Ed Do you like your cheese?

[Darat]

I again asked my spouse how she would feel if there were a raccoon picture with or around the 'coon.'

She pretty much immediately said "that wouldn't be a problem." We discussed further. It comes down to that making the association visually connected to a raccoon there would be little room to think it was the racial slur.

We discussed still further. I asked "What if they put a picture of a random white guy connected to the 'coon'" No problem, as it would also be associating the word purposely with a white person thus not racist.

If it were a picture of a random black person, get out the pitchforks.

Then I brought up 'Uncle Bens' and 'Aunt Jamima', and these to her are not racist because they were fixtures in her childhood home. Her child reasoning was that her mom used them so didn't think they were racist. *OR* they were inexpensive. Either way, since she grew up with them with positive associations in childhood, not racist.

My wife is an enigma.

Sorry to tell you but she sounds quite normal! Bit of a saint putting up with your questions....

But seriously she sounds like most reasonable folk, doesn't give this sort of thing more than a second worth of thought most of the time and if Aunt Jemina's picture changes she will probably just think "Oh that's what Mr The Greater Fool was wittering on about last month. Nice picture"

 

[Belz...]

No. The reason why you think it is unambiguous is because, for you, who lives in North America and is used to the North American usage, the word "coon" may very well be a completely unremarkable word for raccoon, but in the UK it is a racial slur. The first, second, third and fourth meaning is a racial slur. If someone were then to claim that they were talking about a "raccoon" it would be sound like an obvious smart-alec response that nobody would believe.

And yet you've already said that 'coon' comes from 'racoon'.

This is not an "agree to disagree" moment. You are just wrong.

And what this point demonstrates is that, guess what, for different people, different words have different associations.

It's incredible to me that you manage to tell me that I'm objectively wrong and then in the next breath adit that different people will interpret it differently, which actually makes me right. Ugh.

It is absolutely an 'agree to disagree' moment. You think people can reasonably conclude that it's racist; I don't. I've made my case, and you've made yours. I'm not going to convince you.

Have you been around humans long? Why are childish interpretations to be ruled out?

Er... because we usually try to consider reasonable opinions and reactions as better? What a strange question.

 

[Darat]

No, and I'm not up in arms, either. I think it's their brand name and they can change it if they want.

What I disagree with is the claim that the name is offensive because one of several intepretations of the word is linked to racism.

As ever you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts, you have seen actual evidence in this thread that the name is offensive to some people. To deny that takes some chutzpah.

 

[Matthew Best]

Don't you think I've explained enough times why I think it's silly?

But why should I agree with you? Your opinion should hold more sway for some reason?

 

[Elagabalus]

What about "Dicks Potatoes"?

Do any of you watch The Great British Bake Off and not laugh when one of the contestants makes Spotted Dick as their signature piece?

 

[Belz...]

As ever you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts, you have seen actual evidence in this thread that the name is offensive to some people. To deny that takes some chutzpah.

I have not denied it.

As for facts, the fact is that the brand name refers to a person's surname. The rest is ALL feelings.

But why should I agree with you? Your opinion should hold more sway for some reason?

You should agree with me if you accept with my reasoning as to why it's silly.

This is like asking me how debates and arguments work. I think you know.

 

[Darat]

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.

No we aren't. That's just a paragraph of assertions of your opinions.

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.

You are confusing "logically" with "intentionally".

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.

There are a few other reasons for something to be racist, for example the intent of the creator.

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.

Again you are incorrectly using the word "logical". I think you are thinking more along the lines of "irrational" rather than "logical". But even then you would be wrong because it is in fact rational to consider people's feelings and perceptions if you are trying to communicate with them, it would be irrational to not do so.

 

[The Greater Fool]

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.

Perhaps if you had coon and myriad other racial slurs thrown at you your whole life, frequently, from unexpected sources, for no good reason, as part of explicit and implicit threats to your well being, you might understand that by the time you start to think about the logic of your response, your heart is already pounding, you are already fearful. You are, in fact, already experiencing a conditioned response to a lifetime of experience. What you dismiss as feelings.

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.

Logically, the cheese name is a slur against minorities.

This is not the first nor last time an offensive thing becomes not offense because, you see, there is a just so story that shows us why. Here and here are just so stories that say otherwise.

For such a famous cheesemaker that he deserves to be honored, Edward W. Coon seems to have left little to no mark on the industry.

Yeah, let's believe the just so story of the famous American E W Coon being honored in Australia by Kraft who didn't actually use the cooning process for the cheese bearing his name.

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.

All associations are in our heads. Of course racist slurs have different associations to different people. The people using them have a different association than those receiving them. People that have only an intellectual connection to racial slurs apparently can tell us logically what is and isn't a slur. Which is why to many here, coon cheese is just a cheese, to others it's a problem.

Aunt Jamima and Uncle Ben don't have racist associations for my wife because they have never been used against her as a slur. Thus good rice and breakfast are her only associations. Until I asked her about it she had never thought of it being an issue.

Your logic would lead you to nonsensical ends. If it was called N-Word cheese, she shouldn't be offended upon seeing it, she should apply logic. Once her heart slows and she decides she's in no immediate threat she needs to think it through. After all, she can't be sure it's not named by a co-op of young black rappers who are marketing the cheese to their fans.

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.

To you this is an intellectual exercise.

To minorities, it's about experience.

 

[angrysoba]

And yet you've already said that 'coon' comes from 'racoon'.

You have said. I've been pointing out that it would probably be assumed to be a racist joke.

It's incredible to me that you manage to tell me that I'm objectively wrong and then in the next breath adit that different people will interpret it differently, which actually makes me right. Ugh.

Huh? You're wrong to think people in the UK would think it means "raccoon". That's what I am saying.

It is absolutely an 'agree to disagree' moment. You think people can reasonably conclude that it's racist; I don't. I've made my case, and you've made yours. I'm not going to convince you.

In the example you gave? Of course they can reasonably conclude it is racist.

Here's something from an advert in the UK:

In 2004, a radio commercial for the UK supermarket chain Somerfield, in which a man rejects his wife's suggested dinner saying "I've got nothing against faggots, I just don't fancy them" was found to have breached the Advertising and Sponsorship Code and was banned by the industry regulator Ofcom.

B...b...but...it's about meatballs, you might say! It's not reasonable to think there is a homophobic play on words, right Belz?

Er... because we usually try to consider reasonable opinions and reactions as better? What a strange question.

"Better" might not be the most likely explanation, though. Sometimes childish interpretations are the most likely.

In the comedy movie Team America, why do you think the actors of the Film Actors Guild were standing behind a podium saying F.A.G?

In the film they explicitly said that it means "Film Actors Guild", but if that is the only interpretation you make, you will miss the (childish) joke.

So I ask again:

Why are childish interpretations to be ruled out?

Maybe we are deliberately being asked to make the childish interpretation?

 

[Belz...]

Huh? You're wrong to think people in the UK would think it means "raccoon".

What, do they need an arrow between 'coon' and the image of the racoon?

In the example you gave? Of course they can reasonably conclude it is racist.

For some reason you have introduced the idea that they would see the clarifying image as obfuscating instead. I see no reason to assume this would be true.

"Better" might not be the most likely explanation, though. Sometimes childish interpretations are the most likely.

Do you have any specific examples of this?

So I ask again:

I've already answered this. That you think it's not always true is irrelevant. The answer to your question is what I have provided.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

My "Not involved in human trafficking" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.

https://twitter.com/shutupmikeginn/status/403359911481839617?lang=en

If the name even unintentionally causes a potential consumer to harbor a momentary negative thought about the brand, it's a terrible name. If, as a marketer, you're spending any effort explaining why your brand name isn't a racial slur, you've already failed.

 

[Darat]

I'm not demanding that the brand name should be changed, I just think it's a good idea to do so.

Think it really depends where they want to market it. In its native market it appears that until now it got a "by" because it is considered "traditional", in other words normalised with the majority and/or powerful in society.

But times and societies change and low and behold the business now finds it is better to change the name.

