“…for this we apologize.”
“Thank you for your follow up call to the email that you sent yesterday.”
Hey, as far as I know, spastic is fine in the US.
I just find it an odd construction - nobody on earth says “deaf and dumb language”, they say “sign language”.
Yes, but . . . they thanked her for her follow-up call–more than for the contents of that call. And it’s a weaseling apology–not a repentant one. Or maybe I’m splitting hairs.
But I don’t blame Francesca for feeling that this apology and thank you are insufficient at best. I’m not sure there’s a lot she can do for a reasonable return on her investment of time, but I don’t blame her for feeling unsatisfied with what she has gotten so far.
Sorry, but I really don’t see why “deaf and dumb” is such a big deal. My dictionary gives the following as the primary definition of “dumb”:
Sounds fair enough to me. Why should a perfectly good word be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness (ugh) and replaced with some ugly designed-by-committee alternative?
There is far too much namby-pambyism and pussyfooting around these days, and five-guinea words being used where a simple, well-established and easily understandable word will do. All that phrases like “hearing-impaired” and “orationally disadvantaged” (and add “sense-of-perspective-challenged” to that list) will do is confuse. Call a spade a spade, and don’t be so quick to jump on the offence wagon.
Deaf people don’t know better than to use sign language in playing charades? :dubious:
One problem is that corporate apologies always sound a bit cold. I would guess this is because the writers of these apologies are actually trying to speak for an organization that has no thoughts or feelings. As far as letters go, I think the one received by the OP was also clouded by the previous phone call.
I know it’s considered unacceptable now, but I don’t know that that was true in 1986.
You most likely talked to someone who has no authority to make such a promise, like a consumer relations representative or some other spokesman. He can’t tell you they’ll never do it again because it’s not his decision. He is able to raise the issue with his bosses and I hope he will do so, and maybe they’ll update the card. Give the company a little time to go through whatever its process is.
I don’t think your complaint is wrong, but I agree with the posters that being a bit more polite and patience with the company would be a good strategy.
True–it’s not really so much weasely as it is generic. Which all goes back to the (perfectly reasonable) advice for Francesca to dial it back a notch or two, because she is likely to be unable to talk to someone in a position to make the decision she wants to have made–especially given the amount of time she has given them to think about it.
This is like complaining that a Pictionary clue is offