|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Does a vague resemblance to something bad matter ?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why would anyone be offended by something that is recognised to be pure coincidence?
I think offense is to some extent non-voluntary. Well, genuine offense is anyway.
So true. Although as you also point out, what we DO about being offended is in our power. The internet seems to have had a deleterious effect on people's ability to shut up. (I should know.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
And as St Bridget's cross.
I think that's stretching things. In St. Bridget's Cross the arms stand out straight from the center.
It's got as much in common with a swastika as the logo in the OP has. If not more.
Though painted in red and black, against a white background, with a potentially neo-fascist slogan such as 'new order' beside it one would be peculiarly dense not to see even in this lovely Christian symbol more than a glancing similarity to another type of cross, painted red, white and black and fronted with fascistic slogans.
Whether one shrugs off the associations, or embraces them is another thing. But the associations - under those circumstances - would still be there.
As for the OP, it strikes me as the kind of project someone might've attempted should they want their own logo and corporate packaging to pay tribute to the Third Reich in a dickheady, post-moderny, ironicky kind of way. Sort of 'unless you're not clever like us, you'll just lurve what we've done here!' There's nothing evil or even inherently wrong about it. It's just pointlessly stupid.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Look at me! Anselmina says I'm particuarly dense. Can you give me the exact number in, say, kilograms per litre?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Again, no one has suggested that the fuss (to the unknown extent that an actual fuss or complaint exists) was an effect that MUFC was intentionally trying to achieve.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
From the second post on this thread:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
You cannot convince me that there is anything unintended about this. It's absolutely inconceivable to me that a marketing team came up with this and didn't notice the undertones. It's entirely possible they were in fact intentional, to garner publicity - and if the publicity comes in the form of apologising for unintended offence in seventy daily papers and however many news broadcasting services you have over there - well great. It's not only effective, it's cheaper than actual advertising. Hell, even I've heard about it now, and I'm on the other side of the world...
OK, you're right; a couple of people have in fact argued that the resemblance they see is intentional, and I myself am guilty of contributing to contention on this thread.
That said, I apparently haven't made my own point clear. Anoesis is actually claiming that what s/he sees as resembling a swastika must be a universal perception -- that anyone, even everyone, looking at that logo, would see the thing resembles a swastika, and then deliberately use it to generate bad publicity which, as we've all been told many times, is allegedly every bit as effective as the good kind.
However -- unless various posters on this thread are lying, and I prefer to take them at their word -- it's clear from this thread that some of us see a swastika resemblance in the logo, and some of us do not. Anoesis is doing exactly what I suggested above: denying that something can be "seen" in some fashion which contradicts Anoesis’s perception of it. S/he seems to claim that his/her understanding of the logo is the only "true" one, and that people who deny seeing any swastika references in the thing are in denial or are lying. Forget the logo; it's the "my perception is accurate and yours is deluded" that is the real problem here. And that, IMO, is the actual source of any offence.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
And later,
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
idea that the team and/or the designers were simply too stupid to perceive a possible resemblance is incredible.
It's exactly that suggestion, that it can't possibly have been unintended, that I, for one, have been arguing against.
As is your right. Personally, having seen & heard thousands of verbal & imagic references to people with disabilities during my career which I have found utterly cringe-worthy while knowing the well-meaning perpetrators held only the best of intentions, I find it easy to believe that what happened with this logo was insufficient "brand-testing." But that's me. Once again, though, look at this thread.
Plainly, it's possible for some people to see the club logo as innocuous or clever or catchy. Equally plainly, it's possible for some people to see the logo as sinister, cynically-used, or as revealing some deep unconscious hostility.
Again, each side is busy claiming its perception is the "correct" one and the other side's perception is rubbish. Each side even questions the other side's right to hold its perception. This is where, IMO, the "offendedness" starts bubbling up.
Party A's denial of Party B's reality, and Party B's denial of Party A's reality, is what causes the trouble. There's no obvious way to reconcile such diametrically-opposed perceptions.
If the club withdraws the logo, that action seems to validate the PoV of people who see a swastika reference. This leaves the people who see no such reference feeling invalidated; their PoV gets no support.
If the club maintains the logo, the "there's no swastika" PoV gets validated, and the other group's perception goes unsupported.
Again, perception = reality for most of us most of the time. I think the offence here is all about whose "reality" prevails, and whose "reality" gets denied.
(Gah. Apologies for trashed code; tried to fix 3 times. Sorry.)
[ 31. October 2013, 19:50: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
idea that the team and/or the designers were simply too stupid to perceive a possible resemblance is incredible.
It's exactly that suggestion, that it can't possibly have been unintended, that I, for one, have been arguing against.
Oh, it is possible. It is equally unlikely. Porridge mentions cringe-worthy logos done for people with disabilities. The difference here is budget. ManU likely hired a much more experienced/expensive firm. At best there was a solid fail in the process, at worst it was an attempt to get a bit of attention.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Now, hang on a minute.
So everybody accepts that this was pure accident? Even with the 'New Order' phrase?
Because that makes any sense of being offended completely mystifying. Why would anyone be offended by something that is recognised to be pure coincidence?
Did you read the rest of my post? Do you not see that each side is behaving as though the other side fails to recognize[I/] something obvious to the first?
Here we have two groups of people: those who see some resemblance to a swastika, and those who see no such thing.
The "don't see" group are mystified and claim the "do see" group are making a fuss about nothing, and [I]are offended by what they perceive as hypersensitivity.
The "do see" group are mystified and claim the "don't see" group are being deliberately obtuse and insensitive
This argument isn't really about the logo; it's about perception, and whose perceptions should be accepted as "reality" when those perceptions differ, even conflict.
It's also an argument about whether "pure coincidence," as such, actually exists. Post-Freud, however discredited parts of his theory now are, many human beings suspect that "accidents" like the logo mess-up are not true "accidents," but reveal intentions or feelings that are not consciously held by the individual(s) responsible for the "coincidence" or "accident."
YES I read the rest of your post. Why do you think I didn't? Where did I suggest it was 'wrong' to notice a coincidental association?
I didn't.
But I think it's very wrong indeed to then start hounding someone over a completely accidental coincidence that someone else happened to notice.
I can completely understand hounding someone over what is thought to be an intentional allusion, even if I think the conclusion that the allusion is intentional is misconceived.
But that is VERY different to the proposition that you are now putting forward - that people know there is not intentional allusion, but some people might nevertheless feel it's somehow appropriate to say how angrily offended they are at a complete accident.
It's strict liability gone mad.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why would anyone be offended by something that is recognised to be pure coincidence?
I think offense is to some extent non-voluntary. Well, genuine offense is anyway.
I might recognize that the term "niggardly" has nothing to do with the word "nigger", and yet still flinch inwardly whenever they hear it because of the association. I'm not offended in the sense of believing that you are using a racist term, but the similarity sets off an involuntary reaction which could be described as feeling offense.
We can of course choose what to do with that reaction. I might brush it off, reminding myself not to be so silly, but regardless of my ultimate behaviour underneath it there is the experience of offense despite my rational mind telling me it is not your intent to highlight that association.
This I agree with. And brush it off is the right reaction, IF you understand that it is not my intent. Or possibly, just possibly, a very quiet, private polite word in my ear to point out the unintended association.
But if you understand that any association is completely unconscious and unintentional on my part, it is emphatically NOT the right response to get angry with me.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But if you understand that any association is completely unconscious and unintentional on my part, it is emphatically NOT the right response to get angry with me.
In this case, I cannot say. But as a general principle this is incomplete. If there were steps you could have, and could reasonably be expected to have, taken, but did not, I might still get angry with you. As a trivial example: if you mangle the pronunciation of someone's name from the podium, but there is a pronunciation guide on the card with their name but you just didn't bother to read those things, then you are still to blame even if your mispronunciation is both unintentional and unconscious.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But if you understand that any association is completely unconscious and unintentional on my part, it is emphatically NOT the right response to get angry with me.
In this case, I cannot say. But as a general principle this is incomplete. If there were steps you could have, and could reasonably be expected to have, taken, but did not, I might still get angry with you. As a trivial example: if you mangle the pronunciation of someone's name from the podium, but there is a pronunciation guide on the card with their name but you just didn't bother to read those things, then you are still to blame even if your mispronunciation is both unintentional and unconscious.
