The Energon Pub

Optimum Supreme wrote:I hate when companies cave in to stuff like this. An American company naming an an American product with a term that's not offensive at all in America shouldn't be an issue, and giving in like this is not a good precedent.

Hasbro may be based in America and their stocks as well, but they are essentially an international company that distributes worldwide.

So yes, it is an issue, and really when you look at it, it's been great PR for them. They got all this exposure albeit somewhat slightly negative, and then turned it into a positive and will come out smelling all sensitive and caring, which for a toy company is a great thing.

Since Hasbro changed the name, can England accordingly adjust Jeremy Clarkson's attitude concerning Americans and the "fat man in Kentucky" who builds the Corvette?

Fair is fair.

Pontimax wrote:Since Hasbro changed the name, can England accordingly adjust Jeremy Clarkson's attitude concerning Americans and the "fat man in Kentucky" who builds the Corvette?

Sensitivity to a worldwide minority group is a favour to England??

In any case, I'd do you this deal if I could - Clarkson's an arse.

Jack_Cade wrote:

Dagon wrote:I'm not sure this has been an issue of right- or left-wing anything...

It seems to me very conservative/right wing to complain about any call for sensitivity to minority groups, particularly when it means adjusting one's own behaviour.

Re. 'fag'. It means 'homosexual' over here as well, of course. By coincidence, it's also slang for cigarette. But the point is that a cigarette is not a particularly offensive or pointedly negative thing to be associated with, so the double meaning does no real harm.

Really? There's never any complaining about smoking or tobacco use, and no one ever blames cancer or health problems on cigarettes or anything over there? Just because the atmosphere concerning tobacco use is more liberal doesn't mean that it's all hunky dorey.

Jack_Cade wrote:We also do use 'spastic', 'spaz' and 'retard' in exactly the same way you Americans do. As I said before, the only difference is that we're aware that it's also a medical term and that using the word as a generic insult is therefore harmful, because people who *are* technically spastic are made to feel an aspect of their identity is idiotic. It's no different in the US, *unless* you're going to tell me that medical professionals strictly no longer use the term 'spasticity' when discussing cerebral palsy, and it has completely fallen out of use in the medical world and no one anywhere in your country associates it with medical disorders at all.

Even if that were the case, Hasbro is an organisation with a global reach and has to consider how everything it does can be viewed around the world. No company in their right mind would, say, televise torture in another country and then say to Americans: "It's OK - we're doing it in another country so you shouldn't be offended!"

'Redneck' is a terrible comparator - it's not addressed at a victimised minority group and it's not used as a generic derogatory term. It has specific connotations with the US south and its politics. There's a difference between words that are 'offensive', ie. taboo, and words that are harmful, ie. words that, whether inadvertently or otherwise, victimise people.

So then does "fag" as a cigarette have some deeper associative meaning such as spasticity? I have a brother who is gay, and I find the term "fag" offensive, and so does he, so you'd better get on England to stop using that. Also, the redneck thing is applicable. It is directed at a specific group of people, and it is most obviously is used in a derogatory way. I think you may be saying it's not because you're not putting it on the same level of magnitude as you place spastic on, and that's fine, because I don't put either term on my list of taboo words.
Clearly, you joined the board over this issue, as all of your posts are in this topic, so obviously you've got strong feelings on this issue. Personally, I don't care about the politics or connotations, I post here because I collect toys. So I'm still buying this figure when it comes out, even if that somehow equates to supporting an evil and insensitive world power.

Jack_Cade wrote:
We also do use 'spastic', 'spaz' and 'retard' in exactly the same way you Americans do. As I said before, the only difference is that we're aware that it's also a medical term and that using the word as a generic insult is therefore harmful, because people who *are* technically spastic are made to feel an aspect of their identity is idiotic. It's no different in the US, *unless* you're going to tell me that medical professionals strictly no longer use the term 'spasticity' when discussing cerebral palsy, and it has completely fallen out of use in the medical world and no one anywhere in your country associates it with medical disorders at all.

The only time I've ever heard it used as a medical term in the US in my more than three decades of life has been in the term "spastic colon". I've never heard someone with cerebral palsy called "spastic" other than by people from the UK.

Dagon wrote:Really? There's never any complaining about smoking or tobacco use, and no one ever blames cancer or health problems on cigarettes or anything over there?

It's not a pejorative; that's the fundamental difference. If you used 'spastic' to mean, say, a gun, or some other object, however controversial an object, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But you use it, just like us, as an insult. You seem to think it gets you off the hook to say, "Oh, but we don't call the actual spastics 'spastic'; we only call able-bodied people 'spastic'."

But the negative association is still there.

Dagon wrote:I have a brother who is gay, and I find the term "fag" offensive, and so does he, so you'd better get on England to stop using that.

How about if we don't release any action figures called 'Fag' and then defend it as being a reference to cigarettes?

Dagon wrote:The only time I've ever heard it used as a medical term in the US in my more than three decades of life has been in the term "spastic colon". I've never heard someone with cerebral palsy called "spastic" other than by people from the UK.

Well, look it up. Spasticity is a medical term. 'Spastic cerebral palsy' is a medical term. You can find this stuff out on wikipedia. It doesn't contain the caveat 'only in the UK'.

Jack_Cade wrote:

Dagon wrote:Really? There's never any complaining about smoking or tobacco use, and no one ever blames cancer or health problems on cigarettes or anything over there?

It's not a pejorative; that's the fundamental difference. If you used 'spastic' to mean, say, a gun, or some other object, however controversial an object, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But you use it, just like us, as an insult. You seem to think it gets you off the hook to say, "Oh, but we don't call the actual spastics 'spastic'; we only call able-bodied people 'spastic'."

But the negative association is still there.

Dagon wrote:I have a brother who is gay, and I find the term "fag" offensive, and so does he, so you'd better get on England to stop using that.

How about if we don't release any action figures called 'Fag' and then defend it as being a reference to cigarettes?

Dagon wrote:The only time I've ever heard it used as a medical term in the US in my more than three decades of life has been in the term "spastic colon". I've never heard someone with cerebral palsy called "spastic" other than by people from the UK.

Well, look it up. Spasticity is a medical term. 'Spastic cerebral palsy' is a medical term. You can find this stuff out on wikipedia. It doesn't contain the caveat 'only in the UK'.

Ah, once again, it's great to see someone who doesn't live here tell me what our slang terms mean simply because of it's meaning somewhere else.

Have a care... You're not telling us what "fag" means. Were just trying to make people realsise how we feel. Not say what means what in what is essentialy the same language.

Jack_Cade wrote:

Dagon wrote:Really? There's never any complaining about smoking or tobacco use, and no one ever blames cancer or health problems on cigarettes or anything over there?

It's not a pejorative; that's the fundamental difference. If you used 'spastic' to mean, say, a gun, or some other object, however controversial an object, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But you use it, just like us, as an insult. You seem to think it gets you off the hook to say, "Oh, but we don't call the actual spastics 'spastic'; we only call able-bodied people 'spastic'."

But the negative association is still there.

I don't seem to think anything, but you seem to think that I'm like, some terrible guy because I'm not up in arms over this name. I don't recall making any mention of it being alright, and in truth I'm just kind of trying to have a conversation. Personally, I'm not interested in what they call the toy, and I'm far from some 'right-wing' monster, and I am more than happily comfortable if that's not apparent to you, or if you deem me otherwise. I don't think I've used spastic in a sentence since like, 6th grade, and before I saw this whole fiasco I couldn't even tell you the last time I'd seen or heard it. So, like Pontimax is saying, it seems to be a UK thing that some people are expanding to some world wide issue, when it doesn't seem to have the same weight or meaning or intention here. And while I am sorry that it's causing a stir over there, this doesn't seem like an issue for the World Language Police.

Jack_Cade wrote:

Dagon wrote:I have a brother who is gay, and I find the term "fag" offensive, and so does he, so you'd better get on England to stop using that.

How about if we don't release any action figures called 'Fag' and then defend it as being a reference to cigarettes?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Like if we had a figure named Fag we could claim it to be alright by saying it's in reference to cigarettes, so it would be fine? That's not right, because in the States you can't sell tobacco to minors, so this 'example' doesn't really make sense. You had said that fag as a term for cigarettes wasn't offensive because cigarettes somehow carry no negative connotation. But that's an example of that pesky-ol' difference between societies thing, where the Euro view on cigarettes may be different than the American view, like the Euro view on 'spastic' may be different than the American view, and so one thing may not be as evil over here as it is over there.

Jack_Cade wrote:

Dagon wrote:The only time I've ever heard it used as a medical term in the US in my more than three decades of life has been in the term "spastic colon". I've never heard someone with cerebral palsy called "spastic" other than by people from the UK.

Well, look it up. Spasticity is a medical term. 'Spastic cerebral palsy' is a medical term. You can find this stuff out on wikipedia. It doesn't contain the caveat 'only in the UK'.

Since we are all so concerned with proper usage, I did not say that thing there about the spastic colon. I just figured that since we're so bent on being inoffensive that I'd point out this misrepresentation.

Wasp-shot23 wrote:Have a care... You're not telling us what "fag" means. Were just trying to make people realsise how we feel. Not say what means what in what is essentialy the same language.

I for one do care, and I'm sorry that there's an uproar about this name over there. But the outrage isn't translating over here I guess (no pun intended, honest to god) because the word isn't such an aggregious insult over here, which seems to be the rather apparent point the American contingent is trying to make.

Wasp-shot23 wrote:Have a care... You're not telling us what "fag" means. Were just trying to make people realsise how we feel. Not say what means what in what is essentialy the same language.

I never said any of your words were in contention with me. Quite frankly, you can say anything under the sun you please and I could simply care less as long as your opinion stays out of our language here at home.

I simply tire of hearing certain people here trying to convince us all that we're doing wrong when in fact we are not by our culture.



*Edit: It's especially funny that we're told what this word means, when in fact if Hasbro had named a crappy figure "Tiiiimmmmmmy", most American males in my age group would know exactly where and what it means. Now that would be insulting, I'm just not sure to who, the figure or to a certain group of people.

Jack Cade wrote:Ah, once again, it's great to see someone who doesn't live here tell me what our slang terms mean simply because of it's meaning somewhere else.

I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that 'spastic' in the US isn't (a) an insult, and (b) a word applied to certain kinds of serious medical conditions.

The fact that you're all completely ignorant of the second meaning and thought you were just calling people some variant of 'fool' or 'clumsy oaf' is neither here nor there. I too grew up thinking it was just a generic insult. I later found out that it's a medical term, whereupon it became quickly apparent that it's harmful to also use it as an insult.

Casting this as a 'different cultures' thing is just a red herring. If a word has a specific, neutral meaning that applies to a section of society, and then it is also used as a pejorative, that hurts and victimises that section of society to whom the word applies.

Dragon wrote:I don't seem to think anything, but you seem to think that I'm like, some terrible guy because I'm not up in arms over this name.

No, my problem with you and others here is that, having been told that a word you've been using as an insult actually does have another meaning in medical terms, you still insist that it's harmless just because you never understood it to have that meaning. Why is it so difficult to say: "Wow, I didn't realise it also referred to a medical condition - now I know that, I can see how using it as a pejorative could be hurtful to people"?

Honestly, I didn't care at all about Hasbro making the blunder. These things happen sometimes. Mistakes are made. Hasbro did the decent thing and changed the name. My only problem is people here absolutely refusing to recognise the problems with the word and pretending it's down to some 'cultural' difference. Why is it so hard to admit that if a word refers to a group of people, using it as an insult automatically marginalises them, even if you aren't insulting *them* with it?

Let's go back to the homosexual analogy. Forget 'fag'. If we in Britain went around saying, "You big gay!" to each other whenever we did something, say, effeminate or cowardly, how could it possibly be a defence to say, "Oh, but we don't really use it to refer to gay people - we didn't even realise that it mean that"?

Dagon wrote:You had said that fag as a term for cigarettes wasn't offensive because cigarettes somehow carry no negative connotation.

You're getting too forensic about this. What I meant, and should have said, was that cigarettes carry no personally insulting connotations. If I called you a cigarette, what would that mean? It doesn't even make sense. So I find it hard to see a gay person feeling marginalised by being associated with cigarettes. Or, for that matter, lesbians feeling marginalised by the double-meaning of 'dyke'. "Wait, I'm a ditch?"

But when 'fag' or 'dyke' or 'spastic' are used against *anyone* as a personal insult, that's when they become harmful. It's not particularly relevant whether you actually use it as an insult against the specific class of people it marginalises, or whether you're just using it to take the piss out of your mates.

The only way you Americans get away with freely using this word in the way that you say you do is if you can swear blind to me it is no longer used or understood by any American doctors or patients to have *anything* to do with muscular spasms/motor control problems/cerebral palsy/other medical conditions, so that this meaning is completely off the chart, consigned to history. Saying, "Oh, but most of us don't use it to mean that" doesn't cut it.

I guess *us Americans* will just continue to think as we always have and ignore your you for what you are, an outsider looking in.

Jack_Cade wrote:Honestly, I didn't care at all about Hasbro making the blunder. These things happen sometimes. Mistakes are made. Hasbro did the decent thing and changed the name.

I think it's time people concentrated on this and give Hasbro the props they deserve rather than tearing away at each other over culture differences.

Long story short, "spastic" is a derogatory terms in certain parts of the world (more than just the UK) Hasbro listened and made the changes.

Why we're still debating over which country is right or wrong is beyond me. One culture isn't going to change just because another one tells them to. Let's take a page from Hasbro's book of tolerance shall we?

Pontimax01 wrote:I guess *us Americans* will just continue to think as we always have and ignore your you for what you are, an outsider looking in.

Yeah, I guess that's exactly what an insensitive jerk would do. Huh.

I'd be making this argument if I was American. You will find Americans who will make this argument. You will find them, because it has nothing to do with cultural differences and everything to do with how systemic victimisation works and your inability to get your head round that.

Let me throw in another word for you guys. 'Schizo'. Do you use that one? We do. It's not something you actually call a schizophrenic person; it's something you call a person who has lost their temper. "Wow, don't go schizo on me!"

So according your argument, this is perfectly innocent. Hey, it just means to be angry or throw a tantrum, right? What harm could that do?

But how, then, does a person suffering from schizophrenia feel when they hear people casually calling each other 'schizo' whenever someone loses their rag? Heck, the only effort it takes for you guys is to actually put yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment and actually think, "How would they feel?" How would a person who knows they suffer from spastic cerebral palsy, or spasticity, feel to have all the kids around them tossing around the word 'spastic' as a generic insult? You really, really think they feel fine with that? Do you?

Or do you just not want to think about that, because your freedom to say whatever you want is more important to you than whether you might hurt and marginalise other people? Only you know the answer to that!

Why we're still debating over which country is right or wrong is beyond me.

We aren't. I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who are savvy enough to know they shouldn't use this word for the reasons I've stated. The only difference between the two cultures, I would think, is that anti-victimisation groups in the UK have more clout and have been making the argument for more years, and have made more headway.

^^ And yet it's funny that no americans are in here making this argument in your favor.

Do you have some agenda with this? Are you looking for some kind of reparations? Did your bridge collapse and that's why you came trolling out of nowhere?

Would you like me to list several hundred words that would get you punched in the face here? I can promise any form of spastic wouldn't even be in the top 1,000. Here's one to ponder for a second... D-Bag.

Pontimax 01 wrote:^^ And yet it's funny that no americans are in here making this argument in your favor.

Do you have some agenda with this? Are you looking for some kind of reparations? Did your bridge collapse and that's why you came trolling out of nowhere?

Would you like me to list several hundred words that would get you punched in the face here? I can promise any form of spastic wouldn't even be in the top 1,000. Here's one to ponder for a second... D-Bag.

Yeah, I'm getting confused with this whole thing too.
Just so Burn/any other mod mistakes this as baiting or whatnot, it isn't. Ok, I get it, the term is offensive slang in parts of the world that aren't the US, or at least the US as Pontimax and I are representing. For that, I'm glad Hasbro is changing the name, but if it isn't going to be sold outside the States anyway, then what's the big deal about the name? If you're familiar with the band Cannibal Corpse, their first three or four albums are banned in Germany, but the band never changed the cover art or lyrics or anything for the rest of the world because they're band in certain parts, and I think that's part of the issue.
The other part of the issue is that Jack_Cade is trying to make some argument that slang usage is somehow universal amongst all members of a language group, and it is not. This term is not as openly derrogatory in the US as it apparently is elsewhere because slang is contextual amongst a certain group, like Americans or Australians (that's for Burn ) or Chicagoans or Nebraskans or what have you. If Jack_Cade were American, they'd only be making the same argument if they had some agenda, because as clearly educated on the meanings of the word as they are, they'd know that the word is not hypercaustic here because honestly, I'm not sure I've heard it said by any living person in years, and to further Jacks' ability to deride me as an ignorant, insensitive American, I'm a teacher, so I'm generally in on an understanding of what people use to degrade each other, and on that note, of all the insensitive references to disabled persons that kids use to insult each other, 'spastic' isn't even in their vocabulary.

So again, I'm with Pontimax. Jack_Cade is in this to advance something, and that's fine. Clearly they have a concern here, and that's admirable, but being rude and all only leads people with agendas to the ultimate realization that they're not being taken seriously because they have some ax to grind and find it preferable to chide people who might be won over because they don't share some place of initial outrage. It's cute and everything that degoratory terms against homosexuals is not as big an issue as some word that we don't even use in the States, and it's awesome and totally original that Americans are ignorant and insensitive and jerks. Other boards aren't even talking about this, so I can't believe it's like a widespread trolling effort.

Tl;dr? Good work Hasbro for changing the name, because it offends some people, your international cabal of supreme evil will recover from this incident that has not rocked the community to its core.

If McDonalds released a burger in Norway called the 'America Sux Balls with cheese', I think a few of you would have a problem with that even though it's not being sold in your territory. Hasbro is a global company, as has been said several times in this thread, and has a responsibility not to knowingly cause offense to anyone.

The Legend wrote:If McDonalds released a burger in Norway called the 'America Sux Balls with cheese', I think a few of you would have a problem with that even though it's not being sold in your territory. Hasbro is a global company, as has been said several times in this thread, and has a responsibility not to knowingly cause offense to anyone.

That's completely different, naming the figure Spastic was an honest mistake. It wasn't a deliberate attempt to insult anyone. They didn't know, now they do, and are changing it.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

The Legend wrote:If McDonalds released a burger in Norway called the 'America Sux Balls with cheese', I think a few of you would have a problem with that even though it's not being sold in your territory. Hasbro is a global company, as has been said several times in this thread, and has a responsibility not to knowingly cause offense to anyone.

That's completely different, naming the figure Spastic was an honest mistake. It wasn't a deliberate attempt to insult anyone. They didn't know, now they do, and are changing it.

I realise that and applaud them for it. My post was directed at the poster previous to me who could not understand how a global company could cause offense to one group of people by their actions in a seperate territory.

Dagon wrote:but if it isn't going to be sold outside the States anyway, then what's the big deal about the name?

It will be sold outside of the US, just not certain parts of Europe. But there's a good chance it may see release in parts of the world where the term is more insulting.

Plus it's great PR. They really are going to come out of this looking all caring.

The Legend wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

The Legend wrote:If McDonalds released a burger in Norway called the 'America Sux Balls with cheese', I think a few of you would have a problem with that even though it's not being sold in your territory. Hasbro is a global company, as has been said several times in this thread, and has a responsibility not to knowingly cause offense to anyone.

That's completely different, naming the figure Spastic was an honest mistake. It wasn't a deliberate attempt to insult anyone. They didn't know, now they do, and are changing it.

I realise that and applaud them for it. My post was directed at the poster previous to me who could not understand how a global company could cause offense to one group of people by their actions in a seperate territory.

If you're referring to me, I understand that the term is offensive. It's not like it's too hard for me or anything like that. What I'm having a hard time understanding is how it's ignorant of me or anyone else outside of the area where the word is offensive to not be automatically offended at its use, for whatever reason and in any context. As hard as it may be to believe, when I first read the story and posters said the term was offensive, my immediate reaction was not to grab my gun, fire it into the air and scream at length about how everyone else in the world is pathetic for finding the word offensive.
What I don't understand is why I/others who don't find it offensive are monsters for not getting a slang word in a culturally different context. Yay, they changed the name. Hooray, less offense in the world. I'm glad they changed the name, and I don't find shame for myself for not understanding why it offended people any less than UKers would find shame at not understanding why something offended me.
We're also taking way too much part for the whole here. I personally wouldn't care an ounce for the burger name you mentioned, and I'm also not particularly bothered by 'spastic' or 'fag' or anything else. I'm not confused as to it being offensive, I'm confused as to why it should offend me when my culture doesn't use the word that way. I also can't imagine it was done with malice aforethought. I guess my hideous immoral worldview is one that doesn't believe people should be vehemently decried for honest mistakes.

