Knife companies that need new logos

Status
Not open for further replies.
not2sharp said:
Well, I am sorry. See I assumed that you had read the thread. We had been discussing Swastikas, Walter Brend's Confederate flag, the Cross and other politically charged symbols, and some where suggesting that perhaps these logos should be altered. Feel free to rant on some more if it turns you on. but, do the homework and don't ask me to explain things to you again. I am in no way offended by plain logos or plain speech; communications are good and ignorance and irked feeling are a poor justifications for censorship.

n2s
Click to expand...
So you're in favor Swastika logos and regard the desire not to have them on knives as cowardice? I have to admit, I did Nazi that stance coming.
 
It was already explained that the Swastika logo dates back thousands of years and has been used by a wide range of cultures. It wouldn't be my first choice of markings for a business, but if someone use it I am willing to grant them the benefit of a doubt and allow them to explain the reference; before I start tossing the usual reference around.

n2s
 
not2sharp said:
It was already explained that the Swastika logo dates back thousands of years and has been used by a wide range of cultures. It wouldn't be my first choice of markings for a business, but if someone use it I am willing to grant them the benefit of a doubt and allow them to explain the reference; before I start tossing the usual reference around.

n2s
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm pretty firm about not owning anything that could be easily mistaken as Nazi paraphernalia. I'm also not quite so credulous as to accept a random companies claim that, "Oh, no, we're using the good version!", but perhaps that's just a mark of my cynicality. Or my unwillingness to indulge probable deniability quite so easily.
 
r8shell said:
.... The discussion has centered around the idea that some logos are off-putting to some potential customers, and it might be a wise business decision to take such reactions into account.....
Click to expand...

I am reading this as an implied threat of censorship. The suggestion is that as virtue signaling patrons we should boycott companies that use logos that do not conform to our ideals. No matter how ill informed those ideals may be.

Now mind you, if the company actually came out and explained that their stuff bears a Swastika, or Confederate flag because they believe in the hateful message, I am certainly not going to patronize them But, i will give them the opportunity to explain themselves before I react to a ambiguous symbol.

n2s
 
Last edited:
not2sharp said:
I am reading this as an implied threat of censorship. The suggestion is that as value signaling patrons we should boycott companies that use logos that do not conform to our ideals. No matter how ill informed those ideals may be.

n2s
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that we should all be forced to buy products with features or logos we dislike? Because that's the actual contrary position to, "I won't buy things with X that I dislike."
 
not2sharp said:
It was already explained that the Swastika logo dates back thousands of years and has been used by a wide range of cultures. It wouldn't be my first choice of markings for a business, but if someone use it I am willing to grant them the benefit of a doubt and allow them to explain the reference; before I start tossing the usual reference around.

n2s
Click to expand...

Holy cow dude. I ain't no PC advocate but I wouldn't want anything at all to do with anything at all that was post-WWII and carried a swastika. Historical origins be they what they are, that symbol is forever stained by evil of the highest order. Lamenting the hijacking of the symbol is one thing but not accepting what it has come to represent is another. That's not PC, it just is.

You know why no company uses it today? Because they get that.
 
".... The discussion has centered around the idea that some logos are off-putting to some potential customers, and it might be a wise business decision to take such reactions into account....."
not2sharp said:
I am reading this as an implied threat of censorship. The suggestion is that as virtue signaling patrons we should boycott companies that use logos that do not conform to our ideals. No matter how ill informed those ideals may be.

n2s
Click to expand...
Nope. That's just the free market at work.

I am well aware of the pre-nazi use of the swastika design. I live in post 20th century America, and I don't want it on my stuff. You can throw around buzzwords like "virtue signaling" and "political correctness" all you want, but if a company markets a product that is deemed offensive to a significant percentage of its potential customers, they will find it bad for business. No censorship required.
 
not2sharp said:
I am reading this as an implied threat of censorship. The suggestion is that as virtue signaling patrons we should boycott companies that use logos that do not conform to our ideals. No matter how ill informed those ideals may be.

Now mind you, if the company actually came out and explained that their stuff bears a Swastika, or Confederate flag because they believe in the hateful message, I am certainly not going to patronize them But, i will give them the opportunity to explain themselves before I react to a ambiguous symbol.

n2s
Click to expand...
It's called an overt threat of voting with your wallet.

Sure Mick Strider could adorn his "knives" with swastika and Nazi iconography and he's still have hardcore fans applauding him but the vast majority of buyers would keep walking.
 
I realize that the swastika is an extreme example. But, what if we are talking about a "Confederate Flag", or something referencing the Pilgrims, Christopher Columbus, Cowboys and Indians, crosses, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, the Hindenburg, cops and robbers, law and order, the US Military or any of a wide range of whatever other symbols people may find somehow offensive. Would the same thing apply there?

n2s
 
not2sharp said:
I realize that the swastika is an extreme example. But, what if we are talking about a "Confederate Flag", or something referencing the Pilgrims, Christopher Columbus, Cowboys and Indians, crosses, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, the Hindenburg, cops and robbers, law and order, the US Military or any of a wide range of whatever other symbols people may find somehow offensive. Would the same thing apply there?

n2s
Click to expand...

For sure if someone uses offensive symbols I won't support them and I will call them out.

