations for the price difference between the pink and black watches. Statement 1 suggests that the price difference is due to "toxic masculinity" and people's unwillingness to buy the pink watch, while Statement 2 implies that the price difference is due to the fact that the pink watch was a one-time sale or old stock.

                    These statements demonstrate inconsistent, propagandised, and sexist thinking in the following ways:

                    • Inconsistent thinking: The author initially suggests that the price difference is due to people's unwillingness to buy the pink watch because of "toxic masculinity" and sexist attitudes. However, when the price of the pink watch suddenly increases to $50, the author quickly changes their explanation to "old stock" without addressing the original issue. This inconsistency suggests that the author is not committed to their original argument and is willing to abandon it when it no longer serves their purposes.
                    • Propagandised thinking: The author's initial statement relies on a stereotype about people who exhibit "toxic masculinity" and their supposed attitudes towards pink products. This stereotype is a common trope in modern wokeism, but it is not necessarily supported by evidence. The author's use of this stereotype to explain the price difference suggests that they are relying on propagandistic thinking rather than critical analysis.
                    • Sexist thinking: The author's language and tone in both statements are sexist and derogatory, particularly towards men who exhibit "toxic masculinity". The author's use of phrases like "gentleman bits" is condescending and demeaning, and suggests that they view men who do not conform to certain expectations as inferior. This kind of language is not only sexist but also perpetuates negative attitudes towards men who do not fit into narrow definitions of masculinity.

                    The tone of the rest of your response is completely different.
                    Did you write this yourself?

                    Not only do I think you did not write this yourself, but the contents are largely nonsense and was probably massaged to within an inch of its life while you were playing with whatever tool you used.

                    • 

                      tenpercent on 02/04/2025 - 14:48

                      @scalebearer:

                      Please show me where I said this.

                      I've quoted you on this a couple of times already, but here goes again…

                      There is a black one, but it is triple the price.
                      So for sons who have adopted "toxic masculinity" and think pink makes you homosexual, changing the strap will come at additional cost.

                      Come to think of it, that is probably the reason why this is $10 and the black one is $30.
                      People are not willing to buy the pink watch because they believe their gentleman bits will automatically fall off after putting on a pink accessory.

                      .

                      This is correct

                      Yes, I think so too. Inconsistent with the first claim though.

                      The tone of the rest of your response is completely different.

                      A change in tone does not negate what was said.

                      playing with whatever tool

                      Giggidy

                      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣶⣦⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
                      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠟⠛⠛⠉⠙⠻⢿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
                      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠂⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡙⢿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
                      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣇⠀⢀⠔⠉⠉⠉⢢⠀⠀⠀⡠⠐⠒⠠⣠⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
                      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⢘⠊⠉⠉⠉⠉⡇⠀⠘⠒⠒⠒⠒⠚⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
                      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢩⢿⡿⠀⠘⢤⠤⢒⣲⡔⠀⠀⡰⡤⠤⠤⠦⣰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
                      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠰⠉⠉⠉⠉⠹⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
                      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠤⠀⠀⠱⡀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⡀⠀⠀⠀
                      ⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣍⠀⠱⡀⠀⠀⠀⠢⡀⠀⠀⠘⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢄⠀⠀
                      ⠀⠀⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣦⡀⠘⢤⡀⠀⠀⠈⠒⠤⣀⠀⠑⡄⠀⠀⠀⠈⢆⠀
                      ⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣦⣀⠈⠑⠢⠤⢀⣀⣀⡈⠩⡁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡆
                      ⠀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣤⠤⠤⠤⠏⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢱
                      ⠀⠀⢇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢫⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸
                      ⠀⠀⠈⢦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠣⡀⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠆
                      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠑⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⡱⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠊⠀
                      ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢨⣷⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⠢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠞⠁⠀⠀
                      ⠀⠀⢀⣠⣶⣿⣿⡇⠉⠒⠤⢄⡠⡤⠤⢖⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠔⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀
                      ⣠⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⡇⠀⠀⠈⠓⠂⠤⠄⠒⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
                      ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⢀⣾⣿⡿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
                      ⣿⡟⠋⠘⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡜⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
                      ⣿⣉⠀⠐⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣜⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

                      • 

                        scalebearer on 02/04/2025 - 15:01

                        @tenpercent: You haven't addressed anything about the "exclusive or" proposition and have conveniently left that out of your extensive response.

                        A change in tone does not negate what was said.

                        No, but the truth does.

                        You have failed to demonstrate anything inconsistent, propagandised or sexist about my thinking, which was the original crux of your argument.

                        One might be starting to suspect that you are intentionally engaging in a bad faith argument.

                        I would suggest you learn to use your own words rather than using tools to do the work for you.

                        • 

                          tenpercent on 02/04/2025 - 15:04

                          @scalebearer: Let's address one at a time.

