That really sounds like an unnecessary constraint. It’s not as if the only thing people are going to hear about the organisation is the name; presumably they’d also hear something about what it does.
One friend of mine said that it was confusing not just because he didn’t know why it was relevant, but because the word “Waterline” has no strong positive connotations.
It refers to a kind of wave, as well as a change in people’s views or behaviour (usually viewed positively). “Grounds” also has a relevant meaning as in “grounds to believe”, without being a blatantly distasteful pun.
I don’t mean to pick only on this proposed name, but it sounds like most commenters are seeing the naming ideas from the perspective of insiders, or from the perspective irrationally in love with their proposal.
There are probably dozens of names like Groundswell and Waterline that have clever connotations. Given humans’ propensity to over-associate, this is hardly surprising. I do see a distinction, though, between the two: Waterline has a more immediate / clearer physical image, which is definitely a plus.
I got a positive reception for “Waterline” in my comment here.
The name should be meaningful or at least not confusing to the general population.
That really sounds like an unnecessary constraint. It’s not as if the only thing people are going to hear about the organisation is the name; presumably they’d also hear something about what it does.
In my view, a name that doesn’t need to come with an explanation is worth more than a name that makes for good in joke.
False dichotomy. “Meaningful names are better than in-joke names” is not the same thing as “the name must necessarily be meaningful”.
Why?
One friend of mine said that it was confusing not just because he didn’t know why it was relevant, but because the word “Waterline” has no strong positive connotations.
If the goal is to promote rationality, it seems counterproductive to have an offputting name...
“Waterline” isn’t off-putting, just opaque. So are things like “Oxfam”.
Waterline makes me think of Landmark, seasteading, and Bond villains trying to drown the planet.
Don’t forget Sea Org!
.
Waterline makes me think of The Watchtower, Wedge Strategy, and Blackwater USA.
I dislike opacity, myself. Also, I find “Oxfam” transparent.
I expect it to be slightly off-putting. I could be wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKk8w7HRyMg
I think it would need to have a byline to at least give outsiders some idea of what it was about. But that is a really good name.
“Practice Sanity”? “Expect the Likely”?
I like the former. Not really the latter.
I like the latter as a tagline for something.
The Waterline Institute for the Study and Practice of Critical Thinking
The Waterline Institute for the Study and Practice of Rationality, or WISPR.
Someone mentioned Bond villains? I can’t tell if it’s too silly/menacing, or if it’s ridiculously awesome.
How about “Groundswell”?
It refers to a kind of wave, as well as a change in people’s views or behaviour (usually viewed positively). “Grounds” also has a relevant meaning as in “grounds to believe”, without being a blatantly distasteful pun.
Yeah, that would be a great name, not /sarcasm
I don’t mean to pick only on this proposed name, but it sounds like most commenters are seeing the naming ideas from the perspective of insiders, or from the perspective irrationally in love with their proposal.
There are probably dozens of names like Groundswell and Waterline that have clever connotations. Given humans’ propensity to over-associate, this is hardly surprising. I do see a distinction, though, between the two: Waterline has a more immediate / clearer physical image, which is definitely a plus.