But I'm pretty thick skinned and very much stay in my own lane so what everyone else is doing rarely bothers me. I won't be writing vegan style letter to the editor about smelling cooked meat when I'm out jogging.
 
not2sharp said:
I realize that the swastika is an extreme example. But, what if we are talking about a "Confederate Flag", or something referencing the Pilgrims, Christopher Columbus, Cowboys and Indians, crosses, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, the Hindenburg, cops and robbers, law and order, the US Military or any of a wide range of whatever other symbols people may find somehow offensive. Would the same thing apply there?

n2s
Click to expand...
Kind of. Companies adorn their products with decorations in the hopes of making them attractive to customers. If such adornments attract more customers than they repel, then they profit. If their product is considered unattractive, their sales will suffer.

If a company markets a product that, even inadvertently, reminds shoppers of genocide, they may decide to redesign their logo. I guess you can call it cowardice, but that seems rather over-dramatic.
 
There are thing we all agree with and things we may find unpleasant. Tolerance is the key to getting along. I am not suggesting that you should patronize what you dislike, But we shouldn't be boycotting stores or museums because they have a Hindenburg commemorative with a tiny swastika on its tail; that is just the way the actual ship was marked. Most of this stuff is nonsense, people are trying to use symbols that just stand out. I am sure someone is offended by Bob Loveless's reclining nude; does that mean that we should toss those out too. If you feel that way then please toss them my way.

n2s
 
WilsonBBB said:
Pacific Cutlery did not “merge” with Balisong. You know nothing about the late and great Les de Asis or the history of his companies. Please don’t post your ignorance.
Click to expand...
enlighten
thats how I remember it
someone got bought by someone
I could be wrong

got it!
the compant changed names.
pardon my ignorance
I however, will not pardon your pretention
 
Last edited:
not2sharp said:
There are thing we all agree with and things we may find unpleasant. Tolerance is the key to getting along. I am not suggesting that you should patronize what you dislike, But we shouldn't be boycotting stores or museums because they have a Hindenburg commemorative with a tiny swastika on its tail; that is just the way the actual ship was marked. Most of this stuff is nonsense, people are trying to use symbols that just stand out. I am sure someone is offended by Bob Loveless's reclining nude; does that mean that we should toss those out too. If you feel that way then please toss them my way.

n2s
Click to expand...

It's one thing to commemorate the past...it happened and can't be changed, but we try to learn from it so as not to repeat it. Quite a bit different to use such tainted symbology afterwards...it doesn't work, no matter how much you try to rationalize it. Period.
 
Good grief. The Nazis appropriated a lot of cultural symbols including the Swastika, Norse runes, etc. It's a shame that uninformed people now automatically associate those symbols exclusively with the National Socialists that tried to conquer Europe a century ago. It's unfortunate but in our cultural climate, that's how it goes. Heck, their leader managed to ruin a style of mustache to this day.

As far as Artisan's logo, that's a step too far. It's not a Swastika. It's a totally different character from an Asian language stamped on knives that are made in Asia. Given that the hyper-sensitive types who need safe spaces and enforced political correctness are also champions of multiculturalism and globalism, I wouldn't expect this symbol to get the brute squad called on you.
 
not2sharp said:
I’m am old school and equate political correctness to cowardice. There are things that I don’t like, but I am not afraid to face them up front and in the clear.

n2s
Click to expand...
Since you oppose political correctness, I'm sure you'll be fine with me speaking directly. I also think PC culture can go too far, but 99% of the time when I see someone start bashing political correctness, it's because they don't think that they should have to care about other people's feelings. Complaining about "PC" becomes a cover for a lack of empathy or common human decency.

not2sharp said:
...Tolerance is the key to getting along....
Click to expand...
Tolerance for intolerance is an interesting problem. Should descendents of Holocaust survivors really have to tolerate swastikas? Should children of people murdered by the KKK really have to tolerate Confederate flags?

not2sharp said:
...But we shouldn't be boycotting stores or museums because they have a Hindenburg commemorative with a tiny swastika on its tail; that is just the way the actual ship was marked.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of space between that example and people saying "hey, this company should change it's logo".

As a Christian, I prefer to not buy things that have cross logos. It's not a dealbreaker, but it cheapens an important symbol for me, and it's at least a strike against a product. But I honestly don't care what version of the swastika (or Confederate flag) something has, or what reason they claim to put it on there. I don't live outside of culture or history, and I am not a nihilist. Those symbols have definite meanings in my time and place, and I won't buy a product that uses them as a logo.

I don't support any kind of censorship, but I'm a huge fan of how the free market can sort out this sort of thing.

-Tyson
 
Tyson A Wright said:
....Tolerance for intolerance is an interesting problem. Should descendents of Holocaust survivors really have to tolerate swastikas? Should children of people murdered by the KKK really have to tolerate Confederate flags?....
-Tyson
Click to expand...

To me the answer is yes, they need to tolerate it. It is part of the cost of admission to life in a free society. I am not suggesting that we tolerate any form of criminal activity; but if some jerk wants to walk around with a Che Guevara T-shirt, or some Malcom X anti cop message, that should be his prerogative. As long as they are not indecently running around naked or bearing images of child porn, etc. it all falls under free speech.

So I don’t care what logo the makers use. I will like some and dislike others or I May agree with some but not others, and I will make my choices on who to patronize; but, I will defend their right to say whatever they wish to.

n2s
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top