Dagon wrote:

The Legend wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

The Legend wrote:If McDonalds released a burger in Norway called the 'America Sux Balls with cheese', I think a few of you would have a problem with that even though it's not being sold in your territory. Hasbro is a global company, as has been said several times in this thread, and has a responsibility not to knowingly cause offense to anyone.

That's completely different, naming the figure Spastic was an honest mistake. It wasn't a deliberate attempt to insult anyone. They didn't know, now they do, and are changing it.

I realise that and applaud them for it. My post was directed at the poster previous to me who could not understand how a global company could cause offense to one group of people by their actions in a seperate territory.

If you're referring to me, I understand that the term is offensive. It's not like it's too hard for me or anything like that. What I'm having a hard time understanding is how it's ignorant of me or anyone else outside of the area where the word is offensive to not be automatically offended at its use, for whatever reason and in any context. As hard as it may be to believe, when I first read the story and posters said the term was offensive, my immediate reaction was not to grab my gun, fire it into the air and scream at length about how everyone else in the world is pathetic for finding the word offensive.
What I don't understand is why I/others who don't find it offensive are monsters for not getting a slang word in a culturally different context. Yay, they changed the name. Hooray, less offense in the world. I'm glad they changed the name, and I don't find shame for myself for not understanding why it offended people any less than UKers would find shame at not understanding why something offended me.
We're also taking way too much part for the whole here. I personally wouldn't care an ounce for the burger name you mentioned, and I'm also not particularly bothered by 'spastic' or 'fag' or anything else. I'm not confused as to it being offensive, I'm confused as to why it should offend me when my culture doesn't use the word that way. I also can't imagine it was done with malice aforethought. I guess my hideous immoral worldview is one that doesn't believe people should be vehemently decried for honest mistakes.

Who is saying you're a monster for not understanding it's meaning here or in other parts of the world? That was never the issue. If Hasbro [being a global company] released it with that name after it was brought to their attention it would upset a significant group of people then it would make them look very insensitive.

Pontimax01 wrote:Do you have some agenda with this?

Let me explain my 'agenda'. I found out Hasbro was naming a toy 'Spastic'. I thought, "Oops, they'll catch it for that", and looked around to see if anyone was discussing it on any of the usual TF sites. The ones I post on mainly weren't really bothering with it but lo and behold, on here there were a bunch of people making utterly bizarre arguments about why people being 'offended' by it need to lighten up, complaining about it being 'PC', acting as if it was just some kind of slang or swearword, completely missing the point.

I joined up to clear up what I saw as an obvious misunderstanding and have become steadily more exasperated by the amount of people who seem to have trouble understanding the basic proposition that using a neutral medical term as an insult has harmful consequences, whether or not you think it's 'offensive' to call someone that.

I have to wonder if you're all just deliberately missing the point because it's so offensive to *you* to have it pointed out that you might want to rethink the ways in which words can do damage. You all seem to act like a word is either taboo/offensive/charged with hatred, or it isn't. Black and white. You don't seem to get that a word can seem completely harmless to one group of people because they don't understand or think about it's original meaning, and quite damaging to the group who *do* understand it - the people who actually suffer from spastic cerebral palsy or other kinds of spasticity.

What makes me annoyed? The fact that Americans who fall into this category might well be actively upset, depressed, marginalised by your use of this word, and you're all totally blase about this. Maybe you think these people don't exist in America?

Pontimax wrote:Would you like me to list several hundred words that would get you punched in the face here?

And for the umpteenth time, it's not about 'words that would get you punched in the face'. It's not what different cultures have as their 'taboo' words/hate words/swear words. It's about the fact that by using a term for a medical condition as a derogatory expression, you give that word a negativity that is then carried to people who *are* actually spastic.

Dagon wrote:For that, I'm glad Hasbro is changing the name, but if it isn't going to be sold outside the States anyway, then what's the big deal about the name?

