Religion The CHEESE WARS! Carringbush2010 hears a who!

[kranky al]

Ultimately no one is debating it's the companies call, what the debate is about is whether the company over reacted on noise or actively sourced evidence that keeping the founders name would indeed have negative impact on their profit line.

Did they, having had attention drawn to the name not want their company associated with any debate on the subject. Its been low key humming along for a while and its just negativity with no upside.

Its not a comfortable place for a company to be, having their name as part of a tug of war when you look at the foulness of how it can be used.

The people who are likely to defend you to the hilt, loudly, prominently and illiterately all over social media, arent the sort of people a company wants to be associated with.

 

[bourbons]

Most large businesses are socially progressive, or at least make an attempt to appear as being so. That's one modern take of risk-adverse corporate strategy.

There'll be some exceptions, but I think in general its more the bolded than any innate social/progressive desires.

 

[bourbons]

Or you could ask someone who would take offence to that nation's name, why they're so easily offended. More than certain there's someone somewhere who is.

Still

Let me know when you find one lol

 

[bourbons]

Actually it's not about a block of cheese vs a nation, what it's about is the fact some people take irrational offence to someone's name, sometimes in bad faith.

I've alluded this clearly more than once.

Its literally about that. You introduced the comparison and have been utterly incapable going on 20 posts now of recognising that it isn't a great one, or why there might be a heap of differences between re-naming a commercial product and country

Additionally, you've continued to pretend there are people out there who might truly have an issue with the name of the country in the first place. Actually would have thought you'd find at least one random left wing nutter on twitter by now

Both as ridiculous as each other, you've already agreed that people that do / would take offence are overly sensitive.

I have, while noting that such a position isn't automatically unreasonable. There are probably things that I'd take offence to which other people would consider overly sensitive too.

 

[bourbons]

Agreed, has anyone on here or in broader society found someone who has taken offence to the name Coon? I'm sure there is because they're disrespectfully looking at someone's name as a slur instead what it really is, just someone's name.

OK, so confirmation here that you're completely incapable of rationalising your take re: the country and the cheese situatons being the same, despite the cheese being the exact same word while the country is spelled and pronounced differently to the slur.

To answer your question - not here or in daily life, but there was clearly engagement and campaign or sorts that occurred. Again, let me know when you find similar engagement or organisation about changing the name of the country

 

[bourbons]

Same as can you point to me an example of someone taking offence to the name Coon? (Not the slur), I'm sure there is, and they'd be very much in the minority - seems everyone agrees on that.

Yet the vehement defence of changing a brand name from the founders name is for all to see.

Sure! Bizarre question, we wouldn't be having this discussion if no one had taken offence to the name;

Coon's owners, dairy products company Saputo, confirmed the change Friday after being written a letter of complaint in June by activist Stephen Hagan, who has been fighting for 20 years to have the name changed.

"I said that the cheese brand was offensive, I said that it demeans people of colour," Dr Hagan told the ABC on Friday.

"I said that it was unacceptable as a brand in 2020."

Following a review, Saputo agreed.

Coon cheese's name to be changed

Coon cheese's name will be changed after a 20-year fight with three different owners by an activist who said the brand has racist connotations.

www.abc.net.au

And yes, he's probably in the minority - the minority that happens to include the cheese brand owners now as well.

 

[bourbons]

Lol, Coon is someone's name on a block of cheese, not intended as a pejorative. It also a word that is pejorative.

Anyone who uses the word to intentionally offend is not worth pissing on, anyone who deliberately correlates a persons name as a pejorative is not worth the time of moment.

Do you agree?

Its not just a person's name though - its the brand name. Printed on millions of packets and in all their advertising nation wide.

You can't see any reason why a company might think twice about continuing to have a word that happens to exactly match a well known racial slur on all their displays, regardless of history or intent?

Really??

 

[bourbons]

15 pages and counting

How many did he do for Mr Potatohead?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Stop being a Dick.

As expected.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Its not just a person's name though - its the brand name. Printed on millions of packets and in all their advertising nation wide.

You can't see any reason why a company might think twice about continuing to have a word that happens to exactly match a well known racial slur on all their displays, regardless of history or intent?

Really??

We've been over this, I can see why, and I've pointed out it's probably over reach in reasoning.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Its literally about that.

Not it's not, you're making it about cheese v nation, I'm pointing out the irrational of both examples.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Did they, having had attention drawn to the name not want their company associated with any debate on the subject. Its been low key humming along for a while and its just negativity with no upside.

Its not a comfortable place for a company to be, having their name as part of a tug of war when you look at the foulness of how it can be used.

The people who are likely to defend you to the hilt, loudly, prominently and illiterately all over social media, arent the sort of people a company wants to be associated with.

I'm not defending anyone.

Merely pointing out being offended by someone's name is irrational, would you agree?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not your decision to make is it.

What decision do you think I'm making?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

As expected.

Do you think that people offended by that name/word are being overly sensitive?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Do you think that people offended by that word are being overly sensitive?

What? Dick? Yeah I'd think you'd be over sensitive to be offended by it.

 

[bourbons]

We've been over this, I can see why, and I've pointed out it's probably over reach in reasoning.

Sure is, if your assumption is that the company probably didn't do much more than make a snap judgement based on no data at all.

 

[bourbons]

Not it's not, you're making it about cheese v nation

Says the bloke who literally introduced that comparison.

Going well mate

I'm pointing out the irrational of both examples.

The cheese isn't as irrational though is it? By definition it can't be, coz with the cheese it's the same word, with the country the word and pronunciation is not the same.

Its objective fact that a difference exists that isn't there with the cheese.

 

[bourbons]

What decision do you think I'm making?

That companies shouldn't be pandering to overly sensitive people.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Sure is, if your assumption is that the company probably didn't do much more than make a snap judgement based on no data at all

We can go around and around on circles if you want.

I've clearly stated that I fairly speculate that the company may have reacted to noise and may not have gathered valid evidence. Haven't claimed that as a definite as you've claimed I have in your post here.

I've asked a question of you, you've answered, not sure why you keep on trying to debate me when you know what my position is.

• I find it overly sensitive to be offended by someone's name, I've asked you this and you've agreed.
• I've speculated that the company may have over reacted to noise instead of evidence, not claimed it as a definite, just pointing out it would be over reactive to do so.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Says the bloke who literally introduced that comparison.

Because both are ridiculous, that's why I brought in the example, to show the cheese example is irrational to be offended by.

 

[bourbons]

We can go around and around on circles if you want.

I've clearly stated that I fairly speculate that the company may have reacted to noise and may not have gathered valid evidence. Haven't claimed that as a definite as you've claimed I have in your post here.

Hmm dunno mate, kinda sounds like you have;

• By extension, fairly speculatively without any real evidence, as it seems clear no one seems to know anyone who takes offence to someone's name
• And by extension may have predicted, fairly speculatively without any real evidence, may have effected their bottom line.

I've asked a question of you, you've answered, not sure why you keep on trying to debate me when you know what my position is.

• I find it overly sensitive to be offended by someone's name, I've asked you this and you've agreed.
• I've speculated that the company may have over reacted to noise instead of evidence, not claimed it as a definite, just pointing out it would be over reactive to do so.

A person's name is not = to a brand name (I know this will probably break your brain considering its the same word in this case )

In any case its a discussion forum mate, post or don't ¯\(ツ)/¯

But full disclosure, if you keep writing posts pretending a name change of a commercial brand which was the same word as a slur and for which some kind of campaign existed is the same as a name change for a country which is a different word than a slur and for which not a single person gives a s**t, I'll probably continue to make fun for you for it

 

[bourbons]

Because both are ridiculous, that's why I brought in the example, to show the cheese example is irrational to be offended by.

Not equally so, as I just objectively demonstrated and you conveniently ignored.

Thats before we even get to the nature of a commercial product vs nature of a country angle

 

[Brad Goodman]

why is this still happening

 

[ElectricG]

why is this still happening

Because it’s still called cheer. We won’t stop.

 

[mr bagcroft]

why is this still happening

Cause Carringbush2010 seems a most determined fellow.