New Post
Search
HelpTallow
Some vegan crunchy people have named their baby Tallow, yes, Tallow, like "a hard fatty substance made from rendered animal fat, used in making candles and soap."
WDYT? Can it be a name?
______________________________________________________________________
WDYT? Can it be a name?
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Makes me think of the Pokemon Taillow.
1
Very unattractive name all around, and grotesque on a vegan ‘s child.
1
I prefer Fallow instead, which is a different yet similar "earthy" name.
1
Vegans named their kid after animal fat - did I read that correctly?
Talon would've been so much better. Similar sound, also from an animal, but it's bada$$ rather than just being ridiculous.
Talon would've been so much better. Similar sound, also from an animal, but it's bada$$ rather than just being ridiculous.
1
Agh ... I have to laugh at that.
I guess they must mean to refer to "tallow tree" and hadn't heard of tallow.
I remember when I was a child thinking tallow was a cool word and being disappointed in the meaning.
I think Tallow could be a name if it were really just a type of tree, but as it is, nope.
I guess they must mean to refer to "tallow tree" and hadn't heard of tallow.
I remember when I was a child thinking tallow was a cool word and being disappointed in the meaning.
I think Tallow could be a name if it were really just a type of tree, but as it is, nope.
1
Not a good meaning at all, and it also reminds me of the word callow, which doesn't have a good meaning either. It basically means inexperienced or naive.
1
This doesn't elevate my opinion of vegans in general, I'll tell you that.
It would be a terrible name for even a non-vegan family to use. Like naming somebody Suet or Lard.
But as vegans, they of all people should know better.
It would be a terrible name for even a non-vegan family to use. Like naming somebody Suet or Lard.
But as vegans, they of all people should know better.
1
Presumably, as vegans, they've never actually smelt tallow.... !
1
Was just thinking the same thing. Stinky stuff!
1
Agh, no. It's horrible. Like naming your child Lard or Tran.
1
Sounds the very opposite of vegan! Perhaps they meant it as a contraction of Tally-ho! But that suggests hunting ... no. Definite evidence of a good old-fashioned brainfart. Poor kid; I hope it's got a useful mn to fall back on.
1
It's hard to think of a name more ironic for vegans to use than an animal fat product.
1
A more ironic name? Hunter
1
at least ...
You can tell yourself that Hunter means a hunter of truth, or peace, or anything else besides furry animals.
Tallow is just tallow and nothing else.
You can tell yourself that Hunter means a hunter of truth, or peace, or anything else besides furry animals.
Tallow is just tallow and nothing else.
1
It's a tree.
1
And it is a strange thing for a vegan to name their child, and I’m speaking as a vegan. Why name your kid after animal products?
1
I don’t think it’s weird for a vegan. I’ve known a lot of vegans that tend toward the hippy-ish names and especially hipster vegans tend to go for not just hippy names but really bizarre hippy names.
1
Maybe? I just think it’s kind of ironic to use a name derived from a non-vegan item that we’re supposed to avoid.
1
No. Nope. Nyet. Nein. It’s a word, and a word with a miserable meaning.
1
The meaning's bad, the sound's bad... it's just bad!
1
eta, it's a tree
WEIRD, especially from a vegan.
But the first thing I thought of in connection to it was Kertasníkir, the 13th Yule Lad (that story's probably the only place I've seen 'tallow' used as a word), so it seems almost fun-weird. I like the sound even though it has several negative rhymes: shallow, fallow, sallow...and, I like Candela as a name...
I'm not sure how I feel about it. It seems like the meaning should be disgusting, but I don't really think it's worse than Tanner would be. Plus, the parents are probably assuming people won't know what it means, and therefore will judge it on sound initially. I think that'd be a fair assumption in most places.
ETA:
I googled it, and there's a tree called (Chinese) tallow aka candleberry tree. It'd make more sense in that context.
WEIRD, especially from a vegan.
But the first thing I thought of in connection to it was Kertasníkir, the 13th Yule Lad (that story's probably the only place I've seen 'tallow' used as a word), so it seems almost fun-weird. I like the sound even though it has several negative rhymes: shallow, fallow, sallow...and, I like Candela as a name...
I'm not sure how I feel about it. It seems like the meaning should be disgusting, but I don't really think it's worse than Tanner would be. Plus, the parents are probably assuming people won't know what it means, and therefore will judge it on sound initially. I think that'd be a fair assumption in most places.
