|
|
|
|
|
|
by hehetrthrthrjn
1905 days ago
|
|
|
I guess you don't find it embarrassing so you don't see the problem. You're probably in the category of people snickering at some young woman made to say "cock" publically and not in the category of people who are made to feel intensely uncomfortable by it. Names are arbitrary, why should anyone be so attached to this name, or any other name, idiom, or figure of speech that offends, embarrasses or diminishes others? Because historically we've been able to get away with it? If you don't care that's fine, but please don't sound so hard done by because people are thinking about how other people feel. |
|
|
They aren't though. This isn't about the poor (theoretical) coq-sayer, this is about the righteousness of the name decriers. If you can't point to a real victim we're better off assuming there isn't one and that you're just trying to look hip.
> any other name, idiom, or figure of speech that offends, embarrasses or diminishes others?
Sure, if it did actually diminish people someone would take you seriously. If the product was named after a slur, actually referencing it, and rudely. Like "TheMick, a project to track alcoholism".
But who is hurt by the concept that words in one language sound like different words in another? And is the speaker of the first language to blame or the speaker of the second who hears a dirty word? Allocate blame here, that we may smite the wicked.
> I guess you don't find it embarrassing so you don't see the problem
Even if I did I'd be hard pressed to tell some French people that they have to change because of my sexual puritanism. Is the left into forcing America's sexual mores on people again this week?