5 ms·

If there was a project called "fuq", and people were being harassed or finding it difficult to discuss, I think anyone could understand that this was an issue.

If there was a project called "fuq", and people were being harassed or finding it difficult to discuss, I think anyone could understand that this was an issue. Given this, "Coq" is clearly a fuqing problematic name, and unless it's absolutely intended to have the double meaning, it should probably be changed somehow. A clear alternate pronounciation of "coke" (with optional circumflex), would seem easiest to implement. At least, try it for a while and see if it works?

pelario 6y ago
To me it seems as misdirected solution: i) If people is being harassed because of the name of their workplace, then the problem is the harasser. Changing the name of the workplace is a bit like victim shaming, in the sense that the real problem is the harasser. ii) If people have difficulties talking about their workplace name, then I think it's people's problem.
- Sebb767 6y ago
  > Changing the name of the workplace is a bit like victim shaming, in the sense that the real problem is the harasser. Yes, but the connotation is arguably quite NSFW. If it would be named penis directly, it should not make a difference either, but it does. Throwing in "we should use cock!" in a meeting will get you glances at first and surely some more afterwards, even if you clarify. Ask the companies named ISIS (there are quite a few) how the name worked out for them; same thing here. > If people have difficulties talking about their workplace name, then I think it's people's problem. Yes, but it is then, in turn, your problem, as you loose out on quite a few people - either because they don't want the trouble with the name or because it simply deters them. Marketing is extremely important.
- argvargc 6y ago
  So you'd be happy announcing to a room of strangers that you're working for a company called "fuq"? Or "diqhed"? Or how about "faqqot"? And how it plays out every single time? In all things, there are limits - and "coq", as it is presently pronounced, is obviously breaching those limits, or the problem wouldn't be there.
Sebb767 6y ago
> A clear alternate pronounciation of "coke" (with optional circumflex), would seem easiest to implement Yes, but I'm not convinced this would actually take hold. The Voltswagen thread had a lot of discussion about this and quite a few were convinced that the "american" pronunciation is as valid as the canonical German one. So, in the end, it would probably remain "cock" for a lot of people. > At least, try it for a while and see if it works? A name change, even if only in pronunciation, is a rather large and conflicting change. Doing this twice looks like a recipe for disaster.
- argvargc 6y ago
  I'm not sure a name change merely in pronunciation must be necessarily large or conflicting, especially if the existing one has an obvious problem. It's essentially a "soft" change - ie, change nothing, don't even announce it publicly. Quietly put "pronounced as: " in the docs and instruct employees to start saying it differently. Not a big deal. If after a while that resolves the problem or at least sufficiently minimises it, you're done. If not, I think you have a clear go-ahead to make a big, breaking change.

pelario 6y ago

To me it seems as misdirected solution: i) If people is being harassed because of the name of their workplace, then the problem is the harasser. Changing the name of the workplace is a bit like victim shaming, in the sense that the real problem is the harasser. ii) If people have difficulties talking about their workplace name, then I think it's people's problem.

Sebb767 6y ago
> Changing the name of the workplace is a bit like victim shaming, in the sense that the real problem is the harasser. Yes, but the connotation is arguably quite NSFW. If it would be named penis directly, it should not make a difference either, but it does. Throwing in "we should use cock!" in a meeting will get you glances at first and surely some more afterwards, even if you clarify. Ask the companies named ISIS (there are quite a few) how the name worked out for them; same thing here. > If people have difficulties talking about their workplace name, then I think it's people's problem. Yes, but it is then, in turn, your problem, as you loose out on quite a few people - either because they don't want the trouble with the name or because it simply deters them. Marketing is extremely important.
argvargc 6y ago
So you'd be happy announcing to a room of strangers that you're working for a company called "fuq"? Or "diqhed"? Or how about "faqqot"? And how it plays out every single time? In all things, there are limits - and "coq", as it is presently pronounced, is obviously breaching those limits, or the problem wouldn't be there.

Sebb767 6y ago

> A clear alternate pronounciation of "coke" (with optional circumflex), would seem easiest to implement Yes, but I'm not convinced this would actually take hold. The Voltswagen thread had a lot of discussion about this and quite a few were convinced that the "american" pronunciation is as valid as the canonical German one. So, in the end, it would probably remain "cock" for a lot of people. > At least, try it for a while and see if it works? A name change, even if only in pronunciation, is a rather large and conflicting change. Doing this twice looks like a recipe for disaster.

argvargc 6y ago
I'm not sure a name change merely in pronunciation must be necessarily large or conflicting, especially if the existing one has an obvious problem. It's essentially a "soft" change - ie, change nothing, don't even announce it publicly. Quietly put "pronounced as: " in the docs and instruct employees to start saying it differently. Not a big deal. If after a while that resolves the problem or at least sufficiently minimises it, you're done. If not, I think you have a clear go-ahead to make a big, breaking change.