7 ms·

Stop Brogramming

29 points by gisikw 15y ago

lwhi 15y ago
If you have a long running sitcom, what you're saying on a weekly basis provides a frame of reference for jokes. The audience knows what to expect. If you're adding a joke to a simple advert, there's absolutely no way you can predict the way something subversive will be received .. especially when the object of the joke is an under-represented key part of the audience. Very silly mistake.
skrebbel 15y ago
Or, as James Iry said on twitter a few days ago: Brogrammer is just short for B programmer
mfieldhouse 15y ago
Girls and beer, oh how offensive, big deal
steele 15y ago
This is article is a bunch of unrelated nonsense
ninjac0der 15y ago
Yeah, stop acting like primates everyone!
invisible 15y ago
Apology from Sqoot: http://blog.sqoot.com/ http://blog.sqoot.com/ Seems they were trying to hard and it just backfired. The humor wasn't intended as a negative thing but it's good that they apologize to clear the air of uncertainty.
- dfxm12 15y ago
  Exactly. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. The social awkwardness of their joke kinda shows the divergent nature of the "brogrammer".
  - kstenerud 15y ago
    I actually know Avand personally, and his humor is often awkward, as is common in many geeks. I can see where he was trying to go with the joke (exactly where he said he was trying to go in his equally awkward apology), but once you trip up on a sensitive topic, people immediately arrange themselves to be maximally offended. Once this happens, anything short of a blood sacrifice is insufficient, and woe be to anyone who fails to make a 100% flawless apology! So for the socially awkward, the result of a failed joke is a bad situation that it's impossible to get out of, because nobody is willing to accept that there exist people who are less than perfect when it comes to the social dance.
    - cgoddard 15y ago
      Its fine to be less than perfect and to make mistakes, but if someone makes a mistake large and in public, they should apologize for it. Spending the least little amount of time talking to someone who was offended should be enough to clue in the clueless, and ensure a genuine apology. An insincere apology shows that the person apologizing really cares less why anyone actually was offended, and is just as likely to say something equally offensive again.
      - kstenerud 15y ago
        Once again, it comes down to a difference between what each person considers an appropriate apology. What you usually see (including in this case) is an apology, followed by people arguing over whether the apology was sufficient or not. "Sincerity" is gauged based on whether you think the apology is good enough. If not, the usual response is to say that the offender obviously didn't care enough and is being insincere.
andrewvc 15y ago
This is proof that all you need to get up the front page on HN is a title that matches the current zeitgeist. The article itself is terrible, making mountains out of molehills. I'm someone who'd never even be confused as a brogrammer, but someone explain to me what's negative about this "Drinking beer, lifting weights, picking up women, and kicking out a new JSON parser before dinner. ". That actually sounds like a damn good day in my book. On top of its ridiculous hand wringing, the article is meandering and bizarrely attaches network TV and Louis C.K. to its thesis. Forget brogrammers, this is the kind of reactionary, overly-P.C buzzkill I'd really hate to work with.
- asdfasdf4321 15y ago
  haha, all I could think while reading it was "what information is actually here" and came away with a headache
- angersock 15y ago
  Hey brah, so, like, lemme break it down for ya. These bros planned a hella sick party out in Boston. There was going to be hot chicks, they were gonna do Rails and kegstands--it was gonna be the hottest thing since Southby. (Even the Zuck was checking it out.) But, like, the ad they payed some hipster to write, like, wasn't bronificial to the party. They didn't underline the amount of dubstep and wubwub, and, like, without the proper flag raised a bunch of those pansy Valley coders got all butthurt. Like, really, who doesn't want to rep while they REPL? Who doesn't like drinks served by the hottest bitches; what're they, some kind of queerlicopter? This author, brahly, seems to think, like, maybe they pitched to the wrong audience, you know. Like when we tried to pitch that NattyIce/Pets.com mashup, and the VCs were all like "Are you sure that your target demographic of bros who like light beer and dogs actually exist?" and we were like "Pshhhhaw yeah" and they were like "You'll hear from us--don't call."
- LaGrange 15y ago
  "picking up women" This is what's wrong with this. I mean, I do know it's a pretty good day for a chauvinistic dude, but that's objectification of women as pleasure devices. "overly-P.C buzzkill" Aw. Someone ruined making fun of women for you.
motoford 15y ago
This guy titles his blog post "Stop Brogramming" then spends the whole article defending brogramming and sexism. Definitely not front page material.
batista 15y ago
What exactly is sexism? Behaving as sexes DO exist, and, for example, men can like the look of certain females? Well, sexes DO exist, and men do like the look of certain females. To state otherwise would be hypocrisy. And it's not like liking women or wanting to go to a bar that has pretty waitresses (and vice versa for women) if somehow taking advantage of the other sex. No more than wanting to go to a concert is taking advantage of people with nice voices and musical skills. So, are we disallowing sexual desire and/or lust? If not, we are just advocating hypocrisy. I.e think it, but don't say/act as if you think it. Seems to my European mind that Americans will be puritans whatever their political inclinations are. If they are of the Bible inclination (Bible belt etc), they will be all serious, sex is evil, abolish sexy looks, etc. If they are of the liberal inclination (democrats etc), they will be all serious, sex is insulting, sexual references show intolerance and or exploitation, we should hide sexuality when in polite/professional company, etc. Once a puritan, always a puritan.
- scarmig 15y ago
  Yes, being upset at someone emphasizing that there will be women around to serve you beers is tantamount to disallowing sexual desire. It's totally like 1984.
  - batista 15y ago
    Yes, being upset at someone emphasizing that there will be women around to serve you beers is tantamount to disallowing sexual desire. Yes it is. It is disallowing sexual desire to be expressed, and only allowing it to exist in private (thoughts or practice). What's wrong with a place that has women serving beers, if some men would like such a place to exist? Did anybody FORCE those women to serve beer? If it's an equality issue, well, build places where men with firm buttocks serve beer too. Hell, I'll serve at such a place, even though my buttocks ain't what they were.
- cgoddard 15y ago
  There are proper places for sexuality, objectification, etc. A professional / workplace environment isn't one of them. It makes people uncomfortable and can contribute to a hostile work environment. The fact is people don't have as much choice over their coworkers as their friends, and they can't easily avoid unwanted interactions as easily as they can in choosing their social circles. As far as sexism goes when you make assumptions about your audience, you make anyone who doesn't fit those assumptions feel unwelcome. It doesn't mean you should never make assumptions, but always be aware who you are excluding and if you have a good reason for excluding them.
ekm2 15y ago
"lifting weights" What is wrong with that?Must we all be scrawny?

29 points by gisikw 15y ago

lwhi 15y ago

If you have a long running sitcom, what you're saying on a weekly basis provides a frame of reference for jokes. The audience knows what to expect. If you're adding a joke to a simple advert, there's absolutely no way you can predict the way something subversive will be received .. especially when the object of the joke is an under-represented key part of the audience. Very silly mistake.

skrebbel 15y ago

Or, as James Iry said on twitter a few days ago: Brogrammer is just short for B programmer

mfieldhouse 15y ago

Girls and beer, oh how offensive, big deal

steele 15y ago

This is article is a bunch of unrelated nonsense

ninjac0der 15y ago

Yeah, stop acting like primates everyone!

invisible 15y ago

Apology from Sqoot: http://blog.sqoot.com/ http://blog.sqoot.com/ Seems they were trying to hard and it just backfired. The humor wasn't intended as a negative thing but it's good that they apologize to clear the air of uncertainty.

dfxm12 15y ago
Exactly. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. The social awkwardness of their joke kinda shows the divergent nature of the "brogrammer".
- kstenerud 15y ago
  I actually know Avand personally, and his humor is often awkward, as is common in many geeks. I can see where he was trying to go with the joke (exactly where he said he was trying to go in his equally awkward apology), but once you trip up on a sensitive topic, people immediately arrange themselves to be maximally offended. Once this happens, anything short of a blood sacrifice is insufficient, and woe be to anyone who fails to make a 100% flawless apology! So for the socially awkward, the result of a failed joke is a bad situation that it's impossible to get out of, because nobody is willing to accept that there exist people who are less than perfect when it comes to the social dance.
  - cgoddard 15y ago
    Its fine to be less than perfect and to make mistakes, but if someone makes a mistake large and in public, they should apologize for it. Spending the least little amount of time talking to someone who was offended should be enough to clue in the clueless, and ensure a genuine apology. An insincere apology shows that the person apologizing really cares less why anyone actually was offended, and is just as likely to say something equally offensive again.
    - kstenerud 15y ago
      Once again, it comes down to a difference between what each person considers an appropriate apology. What you usually see (including in this case) is an apology, followed by people arguing over whether the apology was sufficient or not. "Sincerity" is gauged based on whether you think the apology is good enough. If not, the usual response is to say that the offender obviously didn't care enough and is being insincere.

