Word "Knife" not "Family Friendly" - Who knew? M&M's Rejects Knife Rights' Order!

[RedLynx]

No one is worked up over anything. Jst a surprise that a candy company is now considering themselves to somehwhat of an authority of what constitutes "family friendly".

^This is pretty much it. Thanks for stating it so succinctly.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

No one is worked up over anything. Jst a surprise that a candy company is now considering themselves to somehwhat of an authority of what constitutes "family friendly".

That's fair. I was just a bit surprised to see what had happened and the strength of the response.

 

[SunOfAtom]

[snip]
I am of the opinion that people in this country just look for reasons to be outraged, and I think this is a perfect example. All this over candy. It's really quite funny.

All well stated. I have no problem if a company chooses to stay out of political/legal/emotional topics, especially when having their name associated with one could easily be used against them. I am not saying I do not like having knife rights and do not appreciate people fighting for them, but this "you are either with us or you are against us" behavior is not becoming.

With recent court decisions controlling what an Arizona baker must make for customers, one would think the M&M legal team is having bad dreams and night sweats right now.

One is a case of discrimination, one is not. Do you not see the obvious difference between the two?

 

[james terrio]

Personally I'm probably not boycotting the company, although as someone who likes neither hypocrisy or stereotypes--both of which are rampant in the commercial referenced in this thread--it is incumbent to, at the very least, point that out (for all the good it would do.)

(bold text highlighted by me)

I agree with you and killgar that "voting with our wallets" by buying different candy bars or dog food will not have much (if any?) impact on a vast multi-national corporation - that's just common sense. Bringing it to our friends' attention is the important part. And I certainly do not feel this petty decision means the entire corporation is evil, or should be shut down or anything extreme like that.

But I do feel quite strongly that this can be a catalyst to bring folks together to support our common cause now and in the future. I say again, this unpleasant little episode may actually turn out to be a very good thing for KnifeRights and as an extension, all of us.

 

[mqqn]

No one is worked up over anything. Jst a surprise that a candy company is now considering themselves to somehwhat of an authority of what constitutes "family friendly".

Yup. The name of the organization, in case anyone missed it, is Knife RIGHTS.

The organization is there to work to create a better image of knives and protect our right to own them.

When a company is associating the ownership of knives, or in this case the WORD knife as being "bad", then it is entirely appropriate for an organization that is founded to promote a good image for knives and knife owners to react.

I did indeed review the entire portfolio of Mars products, and I am not going to be too put out about not patronizing the entire portfolio.

"First they came for the knives, and I did not speak out...."

As Rev said, I don't think people are too "worked up", maybe some people just have more resolve than others.

best

mqqn

 

[RedLynx]

(bold text highlighted by me)

I agree with you and killgar that "voting with our wallets" by buying different candy bars or dog food will not have much (if any?) impact on a vast multi-national corporation - that's just common sense. Bringing it to our friends' attention is the important part. And I do not feel this petty decision means the entire corporation is evil, or should be shut down or anything extreme like that.

But I do feel quite strongly that it can be a catalyst to bring folks together. I say again, this unpleasant little episode may actually turn out to be a very good thing for KnifeRights and as an extension, all of us.

Thanks James. And honestly, even if all we manage to do is bring more of us together, I think that, in and of itself, is enough already. It's an accomplishment.

It's sort of like what I tell people who ask me about world peace (not that I get that question a lot). While I do not believe it is possible, I do believe that working and striving toward it, does create smaller pieces of peaceful resolution as a by-product of our attempts. So even though I don't believe it is a realistic goal, I believe that the simple striving toward it, will create some good where otherwise it may not have existed.

Meh, sorry for waxing philosophical there, went off track a bit.

 

[ron_m80]

One is a case of discrimination, one is not. Do you not see the obvious difference between the two?

You should really use the internet to look the word up, before using it to argue about what it means.

 

[pnsxyr]

Anyone have a good alternative to peanut M&Ms?

http://chocolatebar.com/products.php?product=1.4oz.-Organic-Milk-Chocolate-&-Peanut-Butter
You'll never eat regular "fake" chocolate from companies like Mars ever again. Plus natural dark chocolate is extremely healthy and much lower in sugar.

