Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisseaton | Hacker News Reader

But isn't it more kind to respect the wishes of the people who created and named it in the first place?

Yes you've got every right to continue to be ignorant after it's been explained to you... but I mean why aspire to do that?

View on HN

As I said upthread, this reminded me of Apple’s preference to refer to its products without an article (it’s “iPod”, not “the iPod”). I like Apple products, but I don’t like anthropomorphizing their brands. I sincerely don’t think the actual humans making these products we like care about people using the language constructs they’re familiar with. And I sincerely don’t think branding should have so much power as to invent new language constructs and expect people to adopt them or be considered ignorant.

> as to invent new language constructs

It's not a new language construct - they're just saying it's an adjective.

Adjectives that are branding but aren’t adjectives in any languages I speak are... branding. I don’t owe them any obligation to change that.

I'd be with you if there was any kind of consensus on this.

For instance GIF's creator clarifying the pronounciation of his file format was mostly met with a mild middle finger. Is the Lego company meriting more bending backwards than him ?

> NEVER add a possessive “s”, plural “s” or hyphen, e.g. LEGO’s design, more LEGOs to play with, LEGO-bricks.

reference: https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/legal/assets/blt1a4c9a959ce8e1cb...

It's basically the same treatment that any company wants: "Kleenex tissues", "Google searches", "Band-Aid bandages", "LEGO bricks", etc. This is for trademark reasons, because not vigorously defending the 'proper' use of the term can lead it to becoming genericized and usable by anyone. For an example of this happening in practice, "aspirin" was originally a Bayer trademark that was lost through genericization.

Okay but why should we afford that consideration to any company at all? They’re supposed to provide something of value. They’re not human beings with corporeal needs. Bayer seems to be doing just fine.

> Okay but why should we afford that consideration to any company at all?

Why not afford it to them?

If someone asks you nicely to do something because it's important to them and it costs you nothing why not do it?

They’re not someone. Asking humans to change their behavior because a brand asks to be represented in an unusual way is asking for free marketing.

This reply is disproportionately mean. Please don't call people ignorant because they disagree with your opinion.

I’m disappointed you’re being downvoted for asking people to be nice to humans. I’ve probably ruffled a few feathers challenging deference to corporations’ wishes too, but you were explicitly asking people not to be mean to other people and that doesn’t deserve to be penalized here or anywhere.

I appreciate that you also see that calling others ignorant during a civilized debate is uncalled for.

Not to mention that it does not align with HN guidelines: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." and "Please don't post shallow dismissals."

I expected better etiquette from someone who is said to have been an English teacher.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com