Sure. If someone offered you data in that way, that's relevant.
[ 31. October 2013, 21:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Old rule of thumb. Once is coincidence. Twice is happenstance. Three times is enemy action.
Would the shape on its own be enough for worry? No. Would the black and red be enough? Of course not even if I can't get those colours from the Man U strip or logo. Would the "New Order" be a problem on its own? No. Especially with the change of manager.
Put the three together and you've got some 'splainin' to do.
And remember football is the charming sport where Tottenham supporters are known as the Yid Army to reclaim racist abuse - so other fans sometimes hiss at them to bring up gas chambers or outright chant that they are on their way to Auschwitz.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Put the three together and you've got some 'splainin' to do.
Yeah, and the very obvious explanation for the colours is that they're the Manu kit colours, the explanation the designers gave for "new order" is that it's the name of a famous local band, punning on the new young talent at the club, and the explanation for the logo would be that it's very much apparently in the eye of the beholder. All three are reasonable explanations, IMO. But maybe it was all planned, and they had those excuses up their sleeves.
Porridge, I don't disagree with much of what you say. Although I fall into the "didn't see it" camp, I feel I've been pretty clear that I understand and respect that others did see it. I think the idea that either camp is right or wrong to see it or not fails, because we can't control our perceptions. But that's also why I bristle at the suggestions that I'm stupid, inferior, uneducated, dense or whatever, just because I didn't "see" a swastika when I looked at the logo.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Would the shape on its own be enough for worry? No. Would the black and red be enough? Of course not even if I can't get those colours from the Man U strip or logo. Would the "New Order" be a problem on its own? No. Especially with the change of manager.
Put the three together and you've got some 'splainin' to do.
This sounds like you're saying that 3 independent explanations of each element's presence is insufficient. That they need a collective explanation.
Which is just completely faulty logic in my view. If 3 people separately find themselves at the scene of a crime, and each of them satisfactorily accounts for their innocent presence, that's the end of it. They can't give a group account of their presence, because the whole point is that a group explanation doesn't exist. The common factor for the group is the crime, and the whole point of the separate explanations is to demonstrate that the common factor WASN'T the reason for being there.
[ 01. November 2013, 01:12: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
While I think of it, one thing that has been bugging me about this whole colour thing is that a Nazi swastika isn't black and red.
It's black. On a white background. On a flag with red as its base colour.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
But that is not how the brain works. Red, white and black in combination are associated with Nazis, particular order doesn't matter.
As far as the swastika, shape is much more important than colour.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sure. If someone offered you data in that way, that's relevant.
If I'm angry enough because of the sound of the word niggardly, then I might end up seeing the worst in your behaviour despite a lack of justification because it rationalizes my anger.
One could take the view that an ad agency and a big firm are not showing due diligence in so casually disregarding a similarity to Nazi slogans and symbols.
I'm not saying I agree with this stance by the way, simply trying to see how an ordinary human being might be angry because of a resemblance that may or may not be intentional.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sure. If someone offered you data in that way, that's relevant.
If I'm angry enough because of the sound of the word niggardly, then I might end up seeing the worst in your behaviour despite a lack of justification because it rationalizes my anger.
One could take the view that an ad agency and a big firm are not showing due diligence in so casually disregarding a similarity to Nazi slogans and symbols.
I'm not saying I agree with this stance by the way, simply trying to see how an ordinary human being might be angry because of a resemblance that may or may not be intentional.
Again, I agree with all of that. But it relies on having taken 1 of 2 views: either that the perpetrator knew of the result, or that they ought to have known.
What I reacted to was Porridge's suggestion that someone could take the view that the result was completely accidental, and yet still be angrily offended about the result. That just doesn't make sense in my view, UNLESS what she was trying to suggest was that it fell into the 'ought to have known' category.