 

[Rubicon_Joey]

http://chocolatebar.com/products.php?product=1.4oz.-Organic-Milk-Chocolate-&-Peanut-Butter
You'll never eat regular "fake" chocolate from companies like Mars ever again. Plus natural dark chocolate is extremely healthy and much lower in sugar.

Not really a pure chocolate eater though. I rarely even eat things like m&ms or any snacks really.

 

[pnsxyr]

Guess I'll be the odd man out.

Personally, I couldn't care less that a privately owned candy company chose not to print the word "Knife" on their candy. I don't think any children are going to starve as a result, nor do I see anyone's rights being violated, nor do I see any anti knife laws being passed as a result. A privately owned company chose to refuse a request, and as stupid and hypocritical as their reasoning is, they are entirely within their rights.

For those of you who are boycotting the Mars company, I wonder if you have done your research. Because the Mars company produces and sells quite a variety of products, including things other than candy. So you better get busy making a list of all the things you can't buy in your boycott, because it's going to be a long list. But I don't think you will, because something tells me that you aren't really all that serious about the matter.

You know what I find funny about this talk of boycott, here at Bladeforums there is often talk about supporting American companies and their American workers. But an American candy company exercises their right not to print the word "Knife" on their product, and you guys are willing to boycott that American company, and to hell with all of their American workers. Of course, my research shows that the Mars company makes around 30 billion dollars a year in US sales alone, so I really doubt your boycott, or your emails, will have any effect on their bottom line.

I wonder, are you going to boycott every company that has anti-knife policies? Take Disney for example, another PRIVATE company. Disney doesn't allow knives in their theme parks. What an outrage. I guess that requires a boycott. Of course, if you are going to boycott Disney, you also have to boycott everything Disney owns, like for example-the ABC network, ESPN, the A&E network, and all movies produced by Disney, just to name a few.

And what about the airline industry? Can I assume that every person in this thread has chosen to never fly until the airline industry reverses their ban on knives?

And now a message to Kniferights, a group I have supported- I think it's embarrassing and petty that you are making such a fuss over CANDY, even to the point of posting the matter front and center on your website. I have donated my hard-earned money to Kniferights in the belief that it was being used to increase knife rights and overturn unjust knife laws, I didn't realize you were spending money on customized candy. Frankly, wasting money on customized candy sounds like something the Federal government does. I couldn't care less what the Mars company does, but under the circumstances, I will definitely be rethinking my next donation to Kniferights.

I am of the opinion that people in this country just look for reasons to be outraged, and I think this is a perfect example. All this over candy. It's really quite funny.

I certainly believe a private company has the right to make decisions on who they serve and do not serve.

However, that same belief also means that consumers are allowed to freely choose who they do and do not support, and voice their opinion in that matter. For example, I think if a company is OK with portraying stereotypes in commercials aimed at children, but is not OK with working with a non-profit due to the word "knife", not to mention then LIES about what actually happened, I take issue with it on multiple levels (legality not being one).

I am also of the belief that taking action by voicing an opinion is better than silence.

Do I expect people to agree with my opinion? Certainly not, and we can agree to disagree here. However, I will still voice it if I feel that is the right thing to do, and I feel this is a place in which speaking up could influence corporate policy both here and elsewhere. I don't patronize Walt Disney due to the way they treat people with disabilities. There choice to do so is legal, within their right, and based on their own reasoning. But I don't agree with it and I don't think it's right on a level of morals and family values.

 

[T. Erdelyi]

Stickies don't get read. As long as people keep posting here, it won't slide too far down.

Thanks for the laugh,

Anyone have a good alternative to peanut M&Ms?

Goobers...


We're all entitled to our opinions, I sent them an email stating I didn't agree with their hypocrisy, that I wouldn't support their stance by not buying their products, I do know all they own and sell, their corporate headquarters is an hour from my house and I worked there as a mechanic for a brief period.

I also know and told them I doubt mine and my friends boycotting would likely have if any major impact on their profit margin but in the end it's still gonna take away from their bottom line.

I have no allusions as to what I do in response to their stance will do to them but again my gripe is the hypocrisy...

 

[Rhinoknives1]

I am sure that there is another Candy company that will take your order?
Who else makes a hard shell chocolate candy??

 

[Guest5160]

Emailed. We are forgetting that the idea for m&ms was picked up during the Spanish civil war after the founder saw soldiers eating pelleted chocolates. During WWII, in conjunction with Hershey's, the candies were produced for and sold exclusively to our military.

Derived from a war. Popularity developed through a war. Won't include the word "knife" for a limited run. Hypocrisy defined here, IMHO.

 

[RedLynx]

Emailed. We are forgetting that the idea for m&ms was picked up during the Spanish civil war after the founder saw soldiers eating pelleted chocolates. During WWII, in conjunction with Hershey's, the candies were produced for and sold exclusively to our military.

Derived from a war. Popularity developed through a war. Won't include the word "knife" for a limited run. Hypocrisy defined here, IMHO.

I learn something here every day! Had no idea.

Side note: This thread has me thinking of the old Tonight Show episode with Carson, where an audience member was in some contest, he had worked all his life for the Mars Candy Co. Seemed a nice guy and loved his job, it was a good episode.

 

[killgar]

Here's why I think this public boycott of Mars on the part of Kniferights is a bad idea-

One of the main missions of Kniferights is to convince Governors of states to overturn knife laws. This by itself can be an uphill fight. After all, we all know that not everyone in this country is pro-knife. Between all the knife related crime in the news, and peoples irrational fear of knives, trying to make knives and knife carry legal can be very controversial. Politicians generally don't like controversy, and I don't imagine any Governors in this country are rushing to overturn their states knife laws.

The Mars company (family) is one of the largest and richest companies in this country. From my count, Mars has locations in 26 different states, some of those states have multiple locations. I would imagine that these locations employ thousands, if not tens of thousands of employees, or more. And with this country's system of government being what it is, it would be no surprise if Mars is donating large sums of money to various politicians, especially the Governors of states where Mars has it's locations.

So here are the three players in this matter- Kniferights, an organization trying to overturn knife laws. State Governors, die-hard politicians who depend on the favorable opinion of voters and the financial contributions from rich companies. And the Mars company itself, a very rich company with major interests throughout the country.

Now what do you think might happen if Kniferights is trying to convince some Governor to overturn their states knife laws, and that Governor discovers that Kniferights is conducting a public boycott of one of that Governors largest contributors, not to mention a company that provides thousands of jobs in that state?

As weak and powerless as this boycott might be, and politicians being what they are, the Governor might very well decide that it's in their best interest not to risk pissing of the Mars family, or their thousands of voting employees, by appearing to be a FRIEND of a group that is boycotting them.

Like I said, trying to convince politicians to overturn knife laws in this country can be difficult at best, and conducting a PUBLIC boycott of one of the largest, richest company's in this country might just give a politician all the excuse they need to slam the door in Kniferights face.

It's called "blowback". When you choose a course of action and it has severe repercussions later. I don't see how Kniferights has anything to gain from their boycott. But I think they might have a lot to lose. What good is this boycott if it completely undermines the efforts of Kniferights and prevents the expansion of knife rights in this country. When your mission is as difficult and controversial as trying to expand knife rights, it might not be a good idea to conduct a public boycott of a very popular, and very wealthy company, especially over something as silly as an order of M&M's.

If Mars was petitioning lawmakers to pass anti-knife laws, or if Mars was making public statements saying that knives were evil, or if they restricted what kinds of knives that Mars employees could own in their personal lives, I would be all in favor of a boycott. But that's not the case. A canceled order of M&M's, regardless of how it got cancelled, a few silly commercials, and some statement from some low-level company drone regarding knives not being "family friendly", just arent worth the potential blowback of a public boycott.

Just one mans opinion.

 

[RedLynx]

I agree with the whole post in general, but responding to this part.

It's called "blowback". When you choose a course of action and it has severe repercussions later. I don't see how Kniferights has anything to gain from their boycott. But I think they might have a lot to lose. What good is this boycott if it completely undermines the efforts of Kniferights and prevents the expansion of knife rights in this country. When your mission is as difficult and controversial as trying to expand knife rights, it might not be a good idea to conduct a public boycott of a very popular, and very wealthy company, especially over something as silly as an order of M&M's.

If Mars was petitioning lawmakers to pass anti-knife laws, or if Mars was making public statements saying that knives were evil, or if they restricted what kinds of knives that Mars employees could own in their personal lives, I would be all in favor of a boycott. But that's not the case. A canceled order of M&M's, regardless of how it got cancelled, a few silly commercials, and some statement from some low-level company drone regarding knives not being "family friendly", just arent worth the potential blowback of a public boycott.

Just one mans opinion.

If the organization were in danger of unproductive blowback from a boycott of the Mars company (we're not even really sure at this point that they are large financial contributors to political campaigns, or at least, I am not), it stands to reason a boycott for ANY reason including Mars trying to pass anti-knife laws, would be met with blowback and further problems. In the end, if we follow this line of reasoning, the reasons don't matter, and your support of a boycott for different reasons would likely produce the same effects.

 

[killgar]

I agree with the whole post in general, but responding to this part.



If the organization were in danger of unproductive blowback from a boycott of the Mars company (we're not even really sure at this point that they are large financial contributors to political campaigns, or at least, I am not), it stands to reason a boycott for ANY reason including Mars trying to pass anti-knife laws, would be met with blowback and further problems. In the end, if we follow this line of reasoning, the reasons don't matter, and your support of a boycott for different reasons would likely produce the same effects.

You make a good point. But I see it this simply- some causes are worth the risk of repercussion, and some aren't.

Each person draws the line for themselves based on their own conscience. If a company is actively attacking peoples rights to own knives, I'd call that an egregious wrong worth fighting, and worth the risk of repercussions, because protecting peoples knife rights is what the cause is all about. But a company refusing to fill an order for candy is not what I would call an egregious wrong. It's certainly not a wrong worth the risk of undermining the actual cause. The cause of Kniferights is to expand knife rights, not to get candy or bring down a candy company.

Measuring the size of a perceived wrong, and determining the worthiness and risk of fighting that wrong, and how it should be fought, are automatic factors in any conflict. You have to know where and when to pick your battles. And you have to make sure you don't lose the war by fighting a minor skirmish.

 

[RedLynx]

If a company is actively attacking peoples rights to own knives, I'd call that an egregious wrong worth fighting, and worth the risk of repercussions, because protecting peoples knife rights is what the cause is all about. But a company refusing to fill an order for candy is not what I would call an egregious wrong. It's certainly not a wrong worth the risk of undermining the actual cause. The cause of Kniferights is to expand knife rights, not to get candy or bring down a candy company.

Measuring the size of a perceived wrong, and determining the worthiness and risk of fighting that wrong, and how it should be fought, are automatic factors in any conflict. You have to know where and when to pick your battles. And you have to make sure you don't lose the war by fighting a minor skirmish.

Completely agree. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[The Mastiff]

One is a case of discrimination, one is not. Do you not see the obvious difference between the two?

Actually it's not discrimination. To me it seems like you are ok with forcing a company to do something ( bake the cake) because you are ok with it, but it's not ok to make a different company put aside their values because you don't care about the other issue.

Personally I feel more strongly about companies who have had the current anti gun administration lean on banks to drop them as clients as a backdoor, sneaky, reprehensible way to promote their anti gun agenda despite the constitution guaranteeing citizens rights and clear messages sent to supporters of the anti gun agenda in congress standing for re-election time after time. It has cost one party the majority of both the house and senate in the past. Politicians can lie and claim to not be anti gun before an election but that tends to only work once. Under the table and behind closed door stuff can be pretty effective especially when you can back it up with the power of the Attorney Generals office, the IRS, and a tame media willing to run interference, down play stories and use the power of ridicule.

If you can lower the amount of dealers selling knife, gun, ammo whatever it makes it much easier to keep track of who is doing what.

The federal government is taking the same approach with the legal sale and distribution of marijuana products in states that have legalized causing it to largely be a cash business with security companies business booming being hired to transport huge sums of money around town going from growers to wholesalers to retailers with no banks yet willing to accept their business.

Their are signs of that changing with the Attorney general working with regulating bodies to help get the huge amounts of money in the system so Uncle sam can insure getting his share. The catalog and online sale of ammo is going the opposite direction with more and more reporting losing long term relationships with banks who have reported pressure from the government to drop customers in certain businesses that aren't approved of.

Don't trust me, do your own research. ( don't ask me to do it for you though )

Joe

 

[pnsxyr]

Actually it's not discrimination. To me it seems like you are ok with forcing a company to do something ( bake the cake) because you are ok with it, but it's not ok to make a different company put aside their values because you don't care about the other issue.

Personally I feel more strongly about companies who have had the current anti gun administration lean on banks to drop them as clients as a backdoor, sneaky, reprehensible way to promote their anti gun agenda despite the constitution guaranteeing citizens rights and clear messages sent to supporters of the anti gun agenda in congress standing for re-election time after time. It has cost one party the majority of both the house and senate in the past. Politicians can lie and claim to not be anti gun before an election but that tends to only work once. Under the table and behind closed door stuff can be pretty effective especially when you can back it up with the power of the Attorney Generals office, the IRS, and a tame media willing to run interference, down play stories and use the power of ridicule.

If you can lower the amount of dealers selling knife, gun, ammo whatever it makes it much easier to keep track of who is doing what.

The federal government is taking the same approach with the legal sale and distribution of marijuana products in states that have legalized causing it to largely be a cash business with security companies business booming being hired to transport huge sums of money around town going from growers to wholesalers to retailers with no banks yet willing to accept their business.

Their are signs of that changing with the Attorney general working with regulating bodies to help get the huge amounts of money in the system so Uncle sam can insure getting his share. The catalog and online sale of ammo is going the opposite direction with more and more reporting losing long term relationships with banks who have reported pressure from the government to drop customers in certain businesses that aren't approved of.

Don't trust me, do your own research. ( don't ask me to do it for you though )

Joe

The way I see it, refusing to bake that cake, and using the federal government to force someone to bake that cake, are technically both acts of discrimination. Discrimination in a sense of legal terms doesn't always match up with discrimination that isn't legally-defined in law. Often, laws and policy intended to combat discrimination often use discrimination in and of themselves. In many countries this is termed "positive discrimination". Even at their core design, anti-discrimination efforts which target a specific cohort are, by nature, discriminatory because they are now treating different groups in a different fashion.

As a company, should M&Ms (or anyone) be able to refuse service to someone? I believe they certainly should. Refusing to serve a specific cohort can indeed be discrimination, but I think it is a right people should have under free trade. Certainly this comes with a right for consumers to voice their disappointment with an organization's action or inaction, and not patronize them and make an argument why others should consider doing the same. Beyond free trade, that's free speech.

Now if the Attorney General of the US calls up M&M and says, "if you don't make those candies we are going to shut you down, sue you, and fine you to a point in which we ruin your business", that is both discrimination and coercion (and the AG has actually done this to some organizations). It is denying an organization its right to organize/practice a certain ideological belief/action set. It is also coercing someone to take action which may be against their own personal set of beliefs. Unfortunately, laws in this area are often a slippery slope...even those with good intentions.

Banks have used institutional discrimination against gun owners for years. The Justice Department of the United States has in fact done this as well, using a variety of means to discriminate against gun owners. They get away with this by creating a culture in which stereotyping gun owners and discriminating against them is completely socially acceptable. My own issue with a company discriminating against knife owners/orgs is simple: look at what has happened now that the anti-gun culture has come about. It came from both government and private enterprise which have worked to create a culture in which guns have been personified as being evil, and it is now socially acceptable to discriminate against gun owners, and say statements that if applied to any other cohort of people would result in mass outrage.

Can the same thing happen to knives? I believe it absolutely can, and I think the UK demonstrates just how slippery that slope can be. If certain special interest groups had their way, 99% of the knives discussed and sold on this forum would be illegal. And every last one of us would be branded as having some morbid fascination with deadly weapons and be labeled as needing a thorough psychological evaluation.