3 ms·

To me, the non shitty choice is for people to stop acting like children and having a problem with a word, even if it does sound like cock.

lallysingh 6y ago
Fighting human nature is rarely a winning strategy.
- Nicksil 6y ago
  It's cultural, is it not?
- dkarl 6y ago
  I would not call it "human nature" or give up on changing it, but I agree that changing the name is a quick and easy win compared to changing the context.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  And what is the delineation between nature and culture?
  - yepthatsreality 6y ago
    If you view everything at a high level then there is no difference, but that doesn't mean we pretend that nature == culture.
silicon2401 6y ago
I think this is an XY problem. Presumably the goal of Coq is to solve some technical problems, not change human nature. There's nothing wrong with people having a sense of humor and finding things funny. It's a funny sound in English, just like there are probably English words that sound funny in French, and there are plenty of other words we can use instead of trying to enforce a humorless world where people can't have a giggle at a funny word
- cylon13 6y ago
  Imagine being a woman and having to tell people you’re working with cock. It’s funny for guys but it’s not the greatest for gender diversity. They mention in the linked post that this is one of the main driving reasons, not a vague lack of humor.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Would men have a hard time working with a tool called "vag"? You seem to be infantilizing a lot of women.
    - drewzero1 6y ago
      > Would men have a hard time... I mean, yeah, probably. Either through embarrassment or immaturity. Which, granted, isn't the end of the world, but I'd feel the need to qualify it with an explanation every time I mentioned it, and would probably think about switching to an alternative if I had to talk about it a lot. It's not quite the same situation, but I switched to Glimpse so I didn't have to keep explaining GIMP to non-techies who saw it on my computer and asked. I would however consider that less excusable, since it's not an innocent word in the program's native language in the same way as Coq.
    - cylon13 6y ago
      We're not talking about all women or my opinion of women, we're talking about actual women that actually complained about harassment and discomfort, which is the reason stated for the change in the linked article. Besides, it's not "infantilizing" to acknowledge the situation might feel different as a woman in a male-dominated group. You seem to think they should just tough it out because most men wouldn't have a problem with the "reverse" situation, which is a pretty rough take. Men and women's experiences with the opposite gender are not interchangeable.
      - fastball 6y ago
        How does a name generate harassment on its own? If it doesn't, then clearly the harassment is an issue that should be handled on its own. It is definitely infantilizing to assume that any group can't adopt/use a word if they want, really has nothing to do with genders or anything like that as you seem to assert. Women don't have some unique historical relationship to the word "cock", and even if they did I don't think that would be a great reason. The black community reclaimed the N word, and that word is so extremely polarizing / offensive I'm calling it "the N word"! It's not about "toughing it out", it's about growing up and recognizing that words are whatever you want them to be.
subpixel 6y ago
There's no analysis of this that doesn't boil down to accommodating immaturity. Worse, it protects English speakers from the mental model (reflecting reality) where other languages coexist with their own.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
You have to remember that most of our communication isn’t written, social media non withstanding. Combine that with Coq still being super niche, so a big fraction of people in a given conversation about it won’t know “Coq” and will hear “cock.” What you end up with is you giving a presentation at work about your new cock proof, or teaching your students how to use cock. Because in the environment a massive number of users are in (verbal, unfamiliar, and English speaking), that’s how it comes across. Is it really childish to acknowledge that I don’t want to have to preempt that my cock presentation is actually about the theorem prover Coq again and again and again?

lallysingh 6y ago

Fighting human nature is rarely a winning strategy.

Nicksil 6y ago
It's cultural, is it not?
dkarl 6y ago
I would not call it "human nature" or give up on changing it, but I agree that changing the name is a quick and easy win compared to changing the context.
threatofrain 6y ago
And what is the delineation between nature and culture?
- yepthatsreality 6y ago
  If you view everything at a high level then there is no difference, but that doesn't mean we pretend that nature == culture.

silicon2401 6y ago

I think this is an XY problem. Presumably the goal of Coq is to solve some technical problems, not change human nature. There's nothing wrong with people having a sense of humor and finding things funny. It's a funny sound in English, just like there are probably English words that sound funny in French, and there are plenty of other words we can use instead of trying to enforce a humorless world where people can't have a giggle at a funny word

cylon13 6y ago
Imagine being a woman and having to tell people you’re working with cock. It’s funny for guys but it’s not the greatest for gender diversity. They mention in the linked post that this is one of the main driving reasons, not a vague lack of humor.
- fastball 6y ago
  Would men have a hard time working with a tool called "vag"? You seem to be infantilizing a lot of women.
  - drewzero1 6y ago
    > Would men have a hard time... I mean, yeah, probably. Either through embarrassment or immaturity. Which, granted, isn't the end of the world, but I'd feel the need to qualify it with an explanation every time I mentioned it, and would probably think about switching to an alternative if I had to talk about it a lot. It's not quite the same situation, but I switched to Glimpse so I didn't have to keep explaining GIMP to non-techies who saw it on my computer and asked. I would however consider that less excusable, since it's not an innocent word in the program's native language in the same way as Coq.
  - cylon13 6y ago
    We're not talking about all women or my opinion of women, we're talking about actual women that actually complained about harassment and discomfort, which is the reason stated for the change in the linked article. Besides, it's not "infantilizing" to acknowledge the situation might feel different as a woman in a male-dominated group. You seem to think they should just tough it out because most men wouldn't have a problem with the "reverse" situation, which is a pretty rough take. Men and women's experiences with the opposite gender are not interchangeable.
    - fastball 6y ago
      How does a name generate harassment on its own? If it doesn't, then clearly the harassment is an issue that should be handled on its own. It is definitely infantilizing to assume that any group can't adopt/use a word if they want, really has nothing to do with genders or anything like that as you seem to assert. Women don't have some unique historical relationship to the word "cock", and even if they did I don't think that would be a great reason. The black community reclaimed the N word, and that word is so extremely polarizing / offensive I'm calling it "the N word"! It's not about "toughing it out", it's about growing up and recognizing that words are whatever you want them to be.

subpixel 6y ago

There's no analysis of this that doesn't boil down to accommodating immaturity. Worse, it protects English speakers from the mental model (reflecting reality) where other languages coexist with their own.

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

You have to remember that most of our communication isn’t written, social media non withstanding. Combine that with Coq still being super niche, so a big fraction of people in a given conversation about it won’t know “Coq” and will hear “cock.” What you end up with is you giving a presentation at work about your new cock proof, or teaching your students how to use cock. Because in the environment a massive number of users are in (verbal, unfamiliar, and English speaking), that’s how it comes across. Is it really childish to acknowledge that I don’t want to have to preempt that my cock presentation is actually about the theorem prover Coq again and again and again?