If it's true that you can detect bad actors by seeing them persistently make inappropriate jokes about Coq in the workplace, then might it actually be a good th

If it's true that you can detect bad actors by seeing them persistently make inappropriate jokes about Coq in the workplace, then might it actually be a good thing to have something named Coq? Because you can detect them and deal with them early before they do something worse than make dumb jokes. If that works, that sounds useful enough that one might consider deliberately giving something a funky name. Following that train of thought, given that kids will eventually encounter something that makes them giggle, mightn't it be good for them to do that and get used to being "professional" as early as possible? (Though there's probably an age below which getting them to stop giggling wouldn't work at all.) Last, considering the case of a male professor that makes sexual innuendo towards female students as a come-on... I don't know how these things work, but is it possible that this would make it easier for the girls to figure out that he's "creepy" and someone they should avoid (possibly even giving him a reputation they learn about before meeting him), thus reducing the likelihood that he's in a position to do something worse? In fact, given today's neopuritan colleges, it seems likely that him doing that might in itself get him fired; or at least it could put him on thin ice, to be more immediately condemned if students start accusing him of doing worse things. I don't know if the above scenarios would actually happen that way. But I do suspect that the people arguing to get the name removed haven't thought through second-order effects like those.