Frankly I think any argument regarding the colours that suggests Man U and their advertisers 'ought to have known' is utterly misconceived. There's really only one distinctive colour here: red. Black is so universally used as a 'colour' for printing as to be meaningless as a signifier. And the number of other possible associations with red, apart from Man U itself, are simply vast. There is simply no credible way that anyone could keep a decent list of 'red things we don't want to look like'.
Even the '3-colour' combination of red with black and white is hardly unique to the Nazis. The Nazis didn't pick it for uniqueness. They picked it as a traditional German colour combination (which, if the clues on Wikipedia are followed, probably partly derives from the choice of black and white as the Prussian colours several centuries earlier).
When it comes to shape, there might be some kind of 'ought to have known' argument. We'll leave aside for now the slight bizarreness of Western culture - even the Nazis themselves - completely ignoring thousands of years of other usage of swastikas, including its great popularity in the decades before the Nazi rise to power.
That still leaves the question of whether it's sufficiently foreseeable that people will see a diamond-shaped block and immediately think 'swastika rotated by 45 degrees in the fashion of the Nazi flag'.
I'm probably not the best person to ask about that because I naturally roll my eyes at all sorts of associations, good and bad, that other people seem happy to make and which strike me as utterly fanciful. Whether it's some of St Augustine's allegorical interpretations or resemblances between lyrics/melodies of songs, or conspiracy theories, I frequently find myself thinking that many people in this world are far too gullible, and either don't understand causation or don't think realistically about the likelihood of independent events compared to dependent ones.
For example there are only 12 notes in Western music. How many distinct melodies with no resemblance to each other do people think you can actually create with 12 notes?
And to return to your example, with only 26 letters and a limited number of phonemes available, unrelated words are going to resemble each other. If someone reacts to the resemblance I usually have the urge to tell them to just get over it, because with the number of words in the English language coincidental resemblances are inevitable.
[ 01. November 2013, 04:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If someone reacts to the resemblance I usually have the urge to tell them to just get over it, because with the number of words in the English language coincidental resemblances are inevitable.
And there we have another pathway for a resemblance to turn into anger.
I think what you are leaving out is that some resemblances may be close enough to something that is particularly visceral to set someone off against any belief regarding intentionality or ought-to-have. One doesn't necessarily have any justification for anger in such a circumstance, but nevertheless might have justification to say something.
And if one is used to being told to get over it in such circumstances then the hypersensitivity builds.
I'm not building a logical case here, simply an explanation for an emotional reaction.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The purpose of advertising is to use things like vague resemblances and visual hints to get people to buy your shit. For an advertising firm to turn around and say there's nothing to vague resemblances is base hypocrisy. They fucked up. They just need to eat it and shut up.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
If forums like this one are discussing it around the world then they have won.
Publicity is publicity.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If someone reacts to the resemblance I usually have the urge to tell them to just get over it, because with the number of words in the English language coincidental resemblances are inevitable.
And there we have another pathway for a resemblance to turn into anger.
I think what you are leaving out is that some resemblances may be close enough to something that is particularly visceral to set someone off against any belief regarding intentionality or ought-to-have. One doesn't necessarily have any justification for anger in such a circumstance, but nevertheless might have justification to say something.
And if one is used to being told to get over it in such circumstances then the hypersensitivity builds.
I'm not building a logical case here, simply an explanation for an emotional reaction.
Okay, so I won't tell them to get over it. I'll them to get an education and understand a bit of etymology.
I'm not leaving out the emotional reaction. I'm saying, quite consciously, that it's not a valid basis for action.
What's the alternative? To change the word "history" because of the feminists who decided it looked too close to "his story"? Good luck with that.
[ 01. November 2013, 06:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Here's the thing about subjective opinions.
I respect them a great deal. And in fact I often find myself arguing in support of them here on the Ship.
The problem, though, is that subjective 'truth' has become sufficiently fashionable that people try to fling it around in areas where it doesn't belong.
Firstly, subjective opinions have no place when they can be shown to be demonstrably wrong. People are not entitled to their own facts. When a word from a Germanic language root happens to look similar to a word from a Latin language root, no amount of subjective assertion that the words have related meanings will alter the fact that they don't, either in English or in terms of their etymology.
Secondly, subjective opinions have no business forcing other people with different subjective opinions to act against their own conscience. Appreciation of the arts is an area where subjective opinions clearly DO have their place, but I thank God that I'm not required to believe that John Lennon's Imagine is a fantastic song because millions of other people think it's a fantastic song, and that I'm not required to listen to it just because other people enjoy doing so.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
As for the OP, it strikes me as the kind of project someone might've attempted should they want their own logo and corporate packaging to pay tribute to the Third Reich in a dickheady, post-moderny, ironicky kind of way. Sort of 'unless you're not clever like us, you'll just lurve what we've done here!' There's nothing evil or even inherently wrong about it. It's just pointlessly stupid.
There are three broad possibilities then:
1. Someone at MUFC is intentionally promoting fascism.
2. Someone at MUFC, while not promoting fascism, is intentionally referring to fascist symbolism for some other purpose - to be 'clever' in the way you describe, or to cause gratuitous offence.
3. It's an unintended coincidental resemblance that some people see and others don't.
Possibility 1 would be obviously immoral and would justify taking offence. Possibility 2 would be at least jerkish, and the offence would be understandable. It would be unbelievably stupid to get offended at possibility 3 – you might as well look up at the clouds and look for vague resemblances to get offended about.
In this case, no one has suggested any actual evidence at all that possibilities 1 or 2 are at all likely to be true. They might be. It's not actually impossible that the logo was designed by an actual fascist or offensive smartarse. But what with there being no reason to prefer those explanations to possibility 3 – pure coincidence – it strikes me as a phenomenally uncharitable approach to assume that the resemblance to a swastika was intended. Isn't it a moral duty not automatically to assume the worst of other people? Aren't people entitled to at least some benefit of the doubt?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Firstly, subjective opinions have no place when they can be shown to be demonstrably wrong.
Agreed the origin of the word niggardly has demonstrably nothing to do with the word nigger. But it gets tricky when you are talking about the resemblance between two symbols.
Eliab I think there's another argument to justify getting annoyed that mousethief went through upthread - that someone didn't think about it. It might be an accident, but a negligent one. I think it's reasonable to get annoyed about negligence.
You might not agree that it is negligence of course, but that's a different set of goalposts.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Secondly, subjective opinions have no business forcing other people with different subjective opinions to act against their own conscience.
I'm having a hard time seeing how calling for changing a football club's logo is forcing someone to act against their conscience. Is accepting this particular design a tenet of anybody's religion?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Look at me! Anselmina says I'm particuarly dense. Can you give me the exact number in, say, kilograms per litre?
Let's try this again. If someone were to claim to have seen a St Bridget's cross painted red and black, on a white background, surrounded by fascist slogans and not thought, however briefly, 'oh look! an image with more than a glancing similarity to a Swastika!', then I would say they are particularly dense.
Did you claim this for yourself? No. Did I say you claimed it for yourself? No. So don't go out of your way to include yourself in a category that so far as anyone knows, including me, you don't belong to.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
My cycling club has a black white and red strip. Is that a Nazi resemblance? What should we do if someone said it was, and that it offended them?
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Eliab I think there's another argument to justify getting annoyed that mousethief went through upthread - that someone didn't think about it. It might be an accident, but a negligent one. I think it's reasonable to get annoyed about negligence.
If I negligently give you reason to think I'm a racist/fascist/Nazi, then I would agree that I'm at least partly responsible for any offence you feel as a result*.
But in this particular case, there really are no reasonable grounds for thinking that Manchester United is staffed by actual Nazis. It's completely implausible. You would have to abandon any pretension to fairness and justice to suspect MUFC of fascism based on that logo. It's saying "If I look at this logo in the most uncharitable way that I can, it looks a tiny bit like a swastika and therefore MUFC is responsible for associating itself with some of the most evil people in history. And even if they didn't mean it, it's still their fault for not being able to predict that I might choose to place so utterly a malicious interpretation on their actions".
Sorry, but no. That's not negligence. No-one can guard against every sort of deliberate offence-finding, and here, the possibility that the logo is actual fascist symbol is so laughably remote that to take offence about it is a deliberate choice. Volenti non fit injuria**.
(*Directly calling a black person a niggard, a word which carries a very strong risk of reminding them of a particularly hateful term of racial abuse, might well be an example of such negligence.)
(**No injury (in the sense of unjust harm) is done to a volunteer)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Secondly, subjective opinions have no business forcing other people with different subjective opinions to act against their own conscience.
I'm having a hard time seeing how calling for changing a football club's logo is forcing someone to act against their conscience. Is accepting this particular design a tenet of anybody's religion?
Perhaps 'conscience' isn't entirely the right word. And I'm not suggesting the idea applies particularly strongly here.
I mean, we're in the realm of advertising and PR, and so therefore being liked by other people is a fairly strong motivator. The customer is always right, even when the customer is being a bit stupid.
Although it gets tricky if placating one group of customers is potentially going to piss off another group of customers. Which happened to a degree in the case of the 'racist' Australian KFC ad that was pulled to placate Americans. It would be interesting to know what harm that did to the brand in both places - in the USA because KFC was seen to have done something racist, and in Australia because KFC capitulated in the face of completely misconceived American outrage over something that was none of their business in the first place.
[ 01. November 2013, 20:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
(*Directly calling a black person a niggard, a word which carries a very strong risk of reminding them of a particularly hateful term of racial abuse, might well be an example of such negligence.)
I don't think the negligence has to be that you negligently make me think you are a racist. I could be quite sure you are not a racist in this context, but nevertheless feel annoyed that you don't care about my sensitivities enough to think about how a word might sound.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think the negligence has to be that you negligently make me think you are a racist. I could be quite sure you are not a racist in this context, but nevertheless feel annoyed that you don't care about my sensitivities enough to think about how a word might sound.
This is a very good point. Although as the level of cultural literacy (for want of a better term) falls into the basement in our culture, fewer people will know they are potentially treading on thin ice.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eigon
Shipmate
# 4917
|
Posted
I believe some Pagans use the white, red, black colour scheme, too - to represent Maiden, Mother and Crone when they are talking about the Triple Goddess.
--------------------
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
Posts: 3710 | From: Hay-on-Wye, town of books | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AmyBo
Shipmate
# 15040
|
Posted
I have to weigh in here as a designer who has worked in advertising:
The fact that this got past a creative team without someone saying, "hold on a minute," means they have either a bunch of culturally insensitive fools there or they're all very design-illiterate.
It's bad craft to accidentally refer to anyone else's logo (there was a huge stink when Quark did it a few years ago); grabbing a cultural icon without noticing it is downright incompetent.
They should have anticipated the fallout from this. So everyone in that chain who had any power is incompetent, a jerk, or both.
Posts: 122 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think the negligence has to be that you negligently make me think you are a racist. I could be quite sure you are not a racist in this context, but nevertheless feel annoyed that you don't care about my sensitivities enough to think about how a word might sound.
I think I agree - but what you are essentially asking people to do there is show respect, and that works both ways. You* can't reasonably complain that someone is not respecting your sensitivities if you are not prepared to respect them enough to make at least a minimal assumption of good faith. The obligation not to cause unnecessary offence is balanced by the obligation not to make assumptions of bad faith in order to find offence.
People have said on this thread that it's hard not to imagine that the reference to a swastika was intentional. In fact it is extremely easy not to imagine that. It is, and ought to be, just ordinary decency to assume that some one you have no reason to think is a Nazi is not intentionally using a Nazi symbol even if you can just about manage to make one out with some sort of malicious mental squint. People who do that are not showing any respect, and, frankly, deserve very little respect in return.
(*Generic "you" - I would never suspect "you-mdijon" of anything other than scrupulous fairness)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AmyBo:
The fact that this got past a creative team without someone saying, "hold on a minute," means they have either a bunch of culturally insensitive fools there or they're all very design-illiterate.
I'm glad you weighed in here. I completely agree that there are people who see the swastika and people who don't. I saw it, but I followed the link and already knew what it was about so was possibly suggestible. I tested it on Mrs Whale without showing her the "New Order" words. I asked her what the logo looked like and she said "a swastika". I am also a fan of the band New Order and have been to see them in concert (a long time ago) but for the last 30 years I have also been aware of, and uncomfortable about, the connection of the term with Nazi Germany. New Order is based on the remnant of the band Joy Division, itself a Nazi term. So the idea that the name has nothing to do with Nazism is, quite frankly, insupportable. Whether the band has fascist leanings or not is a different matter. Their lyrics don't seem to be political, and you could argue that it is just a catchy, edgy name. That is what I believe in any case.
I also think this is true of this MUFC thing. Much as I may be a Liverpool fan, I cannot believe that the guys at the top of Man Utd are fascists. But if half the people in SoF (give or take a few percent) think the logo reminds them of a swastika then it is pretty inconceivable that it could have got past some design team without at least one of them saying "hang on a minute". My conclusion is that they thought "this will grab attention" rather than "this will convince people to vote for the local nazi party". So basically crass, but not evil as such.
Or maybe there wasn't a design team involved, just a teenager on his/her iPhone?
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm sure there are culturally literate people working in advertising and design, but I'm also pretty confident that there are plenty of young folk who weren't even born when New Order formed.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I'm with Jonah the Whale on this one. If this many people see it as having disturbing connotations, then even if it was wholly unintentional to start with, it should have been caught in production.
BTW, "New Order" has distinctly Nazi use as a term, for some reason the ship isn't allowing me to make a link to it, but look up "New Order (Nazism)" on wikipedia.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Interestingly, there is another football Nazi-ish issue about which has not received this amount of publicity.
An incident in Sarf Lun'non
Millwall seems to be of the opinion that a person needs to be a special sort of thick to think that Brighton and Hove's favoured chant, devised to counter Crystal Palace's Eagle cry, sounds like an echo of the 3rd Reich, but when I first came across it at Lewes during Bonfire, I didn't realise it referred to marine avian species, and made that error. My cousin, from Hove, has also heard the echoes in the chant.
Not being at Manchester, the echoes have not attracted a huge amount of notice.
Searching for Brighton and Hove, and the two expressions will bring up several references.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You can't reasonably complain that someone is not respecting your sensitivities if you are not prepared to respect them enough to make at least a minimal assumption of good faith.
I hope I'm not going to fail your test of good faith, but personally I'd prefer to deal with the issue without having to guess intent. If the resemblance is close enough that enough reasonable people see it, then I think they should be asked to change it regardless of their intent. Similarly, if reasonable people don't see it then I don't really care what their intent was - it didn't work.
Of course in some egregious examples intent will be obvious - but unless it is perfectly obvious I doubt it achieves much to try and guess.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think the negligence has to be that you negligently make me think you are a racist. I could be quite sure you are not a racist in this context, but nevertheless feel annoyed that you don't care about my sensitivities enough to think about how a word might sound.
This is a very good point. Although as the level of cultural literacy (for want of a better term) falls into the basement in our culture, fewer people will know they are potentially treading on thin ice.
I was looking for a link that referred to the Umbro/Zyklon business, and found this collection of brand howlers including Umbro, Nike and Converse.
I think a private individual can excuse a crass reference with "I didn't know" but a company intending to sell millions of a product should make it its business *to* know.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I hope I'm not going to fail your test of good faith, but personally I'd prefer to deal with the issue without having to guess intent. If the resemblance is close enough that enough reasonable people see it, then I think they should be asked to change it regardless of their intent.
This has a very strong resemblance to this, a resemblance which I think any reasonable person could spot (hell, many of the people in the first group are even wearing red and black). As you say that intent is irrelevant, should the former group stop doing it immediately?
And if they shouldn't, on the grounds that they obviously aren't intending any resemblance to the Nazis, then why does that not apply to the logo in the OP?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Arms in the air is rather ubiquitous at all manner of gatherings, straight arms with fingers together and palms down are a bit less common.
And seen in context with arms being flung into that position with a sweeping motion from the chest would be very much less common.
