The irony is that the same author, Emma Haslett, recently wrote an article about women facing increasing child-care costs.

https://www.newstatesman.com/business/2023/03/childcare-cost...

In her lefthand (main thread article): Insults men-- discounts the value of men by denigrating those men who are interested in technology jobs which pay well and are intellectually arduous to even learn let alone practice.

In her righthand (article I link to above): Claims women need more-- complains that women need more money for childcare.

Gee, it's almost as though left-leaning journalists are trying to drive men and women apart.

"Men, as a woman, I tell you: You're terrible! Now go fund women's lifestyles, we need your money!"

> "Men, as a woman, I tell you: You're terrible! Now go fund women's lifestyles, we need your money!"

Wow. If the word "techbro" stirs you to dig through author's articles just to make some incoherent rant that culminates in that quote ... you need to either log off or seek help. Real "gamergate" vibes.

Ridiculous that the phrase 'tech bro' is allowed here? Why wouldn't it be allowed here? It's ridiculous the things people try and censor...

No, it's the non-Maoist stuff that dang & HN mods censor.

If you call out neon hair safe space ("leftist") hypocrisy... your comment is flagged within minutes.

Lately, my response to calls to censor 'this one thing' is 'ban everything' and skip all the baby steps. At least then people will immediately realize what is actually bad about word prohibition.

Can you give examples of Maoist posting on HN? By which I mean actual Maoism, not just general leftism.

Why should it be allowed? It discriminated based on gender. Or are you ok with that when it's against men?

It would take me a huge mental effort to read "tech bros" as a discrimination based on gender - and I'm a man. They are talking about a few selected guys and decided to call them as tech bros - it's not calling for discrimination against men. No need to take it further, censor, ban.

(Note: I don't care if it's "tech bro" or "tech gal" - not everything is about indoctrination)

It should simply be "tech person". There are female founders, too.

But that removes the meaning of "bro". It should be "tech sibling". Of course, "bro" is short for "brother" so maybe the best solution would be "tech sib".

Right but “tech bro” is literally used to describe stereotype of a type of man in tech rather than all men in tech. Presumably female founders aren’t included in the same way non-bro male founders aren’t. In particular a tech bro doesn’t even have to be a founder.

"Tech bro" isn't just a generic reference to tech founders. It refers to a particular negative stereotype of a person, usually male, who works in tech and subscribes to "bro culture." Bro culture itself usually comes from fraternity culture (as in "frat bro") and it's often associated with misogynist beliefs.

This is literally like saying "If refers to a particular negative stereotype of a person, usually from a poor neighbour hood, usually black, usually without a father" and ascribing any kind of prejudice to it. Is this seriously the kind of discussion you want to be having?

It literally isn't anything like saying that at all.

>>Is this seriously the kind of discussion you want to be having?

No, that's the discussion you'd prefer to have to detract from the actual subject of conversation in attempt to push your own agenda.

I don't think it should be censored here but it is a sexist term. It is never used in a positive way. The publishing industry is female dominated. Imagine that during the recent coverage of their attempts to censor old books, people referred the individuals responsible as "pub maids" or something like that. I don't think it would be quite as accepted.

And that's ok. I do not see what tangible effect this really has on anyone. They decided to use a negative term "bro", so what? Is it that bad? Is someone really taking a hit and feeling bad (besides for the sake of feeling bad under this "rigtheous" weather). I feel like there's more people being negatively affected by this word policing than really using such a word. I would be ok either way, tech bros, pub maids - I don't really look so much into words that it would really affect my thought - but that it wouldn't be accepted is not really indication of much. There are always loud voices that will feel upset by everything.

> Why should it be allowed?

Because free expression matters.

You don't have a "right" to not be offended.

Adults are able to participate in conversations that make them uncomfortable.

Children require protection from certain forms of speech until they've developed the maturity to be able to handle it.

Censorship of the type that you're advocating is infantile. We don't need to keep adults safe from speech.

And yes, btw, I also find the phrase "tech bros" offensive.

It's difficult to have a meaningful conversation without risking offense.

So should we all just discuss weather and sports? Or only allow speech around us that agrees with our current beliefs?

It's in the title of the article. HN guidelines for comments presumably don't apply to articles. (It wouldn't be good for me to call another HNer a 'tech bro', but we can discuss an article that uses the phrase, no?)

And I’m a dog. I think cis white males can handle being called tech bros in exchange for their 5,000 of social dominance.

Ok dog-kin, I'll bite: Where did they dominate? The entire world-- 5000 years ago?

rofl. Before Europeans made contact with other continents, they dominated those continents?

Wow, they really were powerful!!! Telekinetic domination!

We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments and using HN primarily for ideological battle. Those things aren't what this site is for, and destroy what it is for. We ban accounts that do this (yes, regardless of which ideology you are battling for or against).

Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> I think cis white males

This article is literally about Peter Thiel, who is gay, not cis.

I don't want to weigh in on this debate in general, but just to clarify terminology: "Gay" is orthogonal to "cis". "Cis" is short for "cisgendered", meaning "not transgendered".

"Cishet" (cisgendered + heterosexual) is used to combine the two axes, which may be what led to the confusion.

Gay people can be cis. Cis describes gender identity vs biological sex not sexuality.

Tech bros are not just white brah; why do you assume that?