Knives are tools, first and foremost. If they fit the job and the hand, it's a successful choice, regardless of the maker. A knife is much more the intent to balance materials, blade steel, ergonomics, features, and construction techniques to create something that in whole does a better job than another tool, however similar. The result is influenced by synergism, the creation of superiority in function beyond the simple addition of it's parts.
BUT - choosing to eliminate not only a knife, but a whole brand because of metaphysical concerns - like politics or the reputation of the maker, things that can't be scientifically evaluated or tested - is an emotional reaction. In that, everyone has the right - but as is pointed out, in America, you have the right to be wrong. And the more vociferous the opposition, especially when the products are useful, even superior, just drives others to investigate and ask why.
Some of the time it's discovered it's just a clique-ish thing of community identity to disparage a manufacturer. Other times, reasons have substance. Most of us agree that price influences our choices, and that the reputation of the customer service department could affect our decision, even though some complainers have what might be perceived as unrealistic expectations.
All that, however, is just a smokescreen for the real issue - does the purchaser actually understand the maker's intent - why they designed the knife for what job under what conditions? Those that do, and choose not to buy it are making a good decision. Those that don't understand and buy, or not buy, based on emotional assessment, just seem to dig themselves in deeper attempting to explain.
Buy on features and tasks, let them take you to the knife that can fill the need. That way a grossly mismatched tool for the job doesn't make the owner look like one too.