3 ms·
What is the point of just asserting something like this when it's SOOOO obviously an issue with definitions? Unless you just want to be difficult and disagreea
by ltbarcly3 2y ago
What is the point of just asserting something like this when it's SOOOO obviously an issue with definitions?
Unless you just want to be difficult and disagreeable, the usual format would be "Hypothesis, supporting argument" not just saying the opposite.
Here I'll get you started: Bill Gates wasn't a tech bro because ... (you fill in the ...)
Edit: I think that if you write down your criteria for 'who is' and 'who isn't' a tech bro, we might not agree on those criteria but we can at least argue with evidence whether Bill Gates fits your definition or not.
- JohnFen 2y agoBill Gates wasn't a tech bro because "tech bro" refers to a very specific subculture that Gates was never a part of. It didn't even exist in his day. I'm not sure that's any better. In any case, you're right about it being definitional. I was just surprised that anybody would think of Gates as a tech bro. That's just an alien concept to me and I never expected to hear it asserted. But it doesn't really matter. Whether or not I agree with anyone about what a "tech bro" is (and clearly there is disagreement about that) is irrelevant.
- deadbabe 2y agoBill Gates was not a tech bro, he was a tech nerd. If you want to argue someone who is a tech bro and was also very successful Steve Jobs might be a better fit, as he never did tech work he just sold things.
- ninetyninenine 2y agotech bros don't actually do tech?