[wpietri]

Ok? I guess don't start your talks that way then.

But I think that's a very shallow understanding of "identity politics". Typically that's used to mean a deep or immutable characteristic. It's not like techbros come from Techbronistan or County Techbro, with deep cultural roots. Tech bros are dudes who chose to go into tech and choose a hypermasculine performance. And that performance, like the "frat bro" stereotype isn't just about their personal choices. It's about its impact on others, and their indifference to that impact.

Which is also, not coincidentally, a major critique of the tech industry as a whole. If you really care about "serious solutions", maybe you could grapple with that, rather than performing offense right off the bat.

[freetime2]

“Tech” refers to someone’s career, their livelihood. I would say that qualifies as a relatively deep and hard-to-change (though not immutable) characteristic. “Tech” also implies a certain socioeconomic status, since jobs in tech are often well compensated.

For “bro”, I’ll use the definition from merriam webster that I used elsewhere: “a young male who is part of a group of similar male friends stereotypically characterized as hearty, athletic, self-confident, party-loving, etc.”

So they are “male”, and “young” - that’s two immutable characteristics.

If this is about behavior, then why mix in aspects of gender, age, and profession? And the problem of course is that it’s very easy to see a person with the above three traits and assume they think or behave a certain way - i.e stereotyping.

And since we’re talking about gender, age, and socioeconomic status - I think the term identity politics is applicable.

[Qwertious]

You've written an argument about what the word "techbro" should mean, but it actually means whatever concept people think of when you say it to them. That's how words work - they're tools, shared levers that you pull to trigger a specific concept in the head of the person you're talking with.

Words spread when lots of people start using it and lots of other people successfully infer the same meaning from context as what it was intended to mean - what people intuitively interpret is incredibly culturally-specific and subjective, and thus is utterly impossible to nail down in some sort of rigorous formal logic.

I bring this up because assuming "techbro" means "tech" plus "bro" (instead of referring to a specific attitude common among FAANG employees - and if you ask why people say "Xes" instead of "people who think X", the answer is brevity) is a very naive and inaccurate approach to language.

>If this is about behavior, then why mix in aspects of gender, age, and profession? And the problem of course is that it’s very easy to see a person with the above three traits and assume they think or behave a certain way - i.e stereotyping.

What you're saying is that "techbro" is a politically incorrect term, and that anyone who uses the term is therefore stereotyping. The problem here is that people can use the term (because it's useful) without necessarily supporting the choice of words the term is made up of - as I mentioned above, when people use a word they do so because they believe other people will reliably connect it with the right concept.

[freetime2]

I understand that there is additional meaning beyond just “tech” and “bro”. But the parent asked why I brought up identity politics, and I don’t think I am incorrect to say that “techbro” is inextricably linked to being young, male, affluent, and working in tech. Would you disagree?

I agree that stereotypes have their uses in popular culture. And often there is some basis for stereotypes in reality. But people should at least be aware when they are using stereotypes, of their inherent imprecision, and why people find them offensive/hurtful. Do you agree that “techbro” is a stereotype?

And I think we should be careful not to build our world views on top of stereotypes. I.e. a world view that the tech industry is run by a bunch of techbros who don’t understand or care about humanity is a gross oversimplification.

[wpietri]

> If this is about behavior, then why mix in aspects of gender, age, and profession

This is such a good example of why technical degrees need stronger humanities requirements. Why indeed?

[freetime2]

I don't follow. Can you elaborate?