andrewvc 15y ago

This is proof that all you need to get up the front page on HN is a title that matches the current zeitgeist. The article itself is terrible, making mountains out of molehills. I'm someone who'd never even be confused as a brogrammer, but someone explain to me what's negative about this "Drinking beer, lifting weights, picking up women, and kicking out a new JSON parser before dinner. ". That actually sounds like a damn good day in my book. On top of its ridiculous hand wringing, the article is meandering and bizarrely attaches network TV and Louis C.K. to its thesis. Forget brogrammers, this is the kind of reactionary, overly-P.C buzzkill I'd really hate to work with.

asdfasdf4321 15y ago
haha, all I could think while reading it was "what information is actually here" and came away with a headache
angersock 15y ago
Hey brah, so, like, lemme break it down for ya. These bros planned a hella sick party out in Boston. There was going to be hot chicks, they were gonna do Rails and kegstands--it was gonna be the hottest thing since Southby. (Even the Zuck was checking it out.) But, like, the ad they payed some hipster to write, like, wasn't bronificial to the party. They didn't underline the amount of dubstep and wubwub, and, like, without the proper flag raised a bunch of those pansy Valley coders got all butthurt. Like, really, who doesn't want to rep while they REPL? Who doesn't like drinks served by the hottest bitches; what're they, some kind of queerlicopter? This author, brahly, seems to think, like, maybe they pitched to the wrong audience, you know. Like when we tried to pitch that NattyIce/Pets.com mashup, and the VCs were all like "Are you sure that your target demographic of bros who like light beer and dogs actually exist?" and we were like "Pshhhhaw yeah" and they were like "You'll hear from us--don't call."
LaGrange 15y ago
"picking up women" This is what's wrong with this. I mean, I do know it's a pretty good day for a chauvinistic dude, but that's objectification of women as pleasure devices. "overly-P.C buzzkill" Aw. Someone ruined making fun of women for you.

motoford 15y ago

This guy titles his blog post "Stop Brogramming" then spends the whole article defending brogramming and sexism. Definitely not front page material.

batista 15y ago

What exactly is sexism? Behaving as sexes DO exist, and, for example, men can like the look of certain females? Well, sexes DO exist, and men do like the look of certain females. To state otherwise would be hypocrisy. And it's not like liking women or wanting to go to a bar that has pretty waitresses (and vice versa for women) if somehow taking advantage of the other sex. No more than wanting to go to a concert is taking advantage of people with nice voices and musical skills. So, are we disallowing sexual desire and/or lust? If not, we are just advocating hypocrisy. I.e think it, but don't say/act as if you think it. Seems to my European mind that Americans will be puritans whatever their political inclinations are. If they are of the Bible inclination (Bible belt etc), they will be all serious, sex is evil, abolish sexy looks, etc. If they are of the liberal inclination (democrats etc), they will be all serious, sex is insulting, sexual references show intolerance and or exploitation, we should hide sexuality when in polite/professional company, etc. Once a puritan, always a puritan.

scarmig 15y ago
Yes, being upset at someone emphasizing that there will be women around to serve you beers is tantamount to disallowing sexual desire. It's totally like 1984.
- batista 15y ago
  Yes, being upset at someone emphasizing that there will be women around to serve you beers is tantamount to disallowing sexual desire. Yes it is. It is disallowing sexual desire to be expressed, and only allowing it to exist in private (thoughts or practice). What's wrong with a place that has women serving beers, if some men would like such a place to exist? Did anybody FORCE those women to serve beer? If it's an equality issue, well, build places where men with firm buttocks serve beer too. Hell, I'll serve at such a place, even though my buttocks ain't what they were.
cgoddard 15y ago
There are proper places for sexuality, objectification, etc. A professional / workplace environment isn't one of them. It makes people uncomfortable and can contribute to a hostile work environment. The fact is people don't have as much choice over their coworkers as their friends, and they can't easily avoid unwanted interactions as easily as they can in choosing their social circles. As far as sexism goes when you make assumptions about your audience, you make anyone who doesn't fit those assumptions feel unwelcome. It doesn't mean you should never make assumptions, but always be aware who you are excluding and if you have a good reason for excluding them.

ekm2 15y ago

"lifting weights" What is wrong with that?Must we all be scrawny?