Ed Do you like your cheese?

One of the things that I see in this thread and in the topic in general is something that we, as skeptics, encounter frequently, and that is the primacy of feelings over logic. In many different contexts, we see feelings elevated to an exalted place, even if logic opposes them. We are told that feelings are always valid, even if those feelings are based on errors in fact or fallacies of logic.

Logically, there is absolutely nothing racist about the name of the particular brand of cheese. However, people see the word and they have negative feelings because of the association of that word with racism.

The Greater Fool's anecdote about his wife illustrates this very well. The words or images used with a brand have associations in her head, and if those associations result in a feeling of racism, then they are racist. However, if those associations are positive, then there is no racism. So, for her, "Aunt Jemima" isn't racist because she has positive memories, not associated with racism. However, for other people, they have negative associations, and so it's racists. Something is racist or not racist depending on the feelings of the observer.

Over in the marketing department, they have to deal with that. That's how the human race works, and if you want to sell things to humans, it is best to appeal to emotions. Logic won't get you as much market share.
 
The question as to what purpose even a "questionable" brand name serves is a fair one though.

The question can be reversed. What good does "Coon" (or our hypothetical "Dick's Rice") actually do?

And this isn't like a brand with some huge market saturation.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The question as to what purpose even a "questionable" brand name serves is a fair one though.

The question can be reversed. What good does "Coon" (or our hypothetical "Dick's Rice") actually do?

And this isn't like a brand with some huge market saturation.
Click to expand...

Is that last part true? I get the feeling that it has a very large market saturation in Australia. Is that not correct?
 
Meadmaker said:
One of the things that I see in this thread and in the topic in general is something that we, as skeptics, encounter frequently, and that is the primacy of feelings over logic. In many different contexts, we see feelings elevated to an exalted place, even if logic opposes them. We are told that feelings are always valid, even if those feelings are based on errors in fact or fallacies of logic.

Logically, there is absolutely nothing racist about the name of the particular brand of cheese. However, people see the word and they have negative feelings because of the association of that word with racism.

The Greater Fool's anecdote about his wife illustrates this very well. The words or images used with a brand have associations in her head, and if those associations result in a feeling of racism, then they are racist. However, if those associations are positive, then there is no racism. So, for her, "Aunt Jemima" isn't racist because she has positive memories, not associated with racism. However, for other people, they have negative associations, and so it's racists. Something is racist or not racist depending on the feelings of the observer.

Over in the marketing department, they have to deal with that. That's how the human race works, and if you want to sell things to humans, it is best to appeal to emotions. Logic won't get you as much market share.
Click to expand...

I have certainly seen a few expletives hurled around in anger around here on this this thread but usually from those who are arguing there is nothing wrong with the name of the cheese.

What people need to do is argue with complete equanimity like I do, if you want to be a True Skeptic.
 
"Skeptic" and "Straw Vulcan Hollywood-Autistic Robot" aren't the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Would a brand name "Dick's rice" be sexual in nature because the word is used to refer to a penis, even though the founder of the company was called Richard?
Click to expand...

Your question is nonsensical in the context of the issue.

Start a thread about sexual innuendo in product names..

You are modifying the parameters of my question. I specifically said that the name would not change, but that a picture of a racoon was included.
Click to expand...

People who find the word " coon " offensive, would not ( Should not? ) feel any better about the word if accompanied by a picture of a raccoon.

Why should I ?
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
Your question is nonsensical in the context of the issue.

Start a thread about sexual innuendo in product names..
Click to expand...

Don't tell me how to post, please.

The question is quite sensical: It uses a parallel to make a point, namely that possible interpretation of a word don't make that word automatically fit that interpretation. Why do we assume that the association will be made in one case but not another? They're both people's names.

People who find the word " coon " offensive, would not ( Should not? ) feel any better about the word if accompanied by a picture of a raccoon.

Why should I ?
Click to expand...

Because in that case the name is explicitly NOT related to race. You're the one making the connection, deliberately in this case.
 
Who are you to say what the relation is in someone else' mind?

Do you think a picture of a raccoon is going to make someone who has been called " coon " feel better about it?
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
Who are you to say what the relation is in someone else' mind?
Click to expand...

The relation is what other people are telling me.

Do you think a picture of a raccoon is going to make someone who has been called " coon " feel better about it?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about making people feel better? I am talking about whether a brand name based on a racoon will trigger that association, or whether it should.

Can you answer any of these questions?
 
Belz... said:
...
Who said anything about making people feel better? I am talking about whether a brand name based on a racoon will trigger that association, or whether it should.

Can you answer any of these questions?
Click to expand...

What difference does it make " whether it should " ?

Are any irrational associations ever justified?

If you are of the opinion" just suck it up and live with it", why are you even discussing it?
 
Belz... said:
Who said anything about making people feel better? I am talking about whether a brand name based on a racoon will trigger that association, or whether it should.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think they would. If you did this in the UK, or in Australia, if (according to your hypothetical) the idea that it is the name of a person who invented a cheese-making process is ruled out. People would definitely make the association with a racial slur.

What about Dick Cheese?
 
Meadmaker said:
One of the things that I see in this thread and in the topic in general is something that we, as skeptics, encounter frequently, and that is the primacy of feelings over logic. In many different contexts, we see feelings elevated to an exalted place, even if logic opposes them. We are told that feelings are always valid, even if those feelings are based on errors in fact or fallacies of logic.

Logically, there is absolutely nothing racist about the name of the particular brand of cheese. However, people see the word and they have negative feelings because of the association of that word with racism.

The Greater Fool's anecdote about his wife illustrates this very well. The words or images used with a brand have associations in her head, and if those associations result in a feeling of racism, then they are racist. However, if those associations are positive, then there is no racism. So, for her, "Aunt Jemima" isn't racist because she has positive memories, not associated with racism. However, for other people, they have negative associations, and so it's racists. Something is racist or not racist depending on the feelings of the observer.

Over in the marketing department, they have to deal with that. That's how the human race works, and if you want to sell things to humans, it is best to appeal to emotions. Logic won't get you as much market share.
Click to expand...

Very well said!
 
Matthew Best said:
I don't know if you can really say that someone makes a connection in their mind deliberately. Sometimes it just happens and you can't control it.
Click to expand...

The example I gave was designed specifically so that the connection between 'coon' and 'black person' was excluded. If Greg continues to make the connexion after that, I consider that to be deliberate.

Skeptical Greg said:
What difference does it make " whether it should " ?

Are any irrational associations ever justified?

If you are of the opinion" just suck it up and live with it", why are you even discussing it?
Click to expand...

Are you going to actually engage in discussion? You have done nothing but dodge my points thus far.

angrysoba said:
Yes, I think they would. If you did this in the UK, or in Australia, if (according to your hypothetical) the idea that it is the name of a person who invented a cheese-making process is ruled out.
Click to expand...

Why is it 'ruled out'?
 
It seems to me that there are a number of ways of “fixing” the name problem that permit retention of the original name. Among the best might be to switch to “Edward W. Coon Cheese” over a picture of the guy.

Just anything that immediately makes it clear that it is a person’s name.
 
Belz... said:
My mistake.

But wouldn't the association with the racoon, which is visible and contains the 'coon' part, be obvious?
Click to expand...

It would be weird. Why? Because it is not a common word in the UK or in Australia.

It would probably be considered some kind of racist joke with some lame "deniability" built into it.

Now, if someone called their product Dick Cheese, do you not think people would make unappetizing associations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom