Poe’s law applies too much these days. I’ve tried to get out of the habit of leaving jokes ambiguous like that because it’s just too easy to trip readers up, especially when not everyone has native level awareness of idioms or social context.
Part of the problem is also frankly that HN has a culture that encourages serious engagement (or at least a facsimile of it) with the worst opinions it's possible to have. You just can't keep your sense for sincerity finely honed in an environment like that.
And reddit exist for the sake of smug echo-chamber dwellers. Or bots.
A lot of the posts listed there are:
* obvious joke/sarcasm/tongue-in-cheek etc
* taken out of context, or editorialised to similar effect (e.g. missing nuance that often exists in the same thread)
* based on the disbelief or disapproval of equally unqualified reddit-bros
* flagged/dead or heavily downvoted, the opposite of being 'encouraged'
In other words, a lot of low effort 'gotcha' point scoring against alleged 'tech-bros' which may or ma not mean everyone in HN is a SV start-up pitcher, or that no one really know what a tech-bro is.
If you think this is possibly true, I think we are far apart the discussion wouldn't go anywhere. Not a judgement, just trying to be better about my online engagement style.
My perception is a 'tech-bro' is someone in a tech hub (i.e. SV) with access to large amounts of capital (e.g. VC funding), likely involved in start-ups, or with some sway in tech companies (the prototype is often Elon Musk, et al); and their tendency to treat technology as a cure-all, especially in naïve or overoptimistic way, overestimating their own grasp of technology, or applications of technology, to various pursuits. There might also be a machoistic 'frat' element to it as well. A large group within HN perhaps, but probably not a majority of HN-ers.
This definition is not a million miles away from the sentiment of 'I could build that in a weekend' from the dev-side, or 'I just had a great idea (a clone of something well know etc) - you implement it, I'll be compensated equally as the "ideas guy"' from the biz-end.
In contrast, I think some (per r/SHNS) believe a 'tech-bro' is any man with a background in tech (usually software, maybe hardware), and hence most (the majority of) of the male population (still significant majority..) of HN.
By this definition, we aren't a million miles away from the gendered insult/accusation of 'mansplaining', which is basically arrogance, but when a man does it (or specifically, in respect to a woman), with the implication of them misogynistically underestimating women; Not clear if there is an implication that they otherwise treat other men differently - most anecdotes cover the former case without establishing a baseline of behaviour/arrogance.
What I'm saying is, as the term is weaponised, there is a scope-creep in direction of greatest utility / weaponised potential - It's inconvenient to establish someone is actually involved in the tech industry, SV-culture or tech-start-up-mentality, such as to critique those things in any relevant or substantial way, so instead any rando is a 'tech-bro' purely because they post on HN, i.e. HN-er == tech-bro, and it just become bashing men in tech; From my perspective 'man involved in technology', generalised across all tech-scene and cultures, isn't a meaningful or relevant distinction or discussion.
Maybe where we disagree is the idea of it being a binary thing. I see it as a . . . oh, let's call it a "spectrum" just because, where the top end is Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, people have made their wealth (well maybe not Elon) on the Internet and have used those gains to make the world actively worse and to try to pervert politics in a way one person should not have leverage to do. On the other end of the continuum would be every person who posts here in threads on unions saying they would never join a programmer's union because it would cost them money. The average people who see themselves as 10x, not realizing if they were all 10x, nobody would be. In between are the LinkedInLunatic grindset CEOs of a 2 person company constantly posting about how they work 167 hours a day and then the guy who has an enormous amount of k8 orchestration and multi-region failover for his company's static website that gets 100 hits in a good month.
Do you consider my post to be condescending or patronizing?
Also, it appears that tclancy is also male, so I don't think it qualifies on that count either.
As for the accusation of sea-lioning, assuming this definition:
"..a form of online harassment where someone persistently and politely pesters
a person with a relentless stream of questions and requests for evidence, all
while feigning sincerity and ignorance"
I'd have to say that I'd debated whether to reply or to be even a little bit serious in my reply because I don't think you are-- well, it's not that I think it's "not in good faith", it's that I think you have some blinders on that are comfortable. Given you have argued that both "mansplaining" and "tech bro" are false constructs, it feels an awful lot like you are one of those Oppressed Men we hear so much about. Much, much more than I care to hear about.
I can't possibly defend myself against unsubstantiated, unflattering speculations about me or my perspective - such as that I have comfortable blinders on; or that I 'sound like' some such negative stereotype of a person that you dislike. I do feel you are being honest in what you are saying, but I also think it's not particularly charitable or fair PoV.
Man, it's so understandable. Especially when 35-40% the country is doing exactly that kind of bullshit equivocative defense. Frankly I'm shocked the shitheads usually here read the room and have kept the child-rape apologia to themselves.
There is such a long history of using humor to affect change and discuss extremely serious matters. Legally it's protected speech because of it's importance.
The main purpose of sarcasm is not humor, it's to use irony as a form of contempt. To the extent that humor is involved it's usually done so as a form of mockery.
I agree that satire and parody have a valuable place in discourse.
But I believe there are some subject matters including sexual assault and more specifically pedophilia that are pretty much never in good taste or useful to parody. Apparently this position is somewhat outspoken here.
Swift's Modest Proposal mentions eating babies which is very obviously an extreme behavior that is not tolerated by anyone anywhere, which is a distinct contrast to sexual assault which has victims in the millions if not billions.
Also just to note that the comment I replied to is now dead and flagged, so I guess I'm not the only one with these opinions.