But apparently times can't change, people can't have different attitudes to the people back in some long lost time, we are now and forevermore beholden to what someone decided 85 years ago because anything else wouldn't be "logical".

 

[Darat]

Har har, very funny. Do you have an answer to my question?

That was my answer.

 

[angrysoba]

What, do they need an arrow between 'coon' and the image of the racoon?

For some reason you have introduced the idea that they would see the clarifying image as obfuscating instead. I see no reason to assume this would be true.

Wrong! I have said the word "coon" does not mean "raccoon" in the UK. Drawing a picture of a raccoon and an arrow to it would look like a pisstake.

You think you know better, of course. You don't.

Do you have any specific examples of this?

I gave you two already. Did you not read them?

 

[Meadmaker]

Perhaps if you had coon and myriad other racial slurs thrown at you your whole life, frequently, from unexpected sources, for no good reason, as part of explicit and implicit threats to your well being, you might understand that by the time you start to think about the logic of your response, your heart is already pounding, you are already fearful. You are, in fact, already experiencing a conditioned response to a lifetime of experience. What you dismiss as feelings.


Logically, the cheese name is a slur against minorities.

This is not the first nor last time an offensive thing becomes not offense because, you see, there is a just so story that shows us why. Here and here are just so stories that say otherwise.

For such a famous cheesemaker that he deserves to be honored, Edward W. Coon seems to have left little to no mark on the industry.

Yeah, let's believe the just so story of the famous American E W Coon being honored in Australia by Kraft who didn't actually use the cooning process for the cheese bearing his name.



All associations are in our heads. Of course racist slurs have different associations to different people. The people using them have a different association than those receiving them. People that have only an intellectual connection to racial slurs apparently can tell us logically what is and isn't a slur. Which is why to many here, coon cheese is just a cheese, to others it's a problem.

Aunt Jamima and Uncle Ben don't have racist associations for my wife because they have never been used against her as a slur. Thus good rice and breakfast are her only associations. Until I asked her about it she had never thought of it being an issue.

Your logic would lead you to nonsensical ends. If it was called N-Word cheese, she shouldn't be offended upon seeing it, she should apply logic. Once her heart slows and she decides she's in no immediate threat she needs to think it through. After all, she can't be sure it's not named by a co-op of young black rappers who are marketing the cheese to their fans.


To you this is an intellectual exercise.

To minorities, it's about experience.

I was a Trekkie as a 13 year old. To me, "Coon" will always be the guy who wrote "Devil in the Dark", and several other episodes. There was a time I could tell you exactly which ones they were, but for now only "Devil in the Dark" stands out in my memory. I know that he was writer for some of my favorite episodes at the time.

 

[Elagabalus]

I have not denied it.

As for facts, the fact is that the brand name refers to a person's surname. The rest is ALL feelings.



You should agree with me if you accept with my reasoning as to why it's silly.

This is like asking me how debates and arguments work. I think you know.

It's like calling Dutch processed cocoa, "Dutch" with cocoa being written in tiny letters at the bottom. From a marketing perspective Cocoa should be more prominent on the label to tell you what it is. The Coon label is all kinds of label fail.

 

[Darat]

Do any of you watch The Great British Bake Off and not laugh when one of the contestants makes Spotted Dick as their signature piece?

Some of us are British and we can make anything a sexual innuendo if we want!

 

[angrysoba]

Some of us are British and we can make anything a sexual innuendo if we want!

You're not putting that in my endo, Matron!

[/Kenneth Williams voice]

 

[Darat]

I have not denied it.

As for facts, the fact is that the brand name refers to a person's surname. The rest is ALL feelings.

You said "...
What I disagree with is the claim that the name is offensive ..."

You should agree with me if you accept with my reasoning as to why it's silly.

This is like asking me how debates and arguments work. I think you know.

When you provide some reasoning rather than merely your opinion you may convince me, but until you do repeatedly restating your opinion isn't going to change my mind.

 

[Matthew Best]

You should agree with me if you accept with my reasoning as to why it's silly.

In that case I don't agree with your reasoning, and there's an end to this discussion.

Thank goodness for that!