• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Do you like your cheese?

arthwollipot said:
By the way, I think that the fact that there's a complaint in Forum Management about the title of this thread kind of proves its point.

I would be open to a Moderator changing the title to "Do you like your cheese?" if that is what is required.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The thread title was deliberate "click bait". It used an out of context word that people would associate with a racial slur. Of course, anyone with an ounce of sense would know that when the opened the thread to read it they were going to read some sort of thread about a use of the word where, context provided, it wasn't a racial slur at all.

If they thought about it further, they might have checked which forum it was in. If it were in community, we could assume it was a misleading thread title of the sort we often see in community or humor, where something vaguely naughty is used to drive us to see it substituted with some other meaning. Usually those double meaning words are sexual in nature. A racial epithet used in such a manner would offend someone for sure, and it would be considered "edgy", at best.

Seeing it was in social issues and current events, it was pretty obvious that it would be a case where people were being offended at something that wasn't actually offensive, and that turned out to be the case. The lack of context was deliberately jarring, so that those of us not from Australia might say, "What????? He can't say that!", but I'm sure I'm not the only one who clicked on it wondering what the made up controversy was.

Cheese buyers, on the other hand, would have the context, and know that the word was totally inoffensive except among people who were searching for things to be offended by.
 
Last edited:
By the way, I asked a question a while ago that no one seems to want to take up.

Australian cheese is not the only thing named for a Mr. Coon. I gave examples of Coon laboratories and Coon Manufacturing in the US, and asked if they ought to be expected to change their names. Like in this case, they might wish to do so for marketing purposes, but I'm asking if they ought to be expected to do so because there is something genuinely offensive about their names. Anyone want to address it?
 
Meadmaker said:
By the way, I asked a question a while ago that no one seems to want to take up.

Australian cheese is not the only thing named for a Mr. Coon. I gave examples of Coon laboratories and Coon Manufacturing in the US, and asked if they ought to be expected to change their names. Like in this case, they might wish to do so for marketing purposes, but I'm asking if they ought to be expected to do so because there is something genuinely offensive about their names. Anyone want to address it?
Click to expand...

I would change my own surname.
 
Sideroxylon said:
I would change my own surname.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
Agreed.
Click to expand...

Well, it's consistent.

I can't say it's a wrong answer. It's not one of those things that there's a definitive right or wrong answer. All I can say is that if someone found my name offensive, I wouldn't change it for their benefit. If I got tired of reactions from people, I might give up the fight and just change it to save myself some trouble, kind of the way that some companies might change their names due to marketing considerations, but I wouldn't feel obligated to do so. I also wouldn't expect anyone else to do so, or expect them to refrain from using such a name to identify their products or business. Indeed, if someone tried to tell me that my name offended them, I would be offended.
 
Meadmaker said:
By the way, I asked a question a while ago that no one seems to want to take up.

Australian cheese is not the only thing named for a Mr. Coon. I gave examples of Coon laboratories and Coon Manufacturing in the US, and asked if they ought to be expected to change their names. Like in this case, they might wish to do so for marketing purposes, but I'm asking if they ought to be expected to do so because there is something genuinely offensive about their names. Anyone want to address it?
Click to expand...

Yes. If they want to change their name I don't think we should stop them.
 
Meadmaker said:
Well, it's consistent.

I can't say it's a wrong answer. It's not one of those things that there's a definitive right or wrong answer. All I can say is that if someone found my name offensive, I wouldn't change it for their benefit. If I got tired of reactions from people, I might give up the fight and just change it to save myself some trouble, kind of the way that some companies might change their names due to marketing considerations, but I wouldn't feel obligated to do so. I also wouldn't expect anyone else to do so, or expect them to refrain from using such a name to identify their products or business. Indeed, if someone tried to tell me that my name offended them, I would be offended.
Click to expand...

Your analogy is too far abstracted from the real problem of a denigrating term used to describe a people who were slaves and still disenfranchised. If your name was n word you are not merely offending someone.

You don’t think you should be concerned with how your having a racist name might affect others but how do you judge the aesthetics of your own self walking around with a name like Mr ******?
 
I'm guessing that a cheese company is not really interested in having to explain how their branding is a surname and not a racial slur. The purpose of branding is to endear a product, not cause tedious explanations.

Morality seems irrelevant. Perception is all that matters in marketing.

