36 ms·

Conventions exist for a reason. Choosing a name which is immediately recognisable and conveys the meaning you know others will glean from it is a sensible and r

Conventions exist for a reason. Choosing a name which is immediately recognisable and conveys the meaning you know others will glean from it is a sensible and rational thing to do. In fact, picking outlandish names purely to "buck the trend" and make some kind of statement about naming and identity reeks of immaturity and ideology.

inopinatus 6y ago
This view isn't merely bland, conservative, and patronising. I find it downright abhorrent, being the kind of sentiment at the roots of every organisation that ever excluded/demoralised the folks that didn't talk, look, think, or behave like some cookie-cutter template. There is no assertable "fact" that diversity of expression, or the expression of preferences and identity, extends from immaturity or ideology. On the contrary, it is a mark of organisational and civilisational maturity, and willingness to embrace ideas, that such self-expression is possible, accepted, and encouraged. The qualifiers I'd suggest instead are heterogeneity and imagination, and there is no trend to buck; the world is, and always has been, full of complicated, imaginative people. When I am very lucky, I even get to work with them. Sans identity, the individual is a puppet, and sans creativity, humanity is cosmically uninteresting.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  There are plenty of other ways to express your individual identity, without hindering ease of communication. In this particular case, giving the group a name which does not contain information about what the group does is contrary to the goal of communicating the group's purpose. If your only goal is to communicate what a progressive, free thinking, modern ideologue you are, then sure, give your groups whatever names you like if that's the sort of people you want to dog whistle to. If, like most other people, you simply want to communicate the groups purpose in a quick way, then there are plenty of de facto standards to follow.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    Good grief, what a pernicious worldview. Fortunately, most people choosing whimsical names for things actually do so playfully and creatively. The idea that out there some grumpy clown with a stick up their ass about "ease of communication" is going to launch into a diatribe about "dog whistles" and "ideology", doesn't enter into that process. Rather serendipitously my next library extraction is postgresql-related. I was pondering an appropriate name. In the circumstance I think I shall name it Chorale of the Aztounding Relational Pachyderm, and if anyone asks I will point them in your direction for an explanation.
    - justinclift 6y ago
      > Chorale of the Aztounding Relational Pachyderm If you change that slightly to "Chorale of the Relational Aztounding Pachyderm", it might hinder adoption. Or maybe not. ;)

inopinatus 6y ago

This view isn't merely bland, conservative, and patronising. I find it downright abhorrent, being the kind of sentiment at the roots of every organisation that ever excluded/demoralised the folks that didn't talk, look, think, or behave like some cookie-cutter template. There is no assertable "fact" that diversity of expression, or the expression of preferences and identity, extends from immaturity or ideology. On the contrary, it is a mark of organisational and civilisational maturity, and willingness to embrace ideas, that such self-expression is possible, accepted, and encouraged. The qualifiers I'd suggest instead are heterogeneity and imagination, and there is no trend to buck; the world is, and always has been, full of complicated, imaginative people. When I am very lucky, I even get to work with them. Sans identity, the individual is a puppet, and sans creativity, humanity is cosmically uninteresting.

Thorentis 6y ago
There are plenty of other ways to express your individual identity, without hindering ease of communication. In this particular case, giving the group a name which does not contain information about what the group does is contrary to the goal of communicating the group's purpose. If your only goal is to communicate what a progressive, free thinking, modern ideologue you are, then sure, give your groups whatever names you like if that's the sort of people you want to dog whistle to. If, like most other people, you simply want to communicate the groups purpose in a quick way, then there are plenty of de facto standards to follow.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- inopinatus 6y ago
  Good grief, what a pernicious worldview. Fortunately, most people choosing whimsical names for things actually do so playfully and creatively. The idea that out there some grumpy clown with a stick up their ass about "ease of communication" is going to launch into a diatribe about "dog whistles" and "ideology", doesn't enter into that process. Rather serendipitously my next library extraction is postgresql-related. I was pondering an appropriate name. In the circumstance I think I shall name it Chorale of the Aztounding Relational Pachyderm, and if anyone asks I will point them in your direction for an explanation.
  - justinclift 6y ago
    > Chorale of the Aztounding Relational Pachyderm If you change that slightly to "Chorale of the Relational Aztounding Pachyderm", it might hinder adoption. Or maybe not. ;)