Hi Ben
I like the idea of the Victorian type -- it looks kind of like a tattoo --not sure if you were consciously trying for that, but it's an interesting direction. It seems like everything I see in magazines about hate groups, skinheads, etc. always has some version of distressed heavy manual typewriter type, so it's nice that you avoided that.

I think the style of the type is good / appropriate but I feel like the type needs to be bolder and stronger -- it seems a little too delicate / feminine now.

Since you already have a vaguely tattoo look happening, what about drawing the type by hand (in the same basic style) so that it's obviously hand-drawn?

I really like the swirly barbed wire -- you have to look twice to figure out what it is... that's nice.

Good luck!

I think the concept is weak because contradictory. Stop the Hate is better.

Here are some others I have been playing with today.

Isn't a hate group against hate groups a hate group itself?

I like the looks of the items so far, but I'm not sure if they really get the message of being 'against' hate groups.

Yes its a hate group that hates hate groups.

Ben, that interlocked-H stuff is superb.

BTW, I think there's nothing wrong with hating (in fact it's wrong to pretend anybody is impervious to it), it's a matter of being intelligent and humane about it.

hhp

ben,
i'm with hrant. that interlocking-H series is headed somewhere for sure.

they have impressive strength... the one on an angle even begins to evoke a swastika feel. probably fitting.

i did like your first post, but maybe it felt a little bit kitschy "americana" (?). anyway, i'm definitely feeling this new direction. great work.

BB:

I think both the broad interlocking "H's" and the "H's" sharing a stem work really well. Both have potential to be very respectable designs for a universal design community (this is what you want, no?). If you go with a circumfrance of type, then be very articulate with the type selection and try to keep the type very small in relation to the icon/mark. It should appear as a thin solid ring, rather than a spacious airy circle of type. Add more verbage (i.e. descriptors, locations, dates, whatever), if necessary to fill the space. It's looking quite nice�for hate.

Aloha! (a non-hateful word)
Scott

PS: To support the hating of hate, you need to be extra sensitive to others. Using phrases like "deep south white trash" as a descriptor is an unjustified contributor to hateful sentiment. Just say "hate group(s)". We know what you mean. Make sure your PR skills are conditioned to support a movement like this.

Ben,

I like Draft 2c very much, (while I tend to agree with William and Darrel: hate as a meanst against hate?).

The intersecting H's are great, too. The "Designers Against Hate" logos remind me a lot of the Nazi symbol, though. I doubt whether that's intended.



I hope you don't mind me showing this.

jpg

"Yes its a hate group that hates hate groups."

But then you have to hate yourself! :o)

And not to get on a whole debate about hitler,
but it's hard not to admit that the swastika flag
is a truly remarkable piece of graphic design.

I prefer option 5 in your previous post. It's
a little less sinister. Again, I'd be a bit concerned
that your identity is becoming very close to
the iconography of white supremacy groups.
Perhaps that is your focus, in which case, that
makes perfect sense, but if your aim is to go
after a wider variety of hate groups, then maybe
it's too narrow? Just a thought.

I see a couple people don't see the strength of the concept. A favorite tactic of bigots is to claim they are being discriminated against. When you ask them to behave themselves, they say you're being intolerant of their intolerance and cry "hypocrite!" What we see here is a mockery of that fallacy, disarming its effectiveness and outright daring fools to level the accusation seriously and make themselves look all the more foolish. I applaud the idea, and I think it will go places.

I see it's double-posty time, so I'll use this edit to actually give a design opinion. I prefer the very narrow aitches crossing. It is reminiscent of other hate logos but still original. The ones that look more heavily derivative of the nazi flag are not distinctive enough, and people might get the impression that you actually are nazis, not nazi-haters.

the round logos in bens post 4
also reminds me on nazi stuff, sorry
it makes a bad feeling, like skinhead style
though i like the intersecting H...
also, the "designer for that, designers against this" thing to me seems kinda ...
childish... when im confronted with hate,
iam no designer, then i am simply myself

> your identity is becoming very close to the
> iconography of white supremacy groups

Which I find to be a wonderful twist.

> I'll use this edit to actually give a design opinion.

Do note however that edits don't show up in mailboxes.

hhp

I think your idea for an organization of designers against hate is a wonderful idea. However, this name for your organization is a terrible mistake. Let me explain why.

It shows a misunderstanding of the psychology of hate, and will be counter-productive.

Psychologist Alfred Adler pointed out that the first step to anti-social behavior is to divide 'us' and 'them'. The next step is that 'they' are less than human and it is ok to hate them and use violence against them.

Recently psychologist Steven Stosney - http://compassionpower.com - who has been one of the most successful in treating wife beaters and road rage, has pointed out that compassion and anger are opposites - and anger is a key component of hatred. Hatred and the accompanying anger impair a person's thinking, so that they no longer think in terms of problem-solving, but only us vs them, and whether to attack, defend, or withdraw. Compassion motivates you to understand the other person and act appropriately. When you understand the other person you can act much more effectively, whether it is to cooperate or oppose them.

This is why 'hate the hate' is a terrible idea. It falls into the trap of perpetuating the stupidity that hate causes, instead of providing the understanding that leads to its cure.

Ecclesiastes said there is a 'time for love and a time for hate', and I do think that hatred is functional physical self defence. It blocks the compassion that would make you hesitate to harm the other person, and as a resulkt you may be killed yourself. Aside from battle, I see no benefit in real hate.

Hrant's views on this matter are in my opinion completely wrong, and would lead to a much worse world.

I think that your chances of being effective will be greatly if you contact and accept guidance from existing organizations fighting hate groups, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center - http://www.tolerance.org/ - and the Anti-Defamation League - http://www.adl.org/adl.asp .

These have long experience in fighting hate groups, and have had notable successes. I am not saying you should simply be a wing of one of these, but you should certainly talk to them and get benefit of their experience before going forward.

By the way, note the logo for Tolerance.org - not great but not bad.

on the last image from your Monday, December 01,
2003 - 6:49 pm post. The one where the two H's are
sharing a stem. What if that center stem became a
T itself so you would have each initial letter of
hate the hate represented.

Is there a general rule on which words should be
included in an abbreviation? Like USA isn't USOA.
I imagine that it's purely aesthetic as long as
your not leaving out anything really important.

I think the two H's work fine but I just wondered
what it might look like with a T in the center.
These are good.

While I like what's going on creatively, this does
sound� well, a bit like design masturbation.
Designers against hate. Designing nice little
collages of hate-hating propaganda. All for the
other designers to look at and go ooohhhh. ahhhhh.
Let me know if you've got other plans, but also
notice I'm not trying to stop you. Do as you please.

Mitchell

William, apparently you have no idea what I'm saying (wow, that's a first).

The trap is to make hate an Evil thing. It is human. By coming to grips with it, we can control it, and make those whose hate is out of control more human, like us. In this way of showing compassion to them, we have a better chance of converting them to a "control mode". So basically you're saying: I hate the fact that you're like that, and that makes us the same - but I'm in control of myself - you can be too.

Your view is entirely too orthodox and rigid, and is leading the world down this path of destruction we're seeing more of every day. Because it's religious, as opposed to pragmatic and human.

hhp

Tolerance vs Oppenheimer

Ben, you may have to elbow your way back into your own thread. BTW, i think you have mastered the White Supremecy genre. Any would do the trick.

Whether you should, is a subject everyone seems to have an opinion about. (including me) IMHO you'd be better off just donating your time to groups similar to the ones mentioned by William. If you want to organize to help other designers do the same, you can do it without this approach. Maybe I feel this way because I'd be a little creeped out by joining an organization with a bonafide hate emblem.

Plus, you will cut down on calls from klansmen looking for you to design insignias for their local chapter.

Randy

I think it's missing the VS. element like the first one had. ( like a victorian boxing poster or something, that execution is not good for a logo because its "too much" but it could be simplified. )

-iggy

<font class="dontLookLikeCrap">Your marks certainly do look real. Too real, I think. I see those and I think "run!" not, oh what's that text say? Designers against hate?

I feel like this mark could benefit from some more exploration into what makes it look like a fascist/supremacist symbol. This is an identity, so I could see the current symbols interacting with more contemporary typography (as opposed to the expected circle badge). I think that this would more clearly portray the concept (as I understand it) and the body of people who will presumably fall in and support it.

And support it they will, if it's done well. True hate is a terrible thing, and never ends well. People hating sin can be just as bad for humanity as people hating minorities. "Hate the hate" to me takes advantage of today's ironic culture. I say hate on a regular basis; "I HATE it when they don't have Swiss cheese!" I'm not deeply angered and full of animosity towards the sub shop. In this case I feel like it can be a great call to action. I don't see the purpose of this as attacking groups of people violently, but reaching people in a way that both says "hating is not acceptable by your peers" and also "here's what we can do."

I think assuming off the cuff that Ben's hate group will be burning things and hunting people is a bit hasty. I support the notion. I support the design. Make sure it's accessible and shows its self honestly.
And good luck.

Aaron
</font>

hate begets hate

I'm with William on this one. (although we've had some past battles).

I do understand the mockery idea and how that could take away some power from real hate groups but it smells of Adbusters - which proves to accomplish little more then self-congratulatory behavior in a pretty package of half-wit.

I honestly don't see that a group promoting hate to hate groups would solve anything - it would only provoke more hatred from those you attack - especially by copying their brand.

I could see how it might turn into a who's looking meaner, and more evil competition. - unless the group of designers have better plans?

Perhaps you want to describe your business plan here. I think describing your planned actions will help everyone understand what the point is and then we can critique the logo to see if it suits.

nice symbol though - the last one - if you were a devil worshiper looking for a hell sign

Admitting that every human harbors hate makes you more capable of dealing with it both in others and in yourself. Pragmatically, it's not a matter of stamping out hate - that's impossible - it's a matter of reducing its effects on action.

hhp

I think the classic 1985 film "legend" taught us in the first few minutes that hate and love are in a very necessary balance. But I'm not going to argue philosophy, I'm a designer. I'd rather still argue that the name "hate the hate" does not mean "GO BURN SYMBOLS IN THE YARDS OF MEMBERS OF THE KKK AND THREATEN THEIR WELLBEING!"

That's absurd.

We all love catchy slogans, we love controversy (obviously, see above) and we hate hate. Woops, there I went with the H word, I'm just fanning the flame of violence and terror.

On with design! Let's see some more sketches, and I agree we could use more words on how the organization might work.

Aaron

usually I'm with you Hrant - but I really don't see how mimicking the reasoning and look of hate groups will reduce their actions.

If anything mimicking them (by claiming to be a hate group yourself) proves that their actions are powerful and effective, in fact they should find it flattering - AND that factor is one that needs not to be propagated by this group, rather the actions of hate groups and results of their actions should be challenged (so that they may think for a moment and formulate healthier opinions) By going it your route are you not giving applause?

I really don't know, Tanya. It's hard to predict how different people will react to such a logo. But I do think there's something to be said for taking the "inclusive" route: by bringing "haters" into the fold (through the admission that everybody hates, but it's what you [don't] do with it that counts) you might reduce the "I'm better than you" attitude that can only aggravate haters. I think a great antidote to hateful actions is to point out that we're all the same deep down.

hhp

Its a rather daring test then - if the results end up promoting hate groups rather than educating and taking away the power this initiative would have done damage x 10 and purely on face value.

It's just immaturity -- possibly with all the best intentions -- but this seems like something I would have done in Jr High (but had just barely enough common sense not to).

okiee after a long time i come back to typophile.
i have been reading almost every comment on the hate factor.
i have something to add-
I think Hate is a mirror image, i see the logo as a reverse in case of H its the same.
its a chain reaction.
you may hate one person, the other may hate someone else. Its all permutataion and combination
I really like the Idea of having a hate that hates the haters.
Representing India, i actaully know and have seen what hatred means. its a small word which
can go to greatest heights like war etc.
this rough draft is what i have interpreted it as.
i hope you wont mind having a look at it.

After a long time i am visiting typophile.
Reading almost everyones response, i agree fully with this concept of hating the haters.
few thoughts to add-
i feel the logo or the symbol should be a mirror image of the typeface. In case of "H" it will be the same. why? because hatred is a chain reaction. when you hate someone, (with respect to humanbeings)
the other person hates someone too.may be the third person may hate you. Its all permutations and combinations.
Hailing from a third world country, India I truly understand and have seen this small word 'Hate' grow to great heights of bloodshed and war.
A small word but too powerful.
"you give this word to someone and it will come back to you"
here is a first draft of how i see this logo/symbol as. i hope you would not mind me just racking my brain on it
please feel free to send your comments.

I like the idea of making the stems of the "H" two people.

hhp

I get the point that hate is a natural human emotion, but I don't find "hate the hate" a particularly interesting or productive concept. I'm more with the buddha than I am with Hrant on this one. I think "love the hate" would be more interesting and Zen-like, and ultimately would produce better and more effective work.

Yikes! So sorry! I kept getting "internal error" messages. I thought this wasn't posting. It wasn't that great a comment that it was worth reading five or six times. Do I get some kind of "booby) prize for multiuple postings?

[Moderator: No need to apologize. Take note, if you do get an error just use the back button and then refresh the page.]

This has morphed into something for International Harvester. For pete's sake go off on a tangent and brainstorm something visual instead of typographic. A serene graphic in a soft pleasing color with just a line below it in letterspaced Futura caps with appropriate copy relating to stopping hate would be my solution (not that anyone asked for it). Hate the Hate is playing into the hands of haters.

having a hate that hates the haters

I can't resist - you have to hate yourself too - cause you are a hater.

playing into the hands of haters
If they are haters - then I guess that's the point, sadly enough. but yes, what about pastels!

> you have to hate yourself too

Duh.

hhp

How about rhyming?

abate the hate
negate?
deflate?

"Hey, lets just rhyme alot and whatever we come up with is our new hit song."


Not to diss your favorite band, or anything...

gee thanks Hrant, i love you too

really, I just thought it had to be pointed out again - because it continues to be described in altruistic ways - when one couldn't possibly be.

but I'll shut up now

Well, no, don't shut up, please! :-)

hhp

<font class="dontLookLikeCrap">Both anger and hatred are Godly qualities.

Paul writes: For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.

That is, he hates doing evil.

And in Rev. 2:
`Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

God speaking to one of the 7 churches, commending them for their 'hatred' of wrongdoings.

As for anger, Jesus was angry at the moneychangers he found in the temple. Rather than making it a house of prayer, it was turned into an arena for profit.

As Hrant stated and as the Bible shows, it's a matter of how you deal with your hatred and anger. It is a righteous quality to hate what is evil. The key after that though, is to not take vengeance into your own hands, which is what most people do. Rather, "be at peace with all men, as much as it is possible."

Two other quick notes. Hatred of a person is not the same as hating what someone has done or does. Also, because most people deal incorrectly with their anger and hatred, it makes anger and hatred seem wrong. If the anger can be used to start something good, then that is the correct kind of anger.

But with that said, the logo &/or name itself seems too ironic for me. I think a possible problem with a logo against something that it very closely associates with is the initial confusion, and even confusion after people find out what it means. It's smart to be able to find similarities with your opposition, but maybe this is too close? Ultimately, it's your call. However, it's not a logo I would be proud of displaying, if I were in the group, no matter how well it's aesthetically designed. It has lots of baggage that you probably won't be able to overcome.




</font>

If we are going to quote scripture, I would like to point out that the buddha said "Hatred does not cease by hatred."

This is all Zoroastrian stuff - much older than any of the "major" religions.

hhp

The historical buddha was born around the sixth century BCE. The quotation I cited is contemporaneous with Zoroaster, who lived around the same time.

The quotation I cited from the historical buddha is approximately contemporaneous with Zoroaster.

so we're comparing this organization to the actions of god?

If God and Paul had hate then we can congregate, advertise and propel some more?! With that example then you could say that Hitler followed a righteous path or any of the groups that hatethehate would target and it becomes a mute point. But somehow I don't think that's what the holy ones had in mind when its written that they "hated" - to become hate inc. and shower it on everyone you don't like hoping that they'd smarten up. For some reason I think that maybe god or paul had a bit more power to persuade. See, if I were a religious person and god just told me he hated something we were doing I would probably freak out and do what-ever he said. Will hatethehate have that power - nah.

I wrote that hatred and anger is often misused, and Hitler would be an example of an unjust hatred, as well as hatred misused.

I don't think the examples provided advocate spreading hate through a hate group. While it might be fine for something truly wrong to make you angry, having that anger and acting upon the anger negatively are two different things. But I do think it is possible to have a just anger and act correctly. In the case of hatethehate, the anger is just. I'm just not sure promoting more hatred is the best way to go.

Is it not all down to a matter of opinion?

"Hitler would be an example of an unjust hatred"

In your opinion (and I'm sure many others), but in his own mind, I'm sure Hitler believed his hatred to be wholly justified, as did many of his followers.

Just as, in a more contemporary arena, I'm certain many millions of the followers of Islam believe their hatred for America and Western values is justified.

I don't think it's black and white, but equally, I don't think citing examples of 'just' hatred and 'unjust' hatred does anything to further the argument. As Tanya alludes to, it merely serves to highlight the similarities between people who hate -- 'justly' or 'unjustly'.

Jordan

Hmmm�To be honest, I'm not certain that Hitler did hate the jews or anyone else, and I'm even less convinced that he truly felt his actions were justified. He definitely imposed "hate crimes" and promoted them as justified, but I believe he new what he was doing to be wrong and that his actions were a passionate effort to satisfy his egocentric arrogance, obsessive greed and lust for power, and overly compensated insecurities.

Having said that, Hitler was a leader and an instigator, while I believe others who are followers can be misled to believe that their "hate crimes" are justified.

To hate something is not wrong.
To hate someone is wrong.
To wrong someone because of hate for something or someone is wrong.
To promote hate of someone is wrong.
To promote hate of something is not wrong, unless it encourages others to wrong someone (Hitler).

That's my take�for whatever it's worth.

Aloha!
Scott

the top one looks like the house of
fonts logo, at a glance. I like the
base concept mate, but can't agree
with the mark in all of it's incarnations,
bar the top ones. Make it pink and you
will be talking.

kris.