ETA:
I googled it, and there's a tree called (Chinese) tallow aka candleberry tree. It'd make more sense in that context.
This message was edited 8/23/2018, 11:12 PM
1
Oh, dear.
1
Anything can be a name, but whether it should be a name is another discussion.
Personally, I think its crap but a lot of people don't know what the word means and will be none the wiser. Intelligent people may silently snicker.
Personally, I think its crap but a lot of people don't know what the word means and will be none the wiser. Intelligent people may silently snicker.
1
generally ...
I advise a silent snicker, but in this case, where the vegan parents clearly should know what tallow is and presumably make a self-righteous point of avoiding it, I think it's all right to laugh openly and perhaps throw chunks of animal fat at them in the street. lol
I advise a silent snicker, but in this case, where the vegan parents clearly should know what tallow is and presumably make a self-righteous point of avoiding it, I think it's all right to laugh openly and perhaps throw chunks of animal fat at them in the street. lol
1
I advise a silent snicker, but in this case, where the vegan parents clearly should know what tallow is and presumably make a self-righteous point of avoiding it, I think it's all right to laugh openly and perhaps throw chunks of animal fat at them in the street. lol
*putting on curiously conical "moderator" hat*
I think that qualifies as a hateful message.
You could say something like "I can't help laughing out loud." You can laugh at the apparent contradiction, since there's obviously potential humor in it, and I think you can even say vegans seem self-righteous to you. But, saying you'd think it's "all right to throw chunks of animal fat at them in the street," just isn't funny enough to pass as a light joke.
Of course vegans aren't a protected group, but veganism is often analogous to religion or culture, because it's a morality-based way of life. And throwing things at people in the street wouldn't be just a teasing behavior. So your comment seems offensive. I hope you can understand why I take it to be hateful-sounding and want to draw a line.
*putting on curiously conical "moderator" hat*
I think that qualifies as a hateful message.
You could say something like "I can't help laughing out loud." You can laugh at the apparent contradiction, since there's obviously potential humor in it, and I think you can even say vegans seem self-righteous to you. But, saying you'd think it's "all right to throw chunks of animal fat at them in the street," just isn't funny enough to pass as a light joke.
Of course vegans aren't a protected group, but veganism is often analogous to religion or culture, because it's a morality-based way of life. And throwing things at people in the street wouldn't be just a teasing behavior. So your comment seems offensive. I hope you can understand why I take it to be hateful-sounding and want to draw a line.
This message was edited 8/24/2018, 11:05 AM
1
Except nobody is policed on here for making similar religious jokes. Maybe they don’t get policed because our moderators are not religious and don’t see the harm in it?
I’m not saying the joke was harsh, I’m just saying that moderation should be equally provided
I’m not saying the joke was harsh, I’m just saying that moderation should be equally provided
This message was edited 8/24/2018, 6:58 PM
1
Link me to where someone has made such a "similar" joke targeted at a religious lifestyle, please.
I've confessed my own opinion of veganism elsewhere on this site.
I don't think your charge that I'm personally partial to vegans (or against the religious) will stick.
But don't just throw it around - show me the posts.
I've confessed my own opinion of veganism elsewhere on this site.
I don't think your charge that I'm personally partial to vegans (or against the religious) will stick.
But don't just throw it around - show me the posts.
1
I can't show you a specific post, however, I remember one referring to someone's strong disbelief in a "sky daddy". I'm a church-attender, and reasonably religious. So that kind of hurt. Though all are free to believe or disbelieve, whatever seems right to them.
And certainly, the bible, Old and New Testaments, have many examples of people being ridiculed-and worse!-for their beliefs.
So I guess I can accept a little hurt feelings.
And certainly, the bible, Old and New Testaments, have many examples of people being ridiculed-and worse!-for their beliefs.
So I guess I can accept a little hurt feelings.
1
Good Evening, Tassiegirl:
I recently described a situation in public during which a somewhat famous priest approached me (among a group of people in a restaurant). If this or anything I've mentioned is bothersome to you, I hope you'll please let me know; I'll simple erase the post.
I apologize if anything I've stated has bothered or hurt your feelings in any way.
Peace be with you.
Barbra
I recently described a situation in public during which a somewhat famous priest approached me (among a group of people in a restaurant). If this or anything I've mentioned is bothersome to you, I hope you'll please let me know; I'll simple erase the post.
I apologize if anything I've stated has bothered or hurt your feelings in any way.
Peace be with you.
Barbra
This message was edited 8/29/2018, 7:25 PM
1
I agree with you that it seems snotty.
It's not the kind of thing that I would consider to be hateful, though. Because it doesn't aggressively assert that the God anyone else believes in is in fact a "sky-daddy," nor does it ridicule anyone directly for their belief. It indicates a superior attitude, yeah - but they're stopping short of saying explicitly (even if metaphorically or jokingly) that they think it could be appropriate and OK to openly disrespect *people* for their beliefs. It's one thing to scoff at a belief, it's another to scoff at the people who believe.
Having been an atheist myself ... not so much anymore! but neither can I claim to be religious ... I think they could as well have been trying to express a reason why they don't believe (because they don't understand God as anything but a sky-daddy), but without coming off as disrespectful to people who believe. I personally read that kind of comment as sort of a boomerang, because if they do mean to scoff at other people's belief, it just shows that they are ignorant about what is believed.
I hope you don't feel that the liberty atheists have, to specify what they "don't believe" in their own words, amounts to permission to denigrate religious people including you. I don't think it does. If you can find any instance of someone saying that another person's religious belief is just a belief in a sky-daddy and doesn't deserve respect, I'd be interested to see it.
eta I think there have been discussions in which people have given their opinion that religion is false and went on to state that all believers are willfully ignorant and it's just wish fulfillment etc. And I think you'd be right, if you thought that a religious person making analogous statements about atheists would be, ah, "user moderated" out of the discussion.
If people think it's appropriate for a board moderator here to interfere with that, then we need to ask Mike to get a moderator who enjoys power more than I do. I can't control the philosophical constituency of the board and if there are a lot of vocal atheists and only quiet religious, am I really to be held responsible for equalizing the discussion? I never signed up for that.
It's not the kind of thing that I would consider to be hateful, though. Because it doesn't aggressively assert that the God anyone else believes in is in fact a "sky-daddy," nor does it ridicule anyone directly for their belief. It indicates a superior attitude, yeah - but they're stopping short of saying explicitly (even if metaphorically or jokingly) that they think it could be appropriate and OK to openly disrespect *people* for their beliefs. It's one thing to scoff at a belief, it's another to scoff at the people who believe.
Having been an atheist myself ... not so much anymore! but neither can I claim to be religious ... I think they could as well have been trying to express a reason why they don't believe (because they don't understand God as anything but a sky-daddy), but without coming off as disrespectful to people who believe. I personally read that kind of comment as sort of a boomerang, because if they do mean to scoff at other people's belief, it just shows that they are ignorant about what is believed.
I hope you don't feel that the liberty atheists have, to specify what they "don't believe" in their own words, amounts to permission to denigrate religious people including you. I don't think it does. If you can find any instance of someone saying that another person's religious belief is just a belief in a sky-daddy and doesn't deserve respect, I'd be interested to see it.
eta I think there have been discussions in which people have given their opinion that religion is false and went on to state that all believers are willfully ignorant and it's just wish fulfillment etc. And I think you'd be right, if you thought that a religious person making analogous statements about atheists would be, ah, "user moderated" out of the discussion.
If people think it's appropriate for a board moderator here to interfere with that, then we need to ask Mike to get a moderator who enjoys power more than I do. I can't control the philosophical constituency of the board and if there are a lot of vocal atheists and only quiet religious, am I really to be held responsible for equalizing the discussion? I never signed up for that.
This message was edited 8/25/2018, 7:07 PM
1
By no means am I looking to be defended against atheists.I was brought up in religion, and married into it,it's a way of life to me.Although certainly,I fail to live up to what I know is right, as often as I succeed.
As the old saying goes, "There are many paths up the mountain." We all choose what suits us best. If I find what someone says hurtful, then, that is my prompt to understand why feel as they do.
As the old saying goes, "There are many paths up the mountain." We all choose what suits us best. If I find what someone says hurtful, then, that is my prompt to understand why feel as they do.
1
I don't think that'd really compare, because she was drawing the line at "it's all right to...throw chunks of animal fat at them in the street. lol" by pointing out that laughing at the idea of objects being thrown at people in public because of their beliefs (or cultural/naming practices) is different than mocking the belief itself; it's the difference between being rude and being hateful...or at least that's what I thought mirfak's point was.
