Noodler's Inks relabeling?

[AzJon]

Feelings? I never got much of a feeling for these inks since the Baystate Blue fiasco.

BSB fiasco, did I miss something?

I have it in a dedicated Jinhao and it's my favorite obtainable eye searing blue.

That you have it in a dedicated pen was the fiasco. Early claims stated that it melted feeds and permanently stained pens. That pen staining ruined a number of people's fancy pens, thus fiasco.

Oh, and Nathan having a mild fit over people claiming his ink wasn't as effective as he claimed it was.

[FredRydr]

Feelings? I never got much of a feeling for these inks since the Baystate Blue fiasco.

BSB fiasco, did I miss something?

I have it in a dedicated Jinhao and it's my favorite obtainable eye searing blue.

It doesn't play well with anything outside the bottle it's in, not even its own label.

[Yazeh]

There is now a worldwide attempt to steer away from any possible perceived discrimination of any part of the worldwide community and that surely is a good thing. Words that we may all have used to think of as simple descriptive words are now being removed from dictionaries and no longer used in communities. Even animal names such as pygmy hippo or marmoset are considered to be within this group.

Don't you think we are going too far with "offensive" words? Why do we give so much power to them?

Wouldn't Empire Red be offensive, after all it's an "homage" to the British colonial past? Should we change it?

I didn't see anyone getting riled up with Montblanc's homage to Napoleon Bonaparte. Wasn't he a tyrant? .....but no one blinked.... Maybe I should go and paint Trafalgar square with that ink and see what happens

Bottom line we can change names, ad nauseam it won't change the fact what people think. And what they think is their own business.
People can say anything, but we have a choice to react or respond. It's easier said than done, but it's doable.
Otherwise, everytime someone says something "offensive" we can pull a Will Smith. And what the end result was?

[Lloyd]

Feelings? I never got much of a feeling for these inks since the Baystate Blue fiasco.

BSB fiasco, did I miss something?

I have it in a dedicated Jinhao and it's my favorite obtainable eye searing blue.

That you have it in a dedicated pen was the fiasco. Early claims stated that it melted feeds and permanently stained pens. That pen staining ruined a number of people's fancy pens, thus fiasco.

Oh, and Nathan having a mild fit over people claiming his ink wasn't as effective as he claimed it was.

The jury is still out over its safety on pens. Some have used it successfully in MB149s. Lamy took responsibility for the feed issue.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Wile E Coyote]

Feelings? I never got much of a feeling for these inks since the Baystate Blue fiasco.

BSB fiasco, did I miss something?

I have it in a dedicated Jinhao and it's my favorite obtainable eye searing blue.

It doesn't play well with anything outside the bottle it's in, not even its own label.

I'm intrigued, what does it do to its own label?

[FredRydr]

Made it as blue as your fingertips. And it laughed at Reduran ink remover.

[TSherbs]

Don't you think we are going too far with "offensive" words? Why do we give so much power to them?

Language is full of power. It is true that it is mightier than the sword. Language is so inherently powerful that children learn to weaponize it early in their development. I believe that sometimes unnecessary or trivial offense is taken from words, but that language is a powerful tool of oppression, hegemony, and many forms of injury and harm is hardly deniable. Cultural values and laws and attitudes and biases and prejudices and injustices (and even religions) are all communicated, encoded, perpetuated, and at times enshrined in language (words). Words are not inconsequential things.

[Lloyd]

TSherbs - Written language may be too full of power. Sadly, like my opinion of religious writings, the veracity and original implications of writings are quite often misinterpreted.... often maliciously.
A week or so ago, I came up with this thought (I'm culturally Jewish, Bar Mitzvahed 45 years ago):
"Since Jews wrote the Torah, shouldn't much of it be interpreted as humor, exaggeration, and sarcasm?"

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Niner]

I don't know whether he knew about the horn trope to begin with. I'm glad he eliminated that imagery. I'm disappointed that the has cowered before the mob and acted so broadly, though. They will not be appeased before we all speak Newspeak, at which time, of course, they won't have sufficient language to understand appeasement.

But perhaps I should join the mob myself. After all, I am upset by the existence of the word "the", which can be a homonym for "thee", "thee" reminding me that there was a time when English had in common use familiar as well as formal second person singular pronouns, and of the classicism that can be associated, or at least imagined to exist, with having both forms. We must eliminate that word. Ultimately, each word in the English language might make someone's feelings sad and thus must be replaced with a randomly generated word. The grammar must be replaced with a randomly generated grammar as well. Only then will we have completely lost our minds.

[Pendragon]

Even animal names such as pygmy hippo or marmoset are considered to be within this group.

What is wrong with "pygmy hippo" and "marmoset"?

The word "pygmy" is now considered as an offensive word that cannot be used in normal culture. I meant the example to mean that in the animal worlds it comes before hippo as well as marmoset and needs changing. So there is nothing at all wrong with marmoset or hippo come to that.