I don't think enough reasonable people would recognize the resemblance between the two pictures as being close enough, and seeing the actions in context would clearly differentiate them.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: This has a very strong resemblance to this, a resemblance which I think any reasonable person could spot
It has happened a couple of times that I was in a church in Brazil where people raised their hands in a way that reminded me rather strongly of the Hitler salute. I think we should take into account that WWII isn't part of their cultural heritage the way it is in Europe, but still it made me feel slightly uncomfortable.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Interestingly, there is another football Nazi-ish issue about which has not received this amount of publicity.
An incident in Sarf Lun'non
Millwall seems to be of the opinion that a person needs to be a special sort of thick to think that Brighton and Hove's favoured chant, devised to counter Crystal Palace's Eagle cry, sounds like an echo of the 3rd Reich, but when I first came across it at Lewes during Bonfire, I didn't realise it referred to marine avian species, and made that error. My cousin, from Hove, has also heard the echoes in the chant.
Not being at Manchester, the echoes have not attracted a huge amount of notice.
Searching for Brighton and Hove, and the two expressions will bring up several references.
I'm not a football fan, or a Millwall fan, but all that link seems to show is that a reporter went with some pre-conceived ideas, wrote an article which fitted them, got busted, and made a humiliating climbdown.
I think the reason this "event" didn't get the same level of outcry is that there was nothing to see.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Arms in the air is rather ubiquitous at all manner of gatherings, straight arms with fingers together and palms down are a bit less common.
And seen in context with arms being flung into that position with a sweeping motion from the chest would be very much less common.
That's getting awfully specific, don't you think? A vague resemblance was enough for you to condemn the logo in the OP, so why isn't the same standard being applied now?
quote:
I don't think enough reasonable people would recognize the resemblance between the two pictures as being close enough, and seeing the actions in context would clearly differentiate them.
Just as in the context of a Manchester United Football Club magazine a logo made of the letters "MUFC" in the club's colours is clearly differentiated from a swastika?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
.... as in the context of a Manchester United Football Club magazine a logo made of the letters "MUFC" in the club's colours is clearly differentiated from a swastika?
Although the Nazi colours and those of Manchester United are identical.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
mdijon doesn't need my help, but I think how many people see a similarity is relevant. Apparently many people see the swastika. Most people don't think of the heil hitler salute when they raise their hands in worship. If they did, I'm rather sure most right thinking people would indeed stop. It would certainly distract from my worship, if I were trying to think of God and began to think of Nazis. I actually know some people who did stop making a similar gesture--everyone raising their hands in the air, palm out, angled to the podium, and often raised slightly because they were all looking toward said high podium--because it made people uncomfortable. We were just making a pledge, but because of the dynamics of the room, the way people raised their hands or whatever, it was remarkably like said salute once one thought about it. As a rather young child I certainly didn't get it, but I remember it being changed, and asking why.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
I don't think enough reasonable people would recognize the resemblance between the two pictures as being close enough, and seeing the actions in context would clearly differentiate them.
Just as in the context of a Manchester United Football Club magazine a logo made of the letters "MUFC" in the club's colours is clearly differentiated from a swastika?
Once again you are projecting your feelings about what's clearly differentiated on reality.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's getting awfully specific, don't you think? A vague resemblance was enough for you to condemn the logo in the OP, so why isn't the same standard being applied now?
First you're wrong that I condemned it and second in so far as I feel negative about it you're wrong that a vague resemblance was enough. Personally I don't see all that strong a resemblance, but many others seem to and I'd extend them the benefit of the doubt. Personally I think I'm applying a similar standard.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
mdijon doesn't need my help, but I think how many people see a similarity is relevant. Apparently many people see the swastika. Most people don't think of the heil hitler salute when they raise their hands in worship.
I'd happily wager that nobody thinks of the Nazi salute when they raise their hands in worship. The question is about what an independent observer from outside the context would see.
I'm arguing against the double standard here. When I bring up raised hands in worship, then it not being exactly the same as the Nazi salute and being of obviously different intent when viewed in context means everyone's happy to say it's fine. But with the logo that started all this off, a vague resemblance to a swastika seen by people from so far outside the context that they haven't even heard of the club in question is sufficient to condemn it. There's no attempt to be fair, no attempt to allow for context or interpretation, and no charity in the latter - take all those things out of the former and it looks pretty damning as well, IMO.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
