Offensive?

[jettison]

What it comes down to is a business name. If you were going to name a band "Migrant Worker Bees"... it wouldn't matter what anyone thought about the name. In fact.. i think that would be a great band name.

 

But i don't think it works for a business name. But thats just opinion. You can name your company anything you want. Who knows.. maybe figuring out a highly offensive name would bring in more business.

 

I see your point. I think you and Crazy have the same take, and it's an excellent consideration for sure.

[CaptainPlanet]

How about just call it 'Worker Bees' or 'Working Bees' Or 'Not to be confused with the prominent issue of illegal immigrant workers, Bee's'. That last one was a joke.

[jettison]

How about just call it 'Worker Bees' or 'Working Bees' Or 'Not to be confused with the prominent issue of illegal immigrant workers, Bee's'. That last one was a joke.

 

Of the three, I like the last one. The first two are yawns. I wanted "The Bees Knees", but that was already taken of course, and "The Bees Elbows" just doesn't rhyme. "BeeHold!" woudln't have been bad though, although that name is already registered. I also like "Two Bee, or Not Two Bee". Then I could just have a picture of two bees for my logo and some kind of Shakespear theme. I could also register: link removed I can't believe 2bee is already taken though. Geesh.

[BeStrongBeHappy]

The thing is people are not blank slates. You are arguing that the term SHOULDN'T be offensive or confusing because it is neither of those to you. But to other people, it might be based on their own experience.

 

You are presenting your company to other people, not just yourself. So what you present to them will trigger some association in their minds, which could be good, bad, or neutral. Of course you want it to be good at best to attract business, and at least neutral so as not to offend or confuse people as to the nature of your business.

 

What associations might come to OTHER PEOPLE on hearing the name? They may ask themselves, what does this company do? Provide migrant workers? Provide migrant workers who pick crops? Provide migrant workers who work beehives? Provide migrant workers who work really hard like bees in a hive? Company making fun of migrant workers? Employ only migrant workers? Working migrant workers harder than bees in a hive?

 

'Migrant' will bring up some associations for people, and 'worker bees' another association. And they will try to put the two words together to figure out what the business is about.

 

So people are going to have all kinds of ideas about the words of your company name bouncing around in their minds.

 

Many companies specifically choose 'neutral' names that aren't even real words, but plays on words, or or even nonsense words because they don't want people's associations to come too much into play when thinking about their company. They might want to suggest what they do, but no in any way that limits them.

 

That's why you see lots of conglomerate words like TecTron -- playing off the works technical and electronics) or Verizon (playing off voice and horizon) or Microsoft (playing off small computers and software).

 

They choose the vague names on purpose to hint at what their company does, but not really restrict what the company might do or become in the future. They don't want to pigeonhole themselves, offend anybody, or present an image they didn't intend to present.

 

So of course you have a right to choose any name that strikes your fancy. But just because you like it doesn't mean that others may not have a negative connotion.

 

words do indeed have connotations (you say they inherently don't, but they do). 'denotation' (literal meaning) is different than 'connotation' (which is what different individuals associate the word with). here is a definition of connotation:

 

con·no·ta·tion –noun 1.an act or instance of connoting. 2.the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of “home” is “a place of warmth, comfort, and affection.” Compare link removed (def. 1). 3.Logic. the set of attributes constituting the meaning of a term and thus determining the range of objects to which that term may be applied; comprehension; intension.

 

So you asked the question about it being offensive, and people are answering you that it *may* be offensive (or perplexing) to people who have associations in their mind come into play. That is why people are answering it might not be the best name if you want to present a professional image and play off what you do.

 

I would suggest some other play off 'design', a closer association... How about Beesign (bees and design) or even Bee Design or Beehive Design or anything that plays off design. Or Beehouse Design, or ApiGraphics (Api is latin for bee).

 

Or the Mayan bee god Ah Muzen Cab. How about AhMuzen Graphics (also a play on amusing!).

 

I'd start surfing the web for different possibilities related to bees... bees in other languages, words that represent what you want the essense of your company to be.

[jettison]

The thing is people are not blank slates. You are arguing that the term SHOULDN'T be offensive or confusing because it is neither of those to you. But to other people, it might be based on their own experience.

 

No, actually I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying that it's not offensive to me. I'm saying that I believe that if you are offended by something like this that it signifies that you likely may be a very uptight person with a poor sense of humor. I'm not saying "Don't be an uptight person with a poor sense of humor" though. Be yourself. That's cool. It doesn't mean that I have to like you or engage you, or put more poignantly, work with you though.

 

You are presenting your company to other people, not just yourself. So what you present to them will trigger some association in their minds, which could be good, bad, or neutral. Of course you want it to be good at best to attract business, and at least neutral so as not to offend or confuse people as to the nature of your business.

 

My company is based on a model which will introduce sub-40 interactions/exchanges per year. If the percentages from a potentially subtely offensive name say that I may lose 6% of my business for that year based on a potential client liking my work but saying "Uhhhh, no thanks you inconiderate jerk" then I'm ok with that. Consider it part of my business model. It's also quite possible that I may attract people partially because they have a similar sense of humor.

 

 

What associations might come to OTHER PEOPLE on hearing the name? They may ask themselves, what does this company do? Provide migrant workers? Provide migrant workers who pick crops? Provide migrant workers who work beehives? Provide migrant workers who work really hard like bees in a hive? Company making fun of migrant workers? Employ only migrant workers? Working migrant workers harder than bees in a hive?

 

They won't ask any of those things actually, because they will be learing about my business from a website that pretty specifically states what I do. I don't adverstise except by word-of-mouth and referrals. I'm not talking Fortune 500 here.

 

'Migrant' will bring up some associations for people, and 'worker bees' another association. And they will try to put the two words together to figure out what the business is about.

 

They won't have to do that. It's spelled out for them.

 

So people are going to have all kinds of ideas about the words of your company name bouncing around in their minds.

 

Many companies specifically choose 'neutral' names that aren't even real words, but plays on words, or or even nonsense words because they don't want people's associations to come too much into play when thinking about their company. They might want to suggest what they do, but no in any way that limits them.

 

Yes, and I specifically make fun of companies like that. During the big dotcom boom, every other company was renaming themselves from something like "Applied Tranformation" to "Trilera". It was such a joke. People are actually savy enough, and sophisticated enough to see through people's phony, overt marketing campaigns and not be impressed. Those are, in fact, the people I'd like to work for.

 

 

That's why you see lots of conglomerate words like TecTron -- playing off the works technical and electronics) or Verizon (playing off voice and horizon) or Microsoft (playing off small computers and software).

 

Honestly, this isn't lost on me. I just think it's all a bunch of transparent garbage. I'm not impressed when people can think so far inside the box, and when like good little henchman, every other business model must soon follow suit. There are other flavors of ice-cream besides vanilla. Baskins-Robins has 31 of them. Microsoft is currently the most hated company in the universe. What of their name? Who cares about their name? They could change their name to "The Pedalers of Death" with no ill effect since that's how people already associate their name.

 

They choose the vague names on purpose to hint at what their company does, but not really restrict what the company might do or become in the future. They don't want to pigeonhole themselves, offend anybody, or present an image they didn't intend to present.

 

Exactly. They present a fake, cold, disingenuine image, like a formica floor on Monday, devoid of any soul or semblence of originality, in hopes of not offending. And that, for me, is patently offensive.

 

So of course you have a right to choose any name that strikes your fancy. But just because you like it doesn't mean that others may not have a negative connotion.

 

But because I like it, it means that perhaps others will like it too. And with the feeback I've been given, others do actually like it. Works both ways. The Dead Kennedy's wouldn't have sold more the a million albums with the name "Celera". You have to understand the product. I pedal design. The most successful design is one that makes an impression, that makes one think. If I were selling thermometers to pharmecutical companies? No, I wouldn't be calling the company "Stick This In Your Rear".

 

 

words do indeed have connotations (you say they inherently don't, but they do). 'denotation' (literal meaning) is different than 'connotation' (which is what different individuals associate the word with). here is a definition of connotation:

 

con·no·ta·tion –noun 1.an act or instance of connoting. 2.the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of “home” is “a place of warmth, comfort, and affection.” Compare link removed (def. 1). 3.Logic. the set of attributes constituting the meaning of a term and thus determining the range of objects to which that term may be applied; comprehension; intension.

 

I said "words do not have connotations"? Is that a quote from me? I'm too lazy to go back and read the whole thread, but if I said it then it was a rather poor choice of words, and likely taken out of context by you to try to prove your point. It is true that EVERY word has a connotation, and that those connotations aren't static. They are different from person to person. You can say "migrant" means this for me, but another person will have an altermate "connotation". This means that you can't pull out the "Connotation Dictionary", as you similarly did for this exercise, and prove a point to me. The connotations are not equal to definitions. They are not absolute. They change. They morph. There is no right answer. You're simple saying "the average thinker" is right. You're saying that the henchman is right.

 

Alternately, I believe in this Greg Graffin quote:

 

"Don't be a henchman, stand on your laurels. Do what no one else does and praise the good of other men for good man's sake. And when everyone else in the world follows your lead, although a cold day in hell it will surely be, that's when the entire world shall live in harmony."

 

I don't believe in doing it the same way. It's lazy. It's disingenuine. It's pedestrian. It's everything that artistic endeavors should not be. So, again, I can't rename my business "Captivera" because it's a play on the word captivating.

 

You're telling me that my most important goal is "not to offend" while I'm maintaining that my most important goal should be to inspire, even if I risk offending a small percentage of people. I'm more then ok with that. The potential reward far outways the risk.

 

So you asked the question about it being offensive, and people are answering you that it *may* be offensive (or perplexing) to people who have associations in their mind come into play. That is why people are answering it might not be the best name if you want to present a professional image and play off what you do.

 

I asked the question more specifically because I wanted someone, anyone, to be able to explain to me WHY they might be offended. No one can do that though. They can only maintain that "some might be offended by this", but they can't verbalize, with any clarity, why.

[melrich]

I asked the question more specifically because I wanted someone, anyone, to be able to explain to me WHY they might be offended. No one can do that though.

 

Then you asked the wrong question. What you said in your OP was,

 

Is that offensive for some people?

 

Why may it be offensive to some people? Because some people percieve migrant workers to be,

 

1. Exploited or,

2. Stealing local jobs

 

So the term can be emotional (shouldn't be) for some people, and not positively emotional. So it can offend their sensibilities.

 

That part was simple. All you needed to do is ask the right question.

[BeStrongBeHappy]

Jett, no one is trying to win an argument here but you... everyone is trying to HELP you and try to answer your questions as best they can, using examples to illustrate a point.

 

Something can be very funny AND offensive at the same time. The world is not black/white, either/or. There are many many jokes that are extremely offensive AND extremely funny, racist, sexist, ethnic, etc. But most people understand that even if it is funny, if it is offensive to people, you should exercise caution and discretion when telling it, or refrain from telling it at all if it upsets people or has the possibility to upset someone.

 

To directly answer your question, 'migrant worker' is in fact a very loaded word. Most people's associations with those words are seeing someone in their minds who works under terrible conditions, underpaid, treated badly, nowhere to live, bathe, hardly any food too eat, underpaid, abused by those who employ them, disenfranchised, etc.

 

That is not a positive symbol for a company name. Perhaps you find the concept funny because you yourself have never endured those conditions that migrant workers endure, to the point you find it shameful and an embarrassment that they are so taken advantage of. Rather you find the idea of migrant workers slaving away funny. Most people don't.

 

So that's the direct answer to the question.

[jettison]

Then you asked the wrong question. What you said in your OP was,

 

Fair enough. I'm in the wrong with my question. Normally, when asked a question, it's implied that people will tell you why they feel some particular way about some particular topic. As in, "I don't like this person because....."

 

So far, I have been left with.... "I just don't like this person, period." Again, it seems pretty implied that if you ask someone "Is this offensive?" that they're not just going to say "Yes!", that they're going to tell you why they are offended. Maybe I'm just living on Mars with this one though.

 

 

 

Why may it be offensive to some people? Because some people percieve migrant workers to be,

 

1. Exploited or,

2. Stealing local jobs

 

Excellent! This is the first reason I've heard why anyone might actually have a reason for offense. "2. Stealing local jobs." I personally think this is an insane reason to be offended, and my personal politics back that up, but at least it's a real reason why some people could perhaps be offended. The exploited reason I'm not so sure about. Almost everyone is exploited to some degree after all.

 

So the term can be emotional (shouldn't be) for some people, and not positively emotional. So it can offend their sensibilities.

 

"Offend their sensibilities" is a good turn of phrase. I tend to agree. That's why this is one of those things where people might say something like "I just don't like it, but I can't really tell you why I don't."

 

That part was simple. All you needed to do is ask the right question.

 

Leave it to me to make the erroneous assumption that people might give reasons for their feelings.

[jettison]

Jett, no one is trying to win an argument here but you... everyone is trying to HELP you and try to answer your questions as best they can, using examples to illustrate a point.

You can call it trying to win an argument or call it a debate. I prefer debate. You've brought up some things I tend to disagree with so I'm simply explaining why I disagree. Seems fair, no? If someone says something that I just don't agree with do I say nothing in consideration of their offer to help me? Do you live by that code?

 

Something can be very funny AND offensive at the same time. The world is not black/white, either/or. There are many many jokes that are extremely offensive AND extremely funny, racist, sexist, ethnic, etc. But most people understand that even if it is funny, if it is offensive to people, you should exercise caution and discretion when telling it, or refrain from telling it at all if it upsets people or has the possibility to upset someone.

Hence, where we differ significantly. You are telling me that, at all costs, "don't offend". I don't happen to live by that creed. There is a difference between hurting someone and offending them. Some offenses may cause injury. Some offenses may simply unsettle. There's a big difference. You are telling me "You should do this" as in "You should exercise caution and discretion" and it's assumed that I don't exercise either caution or discretion somehow simply because the phrase has been used. "I should...", but why? Why should I not offend? What is your reasoning besides a potential loss of a few customers? If it's only about money then I've been pretty clear that I'm ok with the losses. And the "degree of offense" is a huge part of this equation. No one could ever call that phrase "patently offensive". At most, you might hear "could be offensive to some". There's a big difference there. Nuances shouldn't be ignored, so you really shouldn't be preaching to me about seeing things in "black and white" as you put it after you've just broke down my part of the debate in a very black and white way when you say, simply, "You are wrong. You shouldn't do this." That's a very black and white answer to a very gray debate.

 

To directly answer your question, 'migrant worker' is in fact a very loaded word. Most people's associations with those words are seeing someone in their minds who works under terrible conditions, underpaid, treated badly, nowhere to live, bathe, hardly any food too eat, underpaid, abused by those who employ them, disenfranchised, etc.

Sure, I suppose it's about as loaded as the phrase "poor person".

 

That is not a positive symbol for a company name. Perhaps you find the concept funny because you yourself have never endured those conditions that migrant workers endure, to the point you find it shameful and an embarrassment that they are so taken advantage of. Rather you find the idea of migrant workers slaving away funny. Most people don't.

The conclusions that you draw are pretty interesting, but the assumptions you make are false. You're presenting your bias when you assume that I find slave labor conditions funny. What is "funny", or rather, has some degree of cleverness is the turn of phrase. Nothing more. It's interesting that you're saying that you're not trying to win an argument, and yet you just presented the idea that I am likely some kind of monster-type person that would be so out of touch with reality that I would derive pleasure from the genuine despair of others. That's a pretty far-reaching, and really, a pretty outrageous statement to make about me. It's it's a pretty black and white assumption, that comes from well out in left field.

[melrich]

Fair enough. I'm in the wrong with my question. Normally, when asked a question, it's implied that people will tell you why they feel some particular way about some particular topic. As in, "I don't like this person because....."

 

So far, I have been left with.... "I just don't like this person, period." Again, it seems pretty implied that if you ask someone "Is this offensive?" that they're not just going to say "Yes!", that they're going to tell you why they are offended. Maybe I'm just living on Mars with this one though.

 

 

Well if you nitpick at responses, it's a fair bet people will nitpick at the question. And the fact that no one addressed "why" it may be offensive is a fair indication that the question wasn't implied. The point that really comes accross in this thread, and I think the relevant one, is that some people may find it offensive. In terms of does that make it a good commercial name then the answer is probably on balance "no". the "why" is probably secondary.

[jettison]

Well if you nitpick at responses, it's a fair bet people will nitpick at the question. And the fact that no one addressed "why" it may be offensive is a fair indication that the question wasn't implied. The point that really comes accross in this thread, and I think the relevant one, is that some people may find it offensive. In terms of does that make it a good commercial name then the answer is probably on balance "no". the "why" is probably secondary.

 

I get that. When people are asking for advice, and then advice is given, then the expected response is "thank you very much". Anything counter to that has an unseemly tone to it, and perhaps the potential helper will think "screw you then if you're going to play critic at my attempt to help you. Last help you get from me."

 

I think that's why, in general, even if I don't like someone's advice, I just say "thanks". But in this thread, I suppose I'm just surprised by the response of a few. As I've said though, I think that your response to my follow-up question of "why" is valid. There are certain jingoists in this country who might look at migrant workers as some kind of perceived threat to their livelihood. Makes perfect sense. It's a valid criticism.