I tend to agree that the racial slur argument seems a bit tenuous. I have no trouble believing that people have made opportunistic racial jokes based on the name in the past, but I very much doubt that was the original intention.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I tend to agree that the racial slur argument seems a bit tenuous. I have no trouble believing that people have made opportunistic racial jokes based on the name in the past, but I very much doubt that was the original intention.
Click to expand...
It may not have been intended as a slur at the time, but it wouldn't have been the only product launched around that time with a name that is problematic now.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Your analogy is too far abstracted from the real problem of a denigrating term used to describe a people who were slaves and still disenfranchised. If your name was n word you are not merely offending someone.

You don’t think you should be concerned with how your having a racist name might affect others but how do you judge the aesthetics of your own self walking around with a name like Mr ******?
Click to expand...

Probably been said in the thread already, but a word with dual meanings does not pack the same punch as a dedicated slur.

Seeing 'crackers' on a saltine box does not amp up this faux outrage.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Your analogy is too far abstracted from the real problem of a denigrating term used to describe a people who were slaves and still disenfranchised. If your name was n word you are not merely offending someone.

You don’t think you should be concerned with how your having a racist name might affect others but how do you judge the aesthetics of your own self walking around with a name like Mr ******?
Click to expand...

It isn't an analogy. It's an actual example. No, Mr. Coon should not be concerned that his name offends people. He might choose to change it just because it's a burden on him, but he should not feel obligated to do so. If there are any people named Mr. ******, they shouldn't be concerned either.

There are a handful of people in America named Hitler. Most changed their name because they didn't like dealing with the consequences, but their name is not inherently offensive. They got it from their ancestors. A few kept it, and while "Hitler Plumbing and Heating" might not be great marketing, people should not be offended by it. It just has negative associations that most would prefer not to deal with. "Hitler" is not a racist name. "Coon" is not a racist name. They are family names.
 
Meadmaker said:
It isn't an analogy. It's an actual example. No, Mr. Coon should not be concerned that his name offends people. He might choose to change it just because it's a burden on him, but he should not feel obligated to do so. If there are any people named Mr. ******, they shouldn't be concerned either.

There are a handful of people in America named Hitler. Most changed their name because they didn't like dealing with the consequences, but their name is not inherently offensive. They got it from their ancestors. A few kept it, and while "Hitler Plumbing and Heating" might not be great marketing, people should not be offended by it. It just has negative associations that most would prefer not to deal with. "Hitler" is not a racist name. "Coon" is not a racist name. They are family names.
Click to expand...

Compartmentalisation of meaning is not as simple as you assert it. Words and meanings are much messier. Communication can be a struggle of suppression of unintended meaning or playful ambiguity.
 
I think we should be careful how far we go with changing the names of things.

Because the following is a racist statement.

"I hate having a table of Canadians, because Canadians are lousy tippers."
 
Meadmaker said:
It isn't an analogy. It's an actual example. No, Mr. Coon should not be concerned that his name offends people. He might choose to change it just because it's a burden on him, but he should not feel obligated to do so. If there are any people named Mr. ******, they shouldn't be concerned either.

There are a handful of people in America named Hitler. Most changed their name because they didn't like dealing with the consequences, but their name is not inherently offensive. They got it from their ancestors. A few kept it, and while "Hitler Plumbing and Heating" might not be great marketing, people should not be offended by it. It just has negative associations that most would prefer not to deal with. "Hitler" is not a racist name. "Coon" is not a racist name. They are family names.
Click to expand...

Sure, but a large international corporation selling cheese probably has more interest in making sure their brand image is squeeky clean than just some random Joe (Hitler)

It's a corporation for christ sakes. Who cares what some dude's name was in the 1800's. If it's even bringing a whiff of impropriety, they should ditch it. I'm sure the great great grandchildren of Coon will get over it.

Speaking of which, there's a common joke around Boston. There's a plaque reading "General Hooker entrance" on the state house in Boston. Named after General Hooker, not the idea of an all purpose prostitute. Laughs are had.
 
Last edited:
bobdroege7 said:
I think we should be careful how far we go with changing the names of things.

Because the following is a racist statement.

"I hate having a table of Canadians, because Canadians are lousy tippers."
Click to expand...

Why should we (Or corporations invested in dairy trademarks) be careful of? What was lost in this case? Where might this slippery slope end?
 
Not sure I get the point of this.

There's a brand of cheese called "Coon cheese" that was started by a guy with a surname of Coon. And because that word can also be used as a racist slur, people want the name of the cheese to be changed?

Did I get that right?
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Not sure I get the point of this.

There's a brand of cheese called "Coon cheese" that was started by a guy with a surname of Coon. And because that word can also be used as a racist slur, people want the name of the cheese to be changed?

Did I get that right?
Click to expand...

Almost, and you got all the important parts right.

"Coon" was the name of the guy who invented a cheesmaking process, but he didn't actually start the company that made the cheese.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom