4 ms·

How about if you think of it in terms of the bond that such branding rests on. Surely, if my tribe, home, and history is tied to the name Amazon, then that beat

by why-el 8y ago

How about if you think of it in terms of the bond that such branding rests on. Surely, if my tribe, home, and history is tied to the name Amazon, then that beats (for some definition of "beats") one's relationship with an online retail place? I am not arguing for any side, but I do acknowledge that the Amazonian community's right to the name rests on a very good argument.

ribosometronome 8y ago
>Surely, if my tribe, home, and history is tied to the name Amazon, then that beats (for some definition of "beats") one's relationship with an online retail place? Which goes back to crazygringo's point: >Because if it were for locals, it would be .amazonia and .amazonas. (Similarly to how Germany is .de, not .gr or something like that.)
OJFord 8y ago
Oh, I absolutely don't mean to comment on who 'deserves' (for some definition that includes 'is allowed to pay for the privilege of') it - that's a judgement I'm glad not to have to make - I was responding purely to the point about 'brand' strength.
- why-el 8y ago
  Noted. We are in agreement.
weberc2 8y ago
> I am not arguing for any side, but I do acknowledge that the Amazonian community's right to the name rests on a very good argument. I'm also not arguing for any side, but I don't think your "bond" argument is particularly convincing. Namely, it strikes me as too vague in the general case and thus too hard to adjucate. The things you use to nail it down (tribe, home, history) are specific to this case, but don't generalize well. Even if you were able to address those problems, it doesn't compell me to think that these people deserve the English name for the geography in question (perhaps especially if those people don't really identify with the geography in question, but rather as nations who happen to live in that geography?). In any case, it's a puzzling and interesting question.
- why-el 8y ago
  Indeed, the language bend adds an interesting dimension to the problem.

by why-el 8y ago

ribosometronome 8y ago

>Surely, if my tribe, home, and history is tied to the name Amazon, then that beats (for some definition of "beats") one's relationship with an online retail place? Which goes back to crazygringo's point: >Because if it were for locals, it would be .amazonia and .amazonas. (Similarly to how Germany is .de, not .gr or something like that.)

OJFord 8y ago

Oh, I absolutely don't mean to comment on who 'deserves' (for some definition that includes 'is allowed to pay for the privilege of') it - that's a judgement I'm glad not to have to make - I was responding purely to the point about 'brand' strength.

why-el 8y ago
Noted. We are in agreement.

weberc2 8y ago

> I am not arguing for any side, but I do acknowledge that the Amazonian community's right to the name rests on a very good argument. I'm also not arguing for any side, but I don't think your "bond" argument is particularly convincing. Namely, it strikes me as too vague in the general case and thus too hard to adjucate. The things you use to nail it down (tribe, home, history) are specific to this case, but don't generalize well. Even if you were able to address those problems, it doesn't compell me to think that these people deserve the English name for the geography in question (perhaps especially if those people don't really identify with the geography in question, but rather as nations who happen to live in that geography?). In any case, it's a puzzling and interesting question.

why-el 8y ago
Indeed, the language bend adds an interesting dimension to the problem.