That's a very bold claim. I wonder if I am mistaking your irony or hyperbole.
You say it's "objectively terrible" but by what objective standard? I can only think of subjective aesthetic ideals, but if objective ones do exist, than I fail to see how they would apply to a logo. Just because it evokes negativity for you does not mean it's obvectively anything.
Think of it this way: a person may like or dislike various key switches and boards, and that's typically a subjective opinion and taste, regardless of the objective construction/purpose of the item. Given a few years though a person may spend a great deal of time understanding the history, mechanics, build quality, workmanship, etc, behind the keyboard products they encounter, and can more easily spot objectively poor designs from good. Even if they mightn't like the product for their own use, for example, they may be able to tell from their experience something is otherwise still a solid design.
I'm typically not one to criticize such things online (truely), but honestly it's easy to see not much thought or draftsmanship is behind this logo, as there's a history of praiseworthy design of penmanship, lettering, font and logo design over the past several hundred years to compare the quality to (although I'm only talking of the logo mark here, the type is fine).
But more than anything to me it's just clear how it was made - it's practically obvious when you've experienced enough of them. That's why I made the remark about the mid-2000s design trend of merging together semi-ornate vectors and mirroring them to be symmetrical, because it shows here. It was designed without a lot of consideration or draftsmanship, and made to look a way the designer thought would be appealing to the gamer crowd, which judging by the feedback hasn't succeeded. I wouldn't really call it a subjective opinion.
That said I'm sure there would be some that like the design, and that's fine too. With more experience of anything comes a better appreciation and discernment of things though.