I hope Nathan names his next inks Pygmy Purple, Marmoset Mauve and Tiny Hippo Turquoise. Just so the PC Gestapo will bounce off the walls and spontaneously combust.

[TSherbs]

TSherbs - Written language may be too full of power. Sadly, like my opinion of religious writings, the veracity and original implications of writings are quite often misinterpreted.... often maliciously.
A week or so ago, I came up with this thought (I'm culturally Jewish, Bar Mitzvahed 45 years ago):
"Since Jews wrote the Torah, shouldn't much of it be interpreted as humor, exaggeration, and sarcasm?"

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Mel Brooks would agree!

[AzJon]

I don't know whether he knew about the horn trope to begin with. I'm glad he eliminated that imagery. I'm disappointed that the has cowered before the mob and acted so broadly, though. They will not be appeased before we all speak Newspeak, at which time, of course, they won't have sufficient language to understand appeasement.

But perhaps I should join the mob myself. After all, I am upset by the existence of the word "the", which can be a homonym for "thee", "thee" reminding me that there was a time when English had in common use familiar as well as formal second person singular pronouns, and of the classicism that can be associated, or at least imagined to exist, with having both forms. We must eliminate that word. Ultimately, each word in the English language might make someone's feelings sad and thus must be replaced with a randomly generated word. The grammar must be replaced with a randomly generated grammar as well. Only then will we have completely lost our minds.

As a point of context, when he released Volcker Green, which features Greenspan and Bernanke, both Jewish, with horns and Volcker, a Christian, with a halo.

At that point (waaaay back all of 4 months ago) he was asked why he did that, was told that it was an anti-semitic trope to put horns on Jews and that it was culturally offensive. And not in a this makes me mildy sad kind of way, but imagery historically associated with persecution. At that time, Nathan offered a half-hearted apology and took down pictures of the ink. It was a Philly Pen Show exclusive, so didn't make it that far in the market.

So. Nathan already knew horns on Jewish people was going to catch him heat and he did it again anyways. He's either totally oblivious, did not care, or is intentionally malicious.

Given his Goulet interview a few years back where he said he enjoys irritating people, I'm inclined to believe the latter. Its particularly stupid because a) he already has a Bernanke ink b) Bernanke hasn't been in the fed for almost a decade and c) he was already asked to apologize for the same type of imagery this year.

Even if he didn't know the first time, he certainly did the second, and did it anyways.

[AzJon]

There is now a worldwide attempt to steer away from any possible perceived discrimination of any part of the worldwide community and that surely is a good thing. Words that we may all have used to think of as simple descriptive words are now being removed from dictionaries and no longer used in communities. Even animal names such as pygmy hippo or marmoset are considered to be within this group.

Don't you think we are going too far with "offensive" words? Why do we give so much power to them?

Wouldn't Empire Red be offensive, after all it's an "homage" to the British colonial past? Should we change it?

I didn't see anyone getting riled up with Montblanc's homage to Napoleon Bonaparte. Wasn't he a tyrant? .....but no one blinked.... Maybe I should go and paint Trafalgar square with that ink and see what happens

Bottom line we can change names, ad nauseam it won't change the fact what people think. And what they think is their own business.
People can say anything, but we have a choice to react or respond. It's easier said than done, but it's doable.
Otherwise, everytime someone says something "offensive" we can pull a Will Smith. And what the end result was?

Part of the issue is that things like Napoleon (or The Shah or the Ottomans) are things locked in a historical past. No one is dreaming of the glory days of Napoleon and trying to resurrect his glory.

Anti-semitism is anactive and growing problem of the last few years. The Anti-Defamation League, the group Nathan donated to, tracks all of the anti-semitic actions happening in the US

https://www.adl.org/education-and-re...itic-incidents

https://www.adl.org/education-and-re...e/adl-heat-map

So, while I understand what you're saying, those are also Strawman arguments and aren't directly equivalent to the current time and place.

[Niner]

As a point of context, etc.

Thanks for that context. It appears to make him, at best, an ass and of very limited empathy. I had not researched the matter and had given him the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps his mass renaming of products is not so much a matter of cowering as it is an attempt at skin saving (my Nineteen Eighty-Four rant notwithstanding).

[Yazeh]

[QUOTE=AzJon;365490]

Part of the issue is that things like Napoleon (or The Shah or the Ottomans) are things locked in a historical past. No one is dreaming of the glory days of Napoleon and trying to resurrect his glory.

Anti-semitism is an active and growing problem of the last few years. The Anti-Defamation League, the group Nathan donated to, tracks all of the anti-semitic actions happening in the US

https://www.adl.org/education-and-re...itic-incidents

https://www.adl.org/education-and-re...e/adl-heat-map

So, while I understand what you're saying, those are also Strawman arguments and aren't directly equivalent to the current time and place.

