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?