Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

bropages.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 872 posts

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#271

Post by jpwright »

mkdir wrote: post #174
blahedo wrote: post #99

Great idea; shame about the name. Here's the problem with using words like "bro" (however jokingly): the problem is not with what you [0] are thinking when you read the word "bro", but with what other people , especially newcomers, are thinking. The locker-room atmosphere that stuff like this creates is a huge barrier to entry for a lot of people, women especially, who infer that on top of all the technically difficu…

As a society, we need to get over the chivalrous notion that something is automatically bad if it might trigger negative emotions in women. If women tend to be intimidated by head-to-head competition (of any type) with a man, it doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral for a man to compete head-to-head with a woman. If women tend to be intimidated when a muscular male stranger is in their presence, it doesn't mean it's wro…

Let me get this straight. The previous comment pointed out that naming this program in a gendered way that references the sexist concept of "brogramming" is unnecessary/stupid. You interpreted this as an attack on the right for men to take pride in their manhood? Really?

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#272

Post by rmrfrmrf »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #163
couchand wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tone argument[0] much? [0]: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

Please do not link to the Geek Feminism Wiki. It is nothing but an incoherent and poorly organized collection of anecdotes.

Ad hominem?

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#274

Post by donotsurveil »

lhnz wrote: post #19
dewitt wrote: post #4

Is the "bro" intended to be ironic, or are the creators actually not aware that the term is used to represent the worst (most misogynistic, most crass, least mature, least dependable) people currently flocking to the industry? It is by its very definition exclusionary. I suppose "brogrammers" might be a target audience, but the concept of the tool itself is pretty good for just about anyone. Shame about the name.

Brogrammer is just a stereotype, brah. Not everybody that wears shades, doesn't take life seriously and speaks with an accent is misogynistic, crass, less mature than you and difficult to depend on. That's not really fair. To a bro the word just means 'friend' - somebody that's dependable, fun to hang out with and that won't over complicate things. Those descriptions seem more in line with the tool.

I'm not sure where you got this idea that bro means "friend". To me it's more like what the urban dictionary says http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bro

1. Obnoxious partying males who are often seen at college parties. When they aren’t making an ass of themselves they usually just stand around holding a red plastic cup waiting for something exciting to happen so they can scream something that demonstrates how much they enjoy partying.

2. An alpha male idiot. This is the derogatory sense of the word (common usage in the western US): white, 16-25 years old, inarticulate, belligerent, talks about nothing but chicks and beer, drives a jacked up truck that’s plastered with stickers, has rich dad that owns a dealership or construction business and constantly tells this to chicks at parties...

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#277

Post by blhack »

overgard wrote: post #216
blahedo wrote: post #99

Great idea; shame about the name. Here's the problem with using words like "bro" (however jokingly): the problem is not with what you [0] are thinking when you read the word "bro", but with what other people , especially newcomers, are thinking. The locker-room atmosphere that stuff like this creates is a huge barrier to entry for a lot of people, women especially, who infer that on top of all the technically difficu…

Absolutely, lets throw away our sense of humor and wordplay because there are theoretically people that might be offended (maybe, kindof. You know. In theory.). (N.B. the people that seem to be offended so far are offended on other peoples behalf..) Isn't it way more offensive to assume that women are such dainty delicate creatures that like, they won't get the joke?

I took a poll of the other person in our hackerspace right now: she thinks this is funny.

>Isn't it way more offensive to assume that women are such dainty delicate creatures that like, they won't get the joke?

I think so. Every female hacker I've ever talked to has expressed that their worst fear is people acting differently around them. They want to get treated like humans, not like outsiders.

Banishing any sort of word play because "the women" is pretty offensive to women.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#278

Post by jpwright »

[deleted] wrote: post #269
ilyanep wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Not_a_woman http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/You%27re_the_sexist#.22Ta...

[deleted]

Not sure if you read the links, but I think they were posted here to (accurately) point out that overgard's comment contains two really common tropes that people use to dismiss men talking about feminism. Each post is like two paragraphs long and not particularly controversial, so a comparison to the Bible is pretty far off.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#279

Post by stelonix »

ilyanep wrote: post #259
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone should coin an analogue to Godwin, where linking to the Geek Feminism Wiki is seen as an instant loss of credibility. The wiki is hugely anecdotal beyond all reason, poorly written, often incoherent and their editorial guidelines clearly show that they have virtually no standard as long as the content fits under a vaguely feminist or social justice-oriented perspective. ( http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Me…

Well now you're making an ad hominem fallacy. Can you please read the actual pages I linked and tell me why you disagree with their arguments or why the arguments they are debunking don't apply to what you wrote?

An ad hominem is an attack on the messenger. The poster merely gave reasons why the credibility of said link shouldn't be taken at face value.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#280

Post by vezzy-fnord »

ilyanep wrote: post #259
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone should coin an analogue to Godwin, where linking to the Geek Feminism Wiki is seen as an instant loss of credibility. The wiki is hugely anecdotal beyond all reason, poorly written, often incoherent and their editorial guidelines clearly show that they have virtually no standard as long as the content fits under a vaguely feminist or social justice-oriented perspective. ( http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Me…

Well now you're making an ad hominem fallacy. Can you please read the actual pages I linked and tell me why you disagree with their arguments or why the arguments they are debunking don't apply to what you wrote?

Ad hominem? Hardly. It's funny if you link to articles about "silencing tactics" and then falsely invoke an ad hominem fallacy.

Pointing out bad and illegitimate sources is not an ad hominem.

In any event, your first article isn't even relevant to the original poster.

The second doesn't even address any argument, it just moves the goalposts into an issue of patriarchal values and how all women are (ostensibly) inherently oppressed from conception.

Post reply on HN