                          Inconsistent thinking: The author initially suggests that the price difference is due to people's unwillingness to buy the pink watch because of "toxic masculinity" and sexist attitudes. However, when the price of the pink watch suddenly increases to $50, the author quickly changes their explanation to "old stock" without addressing the original issue. This inconsistency suggests that the author is not committed to their original argument and is willing to abandon it when it no longer serves their purposes.

                          What is wrong with that? Are you suggesting the two distinct claims are not inconsistent, and if so how are they consistent with each other?

                          • 

                            scalebearer on 02/04/2025 - 15:16

                            @tenpercent:

                            What is wrong with that?

                            Everything.

                            Both of those 2 assertions can be true.
                            They are not mutually exclusive.

                            Stating one does not mean it is impossible for the other to be true.

                            You definitely know this as well and are deliberately engaging in a bad faith argument.

                            • 

                              tenpercent on 02/04/2025 - 15:30

                              @scalebearer: Either:

                              • the price is low because there's not enough buyers because of sexism, or
                              • the price is low because they're getting rid of excess stock, or
                              • are you now claiming that the price is low because of excess stock and they have excess stock because of sexism? (which is a different proposition again)

                              But why must either low price or low stock be due to sexism / "toxic masculinity"?

                              A more plausible explanation is that the price difference is due to fashion consciousness. Neutral colors like black, grey, and white are more versatile and go with most outfits, making them more popular, i.e. more demand, and thus more expensive. On the other hand, brighter colors like pink, red, blue, green, yellow may not appeal to as many people because they are less versatile, resulting in excess stock and a lower price to clear it out. Having a discount on the less versatile and less popular pink watch could also attract customers who might also consider buying a more popular neutral-colored watch (think: would you like an apple pie with that?).

                              • 

                                scalebearer on 02/04/2025 - 15:36

                                @tenpercent:

                                Either:

                                • the price is low because there's not enough buyers because of sexism, or
                                • the price is low because they're getting rid of excess stock, or
                                • are you now claiming that the price is low because of excess stock and they have excess stock because of sexism? (which is a different proposition again)

                                Do you understand what "exclusive or" or "mutually exclusive" mean?

                                The crux of your proposition is that only one can be true and the other must be false.
                                That is incorrect.

                                It is also possible that one caused the other as well.

                                But why must either low price or low stock be due to sexism / "toxic masculinity"?

                                Where have I talked about sexism?
                                Why are you equating sexism and toxic masculinity?

                                • 

                                  tenpercent on 02/04/2025 - 15:42

                                  @scalebearer: Are you suggesting then that the price is low because there's not enough buyers because of toxic masculinity / sexism AND because they're getting rid of excess stock?

                                  A more plausible explanation is that the price difference is due to fashion consciousness. Neutral colors like black, grey, and white are more versatile and go with most outfits, making them more popular, i.e. more demand, and thus more expensive. On the other hand, brighter colors like pink, red, blue, green, yellow may not appeal to as many people because they are less versatile, resulting in excess stock and a lower price to clear it out. Having a discount on the less versatile and less popular pink watch could also attract customers who might also consider buying a more popular neutral-colored watch (think: would you like an apple pie with that?).

                                  • 

                                    scalebearer on 02/04/2025 - 15:48

                                    @tenpercent:

                                    Are you suggesting then that the price is low because there's not enough buyers because of toxic masculinity / sexism AND because they're getting rid of excess stock?

                                    Correct.

                                    It is also worth noting that in my original post, I talked about young boys, who are very much into certain influencers nowadays that encourage toxic masculinity.

                                    It is a real and present issue.
                                    Just ask any female teacher and compare their observations with retired teachers who were not dealing with said issues when they were working.

                                    A more plausible explanation is that the price difference is due to fashion consciousness. Neutral colors like black, grey, and white are more versatile and go with most outfits, making them more popular, i.e. more demand, and thus more expensive. On the other hand, brighter colors like pink, red, blue, green, yellow may not appeal to as many people because they are less versatile, resulting in excess stock and a lower price to clear it out. Having a discount on the less versatile and less popular pink watch could also attract customers who might also consider buying a more popular neutral-colored watch (think: would you like an apple pie with that?).

                                    Repeating the same argument over and over again does not make it more potent.
                                    It just demonstrates the limits of your reasoning skills (or lack thereof, in this case).

• 

  Kas on 02/04/2025 - 16:08

  Did anyone noticed, expected shipping date?

  • 

    scalebearer on 02/04/2025 - 16:38

    It was marked as expired ~7 hours ago.

    There was probably some stock they wanted to clear out, so they priced it at $10 for a short period of time, then jacked it to $50 after the current stock was depleted and they started taking preorders for the next batch.