Religion The CHEESE WARS! Carringbush2010 hears a who!

[Carringbush2010]

Cheese is not people.

Lol, Coon is someone's name on a block of cheese, not intended as a pejorative. It also a word that is pejorative.

Anyone who uses the word to intentionally offend is not worth pissing on, anyone who deliberately correlates a persons name as a pejorative is not worth the time of moment.

Do you agree?

 

[Carringbush2010]

I don't have enough data to say, I'd imagine they're basing their decisions on market research and insights I don't have access to.

Ultimately though, it doesn't matter what I think. It's their company, it's their decision. I have no skin in the game.

Ok, fair enough, if the data showed their business decision was on the possibility of negative optics without any evidence from market research, would you find that overly reactive?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Tons of people have responded with very good reasons.

You've forgotten to read the rest of that post, I've answered that very question with fair speculative reasons in that very post.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Lol, Coon is someone's name on a block of cheese, not intended as a pejorative. It also a word that is pejorative.

Anyone who uses the word to intentionally offend is not worth pissing on, anyone who deliberately correlates a persons name as a pejorative is not worth the time of moment.

Do you agree?

If it was called Mr Cheesehead and they changed it to Cheesehead Family, you would still have an issue with it.

Do you agree?

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Ok, fair enough, if the data showed their business decision was on the possibility of negative optics without any evidence from market research, would you find that overly reactive?

Assumong there's no opportunity for research results, I'd weigh it against the possibility of negative optics of changing vs. not changing and make the decision based on that.

But I wouldn't make any decision until I looked at market insights and research tbh.

 

[Carringbush2010]

If it was called Mr Cheesehead and they changed it to Cheesehead Family, you would still have an issue with it.

Do you agree?

Of course not, now would you agree that someone who deliberately correlates a persons name with a pejorative is being overly sensitive and possibly being so in bad faith?

Your turn to answer now.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Assumong there's no opportunity for research results, I'd weigh it against the possibility of negative optics of changing vs. not changing and make the decision based on that.

But I wouldn't make any decision until I looked at market insights and research tbh.

Fair enough and I agree.

I'd also fairly speculate that the company possibly over reacted to the 'noise' of social issues at the time.

I haven't seen any evidence they went looking for it or were even asked to change the name from the founder.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Of course not, now would you agree that someone who deliberately correlates a persons name with a pejorative is being overly sensitive and possibly being so in bad faith?

Your turn to answer now.

I've answered the question - it depends on context.

I think your over reaction is much more problematic than a person that takes offense over a particular word.

 

[Chief]

or were even asked to change the name from the founder.

He died in 1934.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

He died in 1934.

He wasn't even the founder of the company, he patented a process.

There was another brand of cheese called 'red coon' before that even happened. It wasn't related to him either.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Fair enough and I agree.

I'd also fairly speculate that the company possibly over reacted to the 'noise' of social issues at the time.

I haven't seen any evidence they went looking for it or were even asked to change the name from the founder.

Potentially that's what happened. But again ultimately it's their company, their call.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I've answered the question - it depends on context.

I think your over reaction is much more problematic than a person that takes offense over a particular word.

Umm no you haven't.

The context is it's someone's name, would you agree that someone who takes offence to someone's name is being over reactive?

It's not a hard question to answer, I expect you won't.

 

[Carringbush2010]

He died in 1934.

And?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Potentially that's what happened. But again ultimately it's their company, their call.

Ultimately no one is debating it's the companies call, what the debate is about is whether the company over reacted on noise or actively sourced evidence that keeping the founders name would indeed have negative impact on their profit line.

 

[Chief]

Ultimately no one is debating it's the companies call, what the debate is about is whether the company over reacted on noise or actively sourced evidence that keeping the founders name would indeed have negative impact on their profit line.

Kind of already had that debate.

No new info is coming to light.

You're just badgering people with the same question and ignoring the answers you don't like.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Kind of already had that debate.

No new info is coming to light.

You're just badgering people with the same question and ignoring the answers you don't like.

But you have answered, you think it's not irrational that someone takes offence to someone's name.

Most people would probably disagree.

I haven't entered into a debate about when Ed died, or whether or not the companies decision is their choice, I've just debated I think it's irrational and possibly in bad faith to take offence to a persons name.

We disagree, move on.

 

[Chief]

But you have answered, you think it's not irrational that someone takes offence to someone's name.

Hehe of course you know full well I was being facetious in response to you bogarting the thread with a question with no context

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Umm no you haven't.

The context is it's someone's name, would you agree that someone who takes offence to someone's name is being over reactive?

It's not a hard question to answer, I expect you won't.

Stop being a Dick.

 

[the_interloper]

Righto we're still arguing about cheese, does anyone want to acknowledge that people do care about the issue?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Just on my last paragraph, would you find that overly risk averse from a corporate? If not why not?

Well, they may have done the numbers and found that the cost of changing the branding was outweighed by the cost of any ongoing negative viral marketing by the overly sensitive, so that makes a decision not risk averse but just good business practice if there is a net gain.

edit I saw later that you had accepted this type of point then asked a separate question about "what if in the absence of data" then it would depend for me on the intensity of any existing negative social media (ie was it a massive shitstorm that they just wanted to make go away) - which I can't recall the fact of the situation.

 

[Father Jack]

Righto we're still arguing about cheese, does anyone want to acknowledge that people do care about the issue?

15 pages and counting

 

[Brad Goodman]

Righto we're still arguing about cheese, does anyone want to acknowledge that people do care about the issue?

That they do and whether they should are veeerrryyy different things.

 

[Chief]

Righto we're still arguing about cheese, does anyone want to acknowledge that people do care about the issue?

In the absence of Carri, we'd be on some other topic now.

 

[the_interloper]

In the absence of Carri, we'd be on some other topic now.

Carri?

 

[Chief]

Carri?

ngbush2010