[AlexeyMK]

I used to agree with you, and then I realized that when it comes to offense, there's no such thing as a misinterpretation. If somebody's offended by something, that's not your call to make. Certainly this can be reduced to absurdity (I'm offended you would make this argument about offensiveness!) but I don't think Tess & co are trying to be facetious here.

FWIW, I think brogramming is self-deprecating and ironic too, and not the least bit offensive. But Tess doesn't - and I respect that.

EDIT: You're not obligated to stop doing something simply because somebody thinks it's offensive. But it's kind of the polite thing to do.

[hackinthebochs]

The question is, what responsibility does one have in response to another's offense? I don't think in general one has a responsibility to alter their behavior. Certain situations do entail responsibility onto the offender, any professional setting for example. But when it comes to behavior in a private setting (including public places on your private time) then you need more than just "I'm offended" to claim someone should alter their behavior.

[wpietri]

I don't think there's a formal obligation except to the extent that one has common goals.

Here, my common goal with the OP is that everybody who wants to program for a living feel welcome to do so. As a well-off white male, there's very little people can say to offend me. (Which reminds me of Louis CK's great take on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY ) But that's not true for everybody, and I'd like to make sure that everybody feels welcome and safe in my office and in my field.

So whether or not I'm personally bothered by the brogrammer stuff, I think it's reasonable to honor the suggestion that it not be used in situations, like recruiting, that will make some people feel uncomfortable.

[hackinthebochs]

That's a very good point about common goals. That's one thing almost all of us in this field can agree on. Once we can start there, it does follow that one's behavior should be as inclusive as possible.

There's also another dimension here: describing yourself as a brogrammer vs creating a brogrammer atmosphere. I don't think the term brogrammer itself is offensive such that it entails purging it from our lingo. It's when you create exclusionary groups with the term that creates the problem. Describing oneself as a brogrammer shouldn't be seen as offensive, as it's simply describing a mentality you have (perhaps as a joke, or maybe even seriously). So I disagree with the article that we should completely remove the term. It seems to mirror the effort I've seen talked about to make CS less "nerdy" to appeal to a wider audience (as if removing star wars posters from the CS lounge will attract more students). But using the term as a recruiting tool or to create a meetup centered around "brogrammer" themes shouldn't happen, as its needlessly exclusionary.

[tessr]

So I don't actually find brogramming particularly offensive. A little exclusive? Yeah. Inappropriate as a recruiting tool? Definitely.

But there are a large number of women who DO feel that it's offensive. And I cede to them. (Which is what Alexey's getting at.)