There is no intentional swastika in the logo just as there is nothing intentional in any of those other logos. Someone still looked at it and identified something that looks like a swastika and I think the correct thing to do is to take that into consideration.The childish thing to do is to tell the person that saw it that they're absolutely wrong and completely ignore the possibility that it may possibly kind of look like a swastika.
I think he meant, that there is no Swastika in the logo, but there is a twat in weightwatchers (surrounded by other letters, but it is there).
I know what he meant. He is saying that there is no swastika because he does not see it. I am saying that if someone completely unrelated to the project saw it then it is worth considering only because of the context of the Pyra's manufacturer, and completely ignoring it because it's not an "in-your-face" image is foolish.
Someone saw it right off. All I'm saying is that it's worth taking into consideration.
The person who "saw it right off" was T4b. Maybe you should read a little more closely what everyone is saying, because T4b posted multiple times that he only found himself looking for one. He even posted just a couple of posts before this (bolded for emphasis):
EDIT:
You're missing the point. My point was that people wouldn't argue that Mast looked like "Mist".With "Mast" there would be the problem of Mast again having a meaning in German, this time several, but one of those meanings is the substantive of "mästen" which means fatten an animal. (as this isn't a really constructive posts arguing any points I don't think I'm contradicting my earlier self saying I would stop wasting my time here)
As I was saying, someone saw it straight off and to completely ignore that is very foolish, to get outright offended that someone saw something unintended is childish.
And you missed my point. The point was not to say that something might kind of look like "Mist", the point was that context matters: a product out of the US called "Mist" doesn't garner any scrutiny; a product out of Germany called "Mist" (even if it is intended for English markets and will never be sold within Germany) is going to make someone do a double take. Similarly, a logo that might somewhat resemble a swastika out of the US, or Japan, or wherever won't get any more than a laugh, but that same logo for a German company is going to raise a few eyebrows.
I forgot about that response. This whole discussion was spawned by T4b's comment, so I thought you were talking about him. That was my mistake. Also, who's offended?
My point is that you can't argue context for something that isn't there. In your Mist example, it was indeed named Mist, however that example doesn't apply to this logo's circumstance, because there is no Swastika in the logo. That's why I changed my example to Mast. (and later Malt in an edit to make it sound more like a drink) Because Mast has similar letters to Mist, which is the only way to make your context example apply. However, when you change it to Mast, (something that is similar, but not the same) it becomes obvious that your lesson on context falls apart because it is only applicable when the thing in question is actually something that should be avoided. Since there is no Swastika, (or no Mist in the Mast example) your context example is useless.
comradekingu has made several posts suggesting that he's taken offense to people seeing a swastika in his logo idea. At the very least he wants people to stop talking about the possibility of a swastika being in his logo and that it is "ignorant" to suggest that he'd do such a thing. That sounds like taking offense to me but I may be reading a little bit too much into it.
And yet someone still saw it, and many others have said that once it was pointed out they saw it too and cannot unsee it. It isn't intended to be there, you don't see it, I don't see it, a lot of people don't see it, but someone did right off and others do now as well. The correct course of action is to decide if it's worth investigating (swastika for a German company? Yeah, should probably look into that), and then from there figure out what, if anything, can be done about it.The wrong course of action is to completely disregard some input just because they point out something that wasn't intended.
Honestly, he seemed to me offended that it was being called a Hakenkreuz to me. Not sure why, tho'. :\
And someone saw an extended mouth on the Goldeneye N64 box and Goatse on the fortune teller hut from LttP. Both landmark games with tons of fans. It's not a problem unless it is actually there.
And yet again you have missed the key point in what I said. These are unfortunate images that someone found in a product that is in no way related to that product, good for a laugh but no one would think twice about them. We're not going to guarantee that no one ever finds something offensive in any logo you come up with, this is proven time and time again. Just let them go, people will have their fun.But we are talking about a swastika in a German product, a symbol with very bad connotations directly linked to the country in which the Pyra will be manufactured. If you believe that it is the exact same situation as finding a butt in a video game, if you don't believe that this merits at least some consideration, then you are wrong and I have simply run out of ways to demonstrate it: I will content myself with you being wrong.
As I said, this would merit consideration if a Swastika actually was in the logo. But it is not.
Then how did someone see it without being told to look for it? Why are people saying that, once pointed out, they too can see it? If it really isn't there at all then no one would see it at all. Someone saw it, people can see it, therefore there must be something there to consider.
People see something that looks similar to a Swastika, and are saying that they see it.
And yet, once again, people are claiming they see it. I don't think you are understanding this. It doesn't matter if he meant for it to be there or not, it doesn't matter if you can see it or not, it doesn't matter if it has to be pointed out to be seen or not: it is simple fact that people can see it, and if someone can see it then sooner or later someone will question it. There is no harm in investigating whether those questions are something to be avoided or not. Do you honestly think that'll really go over well? Some news breaks about the German company with the swastika in their logo and the official response is "no it's not, you're imagining it"? Maybe it will, maybe it won't, probably wouldn't even get to that point, but it is a risk to not even consider the possibility that someone, sometime in the future, might see a swastika in the logo and start posting it everywhere.
Yours and My definition of People are quite different. You have referenced one person whose mother pointed out a similarity to a Swastika. That is in no way "people who claim they see" a Swastika.
If the world were reasonable it would be.I've seen enough "there's a penis in that picture" bad publicity to know that it is not.