 

I wouldn't have asked the question "Is this offensive" though if I didn't already realize that it might be offensive for some people. I also think that people did not respond to the "why" not because it wasn't implied, but because they were mostly unable to do so. Asking "is this phrase offensive?" doesn't carry the same simplicity as "do you like my hair?" One implies a thoughtful, reasoned response, while one requires a completely subjective quip.

 

In any case, perhaps this exchange was more interesting for me then it was for others. The only thing I really didn't appreciate much in this thread was the implication that I somehow lack the ability for empathy simply because I'm too out of touch to comprehend how patently offensive the phrase is.

 

Finally, I think I "nitpick" out of sheer surprise. When someone sees the world so different then I see it then I want to engage them and get to the why so I understand where they're coming from. It's enough to disagree, but it's more interesting to figure out why a thoughtful, intelligent person might see the same topic in such a completely different way. Lifestyle differences? Background? Upbringing? That's why I engage.

 

And finally, because I'm now "The Nitpicker", I'd like to say Crazy that I wouldn't have engaged you at all if I didn't find your responses eloquent, interesting, and thought provoking. So thanks for that.

[melrich]

I wouldn't have asked the question "Is this offensive" though if I didn't already realize that it might be offensive for some people. I also think that people did not respond to the "why" not because it wasn't implied, but because they were mostly unable to do so. Asking "is this phrase offensive?" doesn't carry the same simplicity as "do you like my hair?" One implies a thoughtful, reasoned response, while one requires a completely subjective quip.

 

Yeah, I think really the reason you got that response was because most, like me, don't personally find it offensive but can perhaps perceive that some might, without actually knowing why an individual might.

 

I think "offensive" is probably even too strong a word for such a term. Maybe more that people would perhaps not immediately recognise what context you were using the phrase in. maybe they would just look at it slightly askance rather than having any real emotional reaction to it.

[CaptainPlanet]

If it was a cleaning services company yes, it is offensive. If it is selling traditionally migrant labor you bet your bottom dollar it is offensive.

 

If you're selling hair care products, nah, should be right.

[d24]

I couldn't stop laughing when I read this thread. I love ENA.

I have to read this thread as satire because I refuse to believe this is all legitimate.

Fantastic post

Had me in stitches!

 

And if I'm completely off the cards here and you're serious.... good luck getting sued lol... *slaps forehead*

[jettison]

If it was a cleaning services company yes, it is offensive. If it is selling traditionally migrant labor you bet your bottom dollar it is offensive.

 

If you're selling hair care products, nah, should be right.

 

Exactly!!!

[jettison]

I couldn't stop laughing when I read this thread. I love ENA.

I have to read this thread as satire because I refuse to believe this is all legitimate.

Fantastic post

Had me in stitches!

 

And if I'm completely off the cards here and you're serious.... good luck getting sued lol... *slaps forehead*

 

What exactly would I be getting sued for?

[Mythical_Suicide]

 

And if I'm completely off the cards here and you're serious.... good luck getting sued lol... *slaps forehead*

 

Even if someone did try to sue him over a name I highly doubt it would go anywhere..

[jettison]

Even if someone did try to sue him over a name I highly doubt it would go anywhere..

 

Who would file the lawsuit, and for what would they be collecting damages? Does someone already own the rights to "migrant worker"? Or "working bee"? The idea of a lawsuit should have never been introduced to this thread. It's patently absurd. Someone is coo coo for cocoa puffs I'm thinking.

 

 

image removed

[Mythical_Suicide]

I am suing you for posting such a large image and stretching out my screen!

[jettison]

I am suing you for posting such a large image and stretching out my screen!

 

I am counter-suing you for not having a 22" widescreen monitor and wasting precious bandwidth!!! ;-)

[Mythical_Suicide]

I am counter-suing you for not having a 22" widescreen monitor and wasting precious bandwidth!!! ;-)

 

Yea! Well.... *runs off to think of a witty comeback ILL BE BACK!*

[Caldus]

The heck? That image was random, lol.

[Emernate]

Why should I not offend? What is your reasoning besides a potential loss of a few customers? If it's only about money then I've been pretty clear that I'm ok with the losses.

 

You can offend. It is your constitutional right to offend as many people as you want. And in the grand scale of things I find offensive, what people name their companies is pretty low.

 

Lets look at it another way though. I think that migrant workers are about as offensive as slaves. It's not their fault they are slaves... they did nothing wrong. It's the people who abuse them that are the offensive ones.

So could you see the name "Happy Slave Bees" as being offensive?