1
Yah, pointing out specific posts is difficult but I frequently hear comments like that and it is mean and rude, not to mention religist. I generally don’t point them out to moderators because they don’t really get told off anyway so what’s the point? It seems certain topics just don’t get moderated well and I would guess it has to do with moderator bias.
This message was edited 8/25/2018, 3:30 PM
1
I'm sure I'll have biases no matter how hard I try to be impartial, but my letting something slide isn't necessarily evidence of it. I let almost everything slide. If you believe someone deserves to be admonished, the best thing to do is report it, either to me or directly to Mike.
I want the liberty of people to speak their mind (without hate, cruelty, harassment, trolling) to be maximized, and so you will see the board seem to slant according to what points of view are most often and most abrasively expressed - not directly because of my biases. I'm really bothered by tons of things people say, but I don't think they shouldn't be allowed to say it.
My role isn't to balance the conversation, nor is it to make sure no one gets offended. I didn't ever take responsibility for telling people off for being abrasive. My role is to enforce the rules. I agreed to interfere when people say things that, in my judgment, lower the tone of the board, in the process of clearly breaking Mike's rules. If I don't have an argument that the rule is broken, I won't say anything as moderator - if I'm not sure, I'll suggest it might've been broken and see if I get support. I need help judging what the community standards are. That's why I posted a response to Rox instead of just reporting her. I didn't get support, so I guess her words are considered OK. That blows my mind, but whatever.
People don't respect me "telling them off" as moderator. If I tell someone off, I'm only doing it as your fellow poster. And even if I am trying to "moderate" by advising about the rules, people still turn it around and make it about me personally - as you can see in this thread. So if I were to warn people for their attitude, there's no payoff in terms of the board being made more moderate. I often let things slide, even though they do seem rude or mean, for the same reason why you or Tassie do. We don't tangle with opinionated people who say potentially hurtful things about religion. We let them reveal themselves, and don't express our dismay, because we all know that criticism is liable to become an argument about religion. So the thing that will best keep the discussion "moderate," is ignoring that stuff. Just as many people will ignore it when religious people make strong statements that imply judgment of others, which also has happened.
I want the liberty of people to speak their mind (without hate, cruelty, harassment, trolling) to be maximized, and so you will see the board seem to slant according to what points of view are most often and most abrasively expressed - not directly because of my biases. I'm really bothered by tons of things people say, but I don't think they shouldn't be allowed to say it.
My role isn't to balance the conversation, nor is it to make sure no one gets offended. I didn't ever take responsibility for telling people off for being abrasive. My role is to enforce the rules. I agreed to interfere when people say things that, in my judgment, lower the tone of the board, in the process of clearly breaking Mike's rules. If I don't have an argument that the rule is broken, I won't say anything as moderator - if I'm not sure, I'll suggest it might've been broken and see if I get support. I need help judging what the community standards are. That's why I posted a response to Rox instead of just reporting her. I didn't get support, so I guess her words are considered OK. That blows my mind, but whatever.
People don't respect me "telling them off" as moderator. If I tell someone off, I'm only doing it as your fellow poster. And even if I am trying to "moderate" by advising about the rules, people still turn it around and make it about me personally - as you can see in this thread. So if I were to warn people for their attitude, there's no payoff in terms of the board being made more moderate. I often let things slide, even though they do seem rude or mean, for the same reason why you or Tassie do. We don't tangle with opinionated people who say potentially hurtful things about religion. We let them reveal themselves, and don't express our dismay, because we all know that criticism is liable to become an argument about religion. So the thing that will best keep the discussion "moderate," is ignoring that stuff. Just as many people will ignore it when religious people make strong statements that imply judgment of others, which also has happened.
This message was edited 8/26/2018, 1:21 PM
1
Assuming this is not just a moderator's clumsy attempt to be ironically funny, I think it's safe to say that nobody on here is dumb enough to think anybody is in actual danger of having chunks of fat tossed at them in the street or anywhere else. The PETA people might still go around squirting blood or maggots on fur-wearers, but if anybody actually does throw suet at a vegan for being so dumb as to name their kid after animal fat, I'll eat your moderator hat for you to save you the trouble.
Oh, no, she's actually going to eat a hat! Won't that make her terrribly sick? Shouldn't she Get Help? Let's PM and make sure she's okay!
