Quote Originally Posted by FFN
See where this is going? You've already shown that Hasbro tries to be culturally sensitive when they are aware of a problem.
In one instance. And even then it was completely unnecessary and should never have been done IMO.

Quote Originally Posted by FFN
If they didn't know there's a problem, how could they respond to it? Why would they do a google search for a word that, to Americans, seems perfectly reasonable?
Apparently they did it for Slag... what gets me here is the seeming contradictory standards from Hasbro. They wanted to avoid using "Slag" in fear of offending people in the UK - even though they really wouldn't have... yet it was fine to use "Night Slash Cheetor," "Slapper" and now "Spastic" without any regard for potential offence.

I'm not saying that Hasbro _should_ care about this sort of thing, because really, in the correct context these words aren't offensive. "Night Slash Cheetor" is called so because he skulks around in the dark slashing people with his swords, not because he likes to go around urinating in late hours. "Slapper" got his name because... erm... he likes to slap people? Or maybe that's the sound he makes when he jumps? (because the original Car Robot name "Gusshar" is the Japanese onomatopoeia for the squishy sound a toad makes when it's stepping about). And yeah, even "Spastic" would be completely acceptable if it's a description of a highly excitable or energetic character. Fine, I get that.

But what I don't get it is how Hasbro wasn't willing to apply the same standards with "Slag." Just as 'spastic' is not an offensive word when used in the context of describing someone hypo (at least in the U.S.), then neither is "Slag" offensive in the context of smelted metal.

See... what gets me isn't so much that they're calling a toy "Spastic." What gets me is that Animated SLAG got totally gipped and was named "Snarl", all for the sake of Hasbro's New-Found International Political Correctness Sensitivity Policy(TM). And now it seems that they've abolished their NFIPCSP in allowing a toy to be called "Spastic." I dunno about yours, but my Animated Snarl is probably gonna be pret-ty Night-Slashed off when I tell him about this. Yup.

But anyway, I think Hasbro's International Division really should think about modifying this toy's name for its non-American Anglophone market.
From wikipedia:
"The word spastic is used differently depending on location which has led to some controversy and misunderstanding..... The word in common speech can also be used in a pejorative context. The level of severity depends on whether one understands it as it is used in the United States or the United Kingdom. In the UK it is considered an offensive way to refer to the disabled..... The current understanding of the word is well-illustrated by a BBC survey in 2003, which found that "spastic" was the second most offensive term in the UK relating to disability (retard was deemed most offensive). In 2007, Lynne Murphy, a linguist at the University of Sussex, described the term as being "one of the most taboo insults to a British ear"."

All they would have to do is print off some stickers with a variant name to stick over the packaging and instruction booklet. It's relatively inexpensive and, IMO, worth the effort in order to protect Hasbro's corporate image/reputation. Also, it might make U.S. completists go nuts and pay premium prices to buy some "foreign exclusive variant"... so maybe local collectors here could buy spares and try to hock them off at inflated prices to Americans. Hehehe... oh, I mean, NO! That's bad... don't do it!

Quote Originally Posted by Hursticon
I'd actually disagree with that Seraphim, as would one of my mates of 21 years who is a Homosexual.
He himself has told me that people calling each other 'Gay' is not offensive to Homosexuals whatsoever, or at least that's how he and his partner feel, and it is his belief that it is only offensive once you've given it a context.
I agree with Seraphim. The word "gay" when used as a synonym for something undesirable and negative (like "stupid") then makes it offensive because it is implying that gays are undesirable and negative people. Whether gay people personally find it offensive or not doesn't necessarily change that.

From wikipedia:
"When used with a derisive attitude (e.g. "that was so gay"), the word gay is pejorative. While retaining its other meanings, it has also acquired "a widespread current usage" amongst young people, as a general term of disparagement. This pejorative usage has its origins in the late 1970s. Beginning in the 1980s and especially in the late 1990s, the usage as a generic insult became common among young people.

This usage of the word has been criticized as homophobic."

Quote Originally Posted by Hursticon
What you have done is exactly that, you've given 'Gay' the context of Homosexuality and hence associated all the other meanings that the word 'Gay' can have and pinned it to Homosexuals.
I think everyone understands that when people use the word "gay" to describe something in a negative context (e.g. "Spastic is such a gay name"), that they are using it in the context of homosexuals as a synonym for negativity.

I think it's fine to use the word "gay" outside of that context though. For example, some people are now challenging the line from "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" where it says "How gay your life must be." -- now, to take offense to that is just silly. Obviously they're using the word 'gay' in the context of being happy, and I don't think children should be insulated from it, but simply taught about context - because context is a major part of how languages work.

But having said that, there are some words that, when they become widely taken offensive, that it may be unwise to assign that word to the name of a children's toy. For example, imagine if I made a Transformer character whose tech specs profile describes him as being extremely sociable and a great communicator... so I call him "Intercourse." Contextually I'm using the word in its correct meaning. In reality, I'm probably gonna get complaints from parents. A colleague of mine found a school report written around 1900 which described a male student as having "excellent intercourse." The teacher was of course praising his social intercourse... but I reckon if I wrote that now in a student's report, I'd probably end up in a spot of trouble.