See above + all my other posts. The big deal is whether you are hurting a marginalised group - in America, not Britain. Some kid grows up being told by doctors and his parents that he suffers from spastic cerebral palsy, a real medical condition. He goes to school and hears the other kids calling each other 'spastic' whenever they do something clumsy or foolish. How is he going to avoid feeling that other people think a 'spastic' is something bad, huh? How can he miss that?

I just don't get why it seems to be so hard to consider *this* idea for a change, and stop with all the rubbish about 'Brits' being 'offended'. I'm not 'offended' by the word. If you called me a spastic, I wouldn't be any more offended than if you called me a fool or a moron. It's an insult, but it's a relatively mild one. It's not as harsh as, say, 'f**kwit'.

But the point is *not* how insulting it is when you use it on another able-bodied person. It's not about how 'strong' a swear word it is. The point is that using it as any kind of insult, even a soft one, is charging the word with a negativity that then passes on to the people to whom the word actually, when properly used, applies! Surely I've explained this a dozen or more times now? So why are you still getting the argument so incredibly wrong as to summarise it thusly:

Dagon wrote:The other part of the issue is that Jack_Cade is trying to make some argument that slang usage is somehow universal amongst all members of a language group ...

I mean, I've never said or implied anything like this! It's bizarre, it's wrong, and it's a million miles from the actual point I've been trying to make!

Dagon wrote:...because they don't share some place of initial outrage ...

I have to wonder if this is coming through on the other end at all. Hello? Is the line fuzzy? Are my words getting garbled? Because I've already pointed out, probably more than once, that I didn't react with 'outrage' to Hasbro's initial mess-up. I don't have any beef with Hasbro at all. They made a mistake, they caught some flak for it, they cleared it up. My beef is with you guys completely turning a deaf ear to the damage done when you use a word that is associated with a minority group as an insult, and instead pretending it's all about cultural barriers.

Let me throw in another couple of examples in the vain hope that some kind of light will open in the clouds.

'Slag'. In Britain, this is a slang term for a promiscuous woman, and a very insulting thing to yell at someone - in certain circumstances, more insulting than 'spastic'. As a result, Hasbro don't name characters 'Slag' over here any more. But do I have a problem with 'slag'? No, I don't. I wish they *would* call the character 'Slag'. It's a good name and it works for him. We all know full well they mean the other meaning of 'slag'. More importantly, IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT IT'S SLANG AND IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT IT'S AN INSULT PER SE. Sorry to cap that up, but that really isn't the issue. So think about it. Why would I not object to 'slag', but still to 'spastic'? The answers, ladies and gents, are above and in my previous posts.

Second example: I'm going to assume, for these purposes, that some or most of you are white. Suppose you got transported to another dimension or another country where most people were black and 'whiteboy' was a derogatory term that meant 'buffoon' or 'loser'. So everywhere you go, guys are jokingly calling each other 'whiteboy'. "What do you mean you aren't coming out? Don't be such a whiteboy!" "You dropped the beers? You whiteboy!" . When you confront someone about this, they explain: "Oh, we don't use the word to actually refer to white guys. We're not racist. It's just, you know, kidding around. It's not offensive."

How long do you think it would take, honestly, before this started to get to you? Come on - be honest.

Burn wrote:

Jack_Cade wrote:Honestly, I didn't care at all about Hasbro making the blunder. These things happen sometimes. Mistakes are made. Hasbro did the decent thing and changed the name.

I think it's time people concentrated on this and give Hasbro the props they deserve rather than tearing away at each other over culture differences.

Long story short, "spastic" is a derogatory terms in certain parts of the world (more than just the UK) Hasbro listened and made the changes.

Why we're still debating over which country is right or wrong is beyond me. One culture isn't going to change just because another one tells them to. Let's take a page from Hasbro's book of tolerance shall we?

Probably the most sensible post in this whole thread.

Jack, let me explain something that you aren't quite grasping. You live on your side of the Atlantic, I live on my side. This is a cultural difference, and you have no place telling me what words are okay and what words aren't. In our culture, the word "spastic" carries little to no weight at all. It does over there, sure, I can accept that, and bravo to Hasbro for avoiding what sounds like a PR apocalypse.

But America is not bound to your laws. Don't try to tell me I can't say a word because YOUR culture doesn't like it.

And PS, I've only ever heard it called "cerebral palsy." I've never heard the term "spastic" attacked to it.