Even Steven.
Oh, no, she's actually going to eat a hat! Won't that make her terrribly sick? Shouldn't she Get Help? Let's PM and make sure she's okay!
Even Steven.
1
I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you.
It's not that I think anyone would actually be incited by your lame joke, to throw things at people.
Insert a different type of believer into your comment, and it's clearer how it might be taken as hateful.
It's a step beyond making fun.
YMMV but I'd be offended if I were a vegan. If I named a baby Tallow (obviously in ignorance), you say there's no need to politely stifle your ridicule - "It'd be alright to laugh openly and throw chunks of animal fat" at me in the street. Because you think my way of life is extreme and self-righteous, you say I don't deserve normal respect. That's what is implied.
Of course I don't think you meant that seriously. If I did, I'd have deleted your message and reported it. I think you were just exaggerating how funny it seems to you. But it came off as hate-ish, to me at least - and you ought to know how you sound. And (this is the more important "moderator" aspect of my addressing you) other people reading can see that there is this boundary on the *kinds* of things that are OK to say here.
My only "clumsy attempt to be ironically funny" was just the conical shape of the hat ... like it's a dummy's hat ... because I feel silly "acting as moderator." I accepted the idea that I'm moderating something, so any time I criticize what someone says, I can't help "acting as moderator." But I'd say this to you even if I weren't supposed to be "moderator." The board is really "moderated" by people just having it out like we are right now.
You're making a personal attack on me, but whatever. I just want you to realize that, to at least someone, your comment seemed too snotty and not civil enough for this board.
It's not that I think anyone would actually be incited by your lame joke, to throw things at people.
Insert a different type of believer into your comment, and it's clearer how it might be taken as hateful.
It's a step beyond making fun.
YMMV but I'd be offended if I were a vegan. If I named a baby Tallow (obviously in ignorance), you say there's no need to politely stifle your ridicule - "It'd be alright to laugh openly and throw chunks of animal fat" at me in the street. Because you think my way of life is extreme and self-righteous, you say I don't deserve normal respect. That's what is implied.
Of course I don't think you meant that seriously. If I did, I'd have deleted your message and reported it. I think you were just exaggerating how funny it seems to you. But it came off as hate-ish, to me at least - and you ought to know how you sound. And (this is the more important "moderator" aspect of my addressing you) other people reading can see that there is this boundary on the *kinds* of things that are OK to say here.
My only "clumsy attempt to be ironically funny" was just the conical shape of the hat ... like it's a dummy's hat ... because I feel silly "acting as moderator." I accepted the idea that I'm moderating something, so any time I criticize what someone says, I can't help "acting as moderator." But I'd say this to you even if I weren't supposed to be "moderator." The board is really "moderated" by people just having it out like we are right now.
You're making a personal attack on me, but whatever. I just want you to realize that, to at least someone, your comment seemed too snotty and not civil enough for this board.
1
This is not a complaint, and, not a call (not a plea or not a request) for a moderator to moderate, but if there were greater discretion & tolerance for others' individual opinions, lifestyles &/or beliefs, I'd feel more free to share more stories of having a unique name.
When I first joined, I thought more people with unique names would be on board; I understand now that this is not so.
When I first joined, I thought more people with unique names would be on board; I understand now that this is not so.
This message was edited 8/26/2018, 12:28 PM
1
Throwing meat at vegans is actually a thing that happens in the world we live in.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/world/europe/patrons-of-vegan-cafe-are-pelted-with-meat-in-tbilisi-georgia.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/world/europe/patrons-of-vegan-cafe-are-pelted-with-meat-in-tbilisi-georgia.html
1
Just sad...
1
Holy cow, that is insane.
Also many, many vegans and vegetarians have issues with PETA and see it as an extremist group.
Also many, many vegans and vegetarians have issues with PETA and see it as an extremist group.
This message was edited 8/24/2018, 6:55 PM
1
No!
1
I didn't know what Tallow was...
I think i've at least seen one other kid named Tallow.. the sound of it is ok...
I think i've at least seen one other kid named Tallow.. the sound of it is ok...
1
That is just... gross. It's the same as naming your kid Lard or Crisco. The sound might be fine, but that's a big fat NOPE from me.
Also- crunchy vegans naming their kid for animal fat? WEIRD
Also- crunchy vegans naming their kid for animal fat? WEIRD
1