I’m not exactly sure who you’re arguing with, or what the criteria is for a name to be cute, but I can think of a lot of cases which seem like to me like counter-examples, where a silly name was taken seriously:
‘Brexit’, if I recall correctly, was originally a joking play on ‘Grexit’, back when the Lib Dems were the only major party supporting a referendum, but went on to be taken very seriously.
‘YIMBY’ is a silly name based on another silly name but has done a fairly good job building a coalition and getting policies enacted even in the face of severe public choice problems.
Refering to HB 1557 as the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill has been quite effective at getting respectable people to oppose it despite the phrase itself being silly.
#MeToo and #BelieveWomen were quite successful movements for a while despite the silly names.
‘RINO’ has been used as an effective attack line against moderate republicans.
‘Junk Bonds’ were (probably?) so named by the guy who popularized them.
‘Unicorn’ status is a prestigious thing for a startup to aspire to.
Also, I don’t understand your ‘woke’ example, though you say it “basically speaks for itself.” I think activists have been hugely successful with the name, using it to highlight a threat and gather an international coalition of politicians, academics and voters to push back against it. A few years ago woke stuff seemed irresistible, but using the label has now taken us to a place where some people can earnestly suggest that ‘woke is dying’ - though I think that is an overstatement. The fact that the name is a bit silly hasn’t prevented it from being a potent rhetorical device for movement building.
But I would counter that I’m not sure all of these are as ‘inside-jokey’ as “FOOM”.
Brexit and YIMBY, and RINO are all actual acronyms or portmanteau’s, unlike FOOM.
I maintain that ‘Woke’ shot itself in the foot; I feel like this label really alienated people in several ways. (Sense of superiority, use of nonstandard English slang). and maybe it did catch on a bit but the silliness of the name made it more mockable. But it also
“Don’t say Gay” is not the movement name.
MeToo, ok that is close but I don’t see it as a trivial fun sounding ‘inside reference’ someone made up; it seems like a pretty meaningful rallying cry. “BelieveWomen” is pretty straightforward, not a funny word.
I think these are closer examples than you think. ‘Don’t Say Gay’, ‘Junk bonds’, and ‘Unicorns’ aren’t movements, but neither is ‘FOOM’ - in each case they are a cute name for a thing that people want to draw attention to and have other people take seriously. Similarly, I think you have the woke example backwards—the term has been successfully developed by anti-woke people to draw attention to the dangers of the woke movement and have people take the threat seriously (not just a silly thing on college campuses) and gather a coalition to oppose it, in the same way that we are trying to draw attention to the dangers of FOOM as a serious thing (not just a silly science fiction thing).
True, foom is not the movement but it’s the serious outcome they are trying to get ppl to bw concerned about.
But I think “woke” was in fact a term developed by the ppl espousing it, not by the anti-woke. So I think this might be evidence that flippability of a silly name might be an argument against using it.
I’m not exactly sure who you’re arguing with, or what the criteria is for a name to be cute, but I can think of a lot of cases which seem like to me like counter-examples, where a silly name was taken seriously:
‘Brexit’, if I recall correctly, was originally a joking play on ‘Grexit’, back when the Lib Dems were the only major party supporting a referendum, but went on to be taken very seriously.
‘YIMBY’ is a silly name based on another silly name but has done a fairly good job building a coalition and getting policies enacted even in the face of severe public choice problems.
Refering to HB 1557 as the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill has been quite effective at getting respectable people to oppose it despite the phrase itself being silly.
#MeToo and #BelieveWomen were quite successful movements for a while despite the silly names.
‘RINO’ has been used as an effective attack line against moderate republicans.
‘Junk Bonds’ were (probably?) so named by the guy who popularized them.
‘Unicorn’ status is a prestigious thing for a startup to aspire to.
Also, I don’t understand your ‘woke’ example, though you say it “basically speaks for itself.” I think activists have been hugely successful with the name, using it to highlight a threat and gather an international coalition of politicians, academics and voters to push back against it. A few years ago woke stuff seemed irresistible, but using the label has now taken us to a place where some people can earnestly suggest that ‘woke is dying’ - though I think that is an overstatement. The fact that the name is a bit silly hasn’t prevented it from being a potent rhetorical device for movement building.
Some pretty good examples.
But I would counter that I’m not sure all of these are as ‘inside-jokey’ as “FOOM”.
Brexit and YIMBY, and RINO are all actual acronyms or portmanteau’s, unlike FOOM.
I maintain that ‘Woke’ shot itself in the foot; I feel like this label really alienated people in several ways. (Sense of superiority, use of nonstandard English slang). and maybe it did catch on a bit but the silliness of the name made it more mockable. But it also
“Don’t say Gay” is not the movement name.
MeToo, ok that is close but I don’t see it as a trivial fun sounding ‘inside reference’ someone made up; it seems like a pretty meaningful rallying cry. “BelieveWomen” is pretty straightforward, not a funny word.
Junk bonds, Unicorns: these are not movements.
I think these are closer examples than you think. ‘Don’t Say Gay’, ‘Junk bonds’, and ‘Unicorns’ aren’t movements, but neither is ‘FOOM’ - in each case they are a cute name for a thing that people want to draw attention to and have other people take seriously. Similarly, I think you have the woke example backwards—the term has been successfully developed by anti-woke people to draw attention to the dangers of the woke movement and have people take the threat seriously (not just a silly thing on college campuses) and gather a coalition to oppose it, in the same way that we are trying to draw attention to the dangers of FOOM as a serious thing (not just a silly science fiction thing).
True, foom is not the movement but it’s the serious outcome they are trying to get ppl to bw concerned about.
But I think “woke” was in fact a term developed by the ppl espousing it, not by the anti-woke. So I think this might be evidence that flippability of a silly name might be an argument against using it.