My point was not about the offensive imagery. I found them distasteful to put it mildly.
My point was about the other name changes.
I was trying to bring some nuance, but it seems to get lost in translation...
Any culture can find many of the names offensive.... but then where do we stop?

[TSherbs]

And more germane to the current discussion about the Volker/Bernanke imagery: images can be even more evocative and powerful than words.

Eg., try drawing a noose in a public space (but don't, really).

[Yazeh]

Don't you think we are going too far with "offensive" words? Why do we give so much power to them?

Language is full of power. It is true that it is mightier than the sword. Language is so inherently powerful that children learn to weaponize it early in their development. I believe that sometimes unnecessary or trivial offense is taken from words, but that language is a powerful tool of oppression, hegemony, and many forms of injury and harm is hardly deniable. Cultural values and laws and attitudes and biases and prejudices and injustices (and even religions) are all communicated, encoded, perpetuated, and at times enshrined in language (words). Words are not inconsequential things.

My questioning is do we let words attain/ affect us, by giving away our personal power?
It's more of a spiritual question.....

[AzJon]

[QUOTE=Yazeh;365493]

Part of the issue is that things like Napoleon (or The Shah or the Ottomans) are things locked in a historical past. No one is dreaming of the glory days of Napoleon and trying to resurrect his glory.

Anti-semitism is an active and growing problem of the last few years. The Anti-Defamation League, the group Nathan donated to, tracks all of the anti-semitic actions happening in the US

https://www.adl.org/education-and-re...itic-incidents

https://www.adl.org/education-and-re...e/adl-heat-map

So, while I understand what you're saying, those are also Strawman arguments and aren't directly equivalent to the current time and place.

My point was not about the offensive imagery. I found them distasteful to put it mildly.
My point was about the other name changes.
I was trying to bring some nuance, but it seems to get lost in translation...
Any culture can find many of the names offensive.... but then where do we stop?

I really have no idea why Nathan changed all of the ink names. Honestly, it feels reactionary and heavy handed in a "oh yeah? Well then I'll just chang ALL OF IT THEN!" as if to spite his face by cutting off his nose.

Sure did manage to bring out the anti-PC police though, so maybe that was his goal: bring out the Whataboutists to dampen and soften the seriousness of the bottle imagery with constant refrains of "oh yeah? Well, what about...", creating false equivalences to somehow redeem putting horns on Jewish folks twice.

But, if we want to analyze the sentiment of "where do we stop?", a good starting point may be to listen to any group that has, some within living memory, been oppressed, thrown into a concentration camp, or had an attempted genocide carried out to say that enough is enough when it comes to images and words that hearken back to that oppression.

[AzJon]

Don't you think we are going too far with "offensive" words? Why do we give so much power to them?

Language is full of power. It is true that it is mightier than the sword. Language is so inherently powerful that children learn to weaponize it early in their development. I believe that sometimes unnecessary or trivial offense is taken from words, but that language is a powerful tool of oppression, hegemony, and many forms of injury and harm is hardly deniable. Cultural values and laws and attitudes and biases and prejudices and injustices (and even religions) are all communicated, encoded, perpetuated, and at times enshrined in language (words). Words are not inconsequential things.

My questioning is do we let words attain/ affect us, by giving away our personal power?
It's more of a spiritual question.....

You know, the problem with that is just because it doesn't hurt me mentally or spiritually, does not mean certain language can lead to direct harm.

I spent three months in a German library basement as part of a research project on propaganda of the Third Reich. I spent months going through microfilm of newspapers from around 1915 onward.

I will tell you right now that the images and language used got progressively worse and worse. From simply dirty, to poor, to lazy, to far more sinister things over time. It was the proverbial frog in a pot of water.

I know a number of scholars and regular people alike, that have noticed (and tracked, in some cases) an increase in open, verbal or written attacks against specific groups of people. While I can choose to let it not effect me, I can also choose to shut that kind of rhetoric down and make sure someone else knows it isn't appropriate. These things are not mutually unattainable.

[Lloyd]

Since neither me nor my wife, both in our mid to late 50s, thought that the horns relationship to anti-Semitism with long gone, I decided to do a web search. I thought this was interesting-

Moses was often depicted with two horns on his head as a result of the Latin mis-rendering of the verb “sent forth beams” (karan) in*Exodus 34:35*as “grew horns.” (A horn is a*keren.) This image, which was widely portrayed in art of the Middle Ages by artists including Michelangelo and Donatello in Italy, led to the widespread notion that all Jews had devilish horns.

from https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...e-jewish-body/ I was surprised that it's still used. I assume it's our having grown up in a Jewish-dense region and now in a fairly mixed region (Massachusetts). Sadly, the more common antisemitic slurs abound (words and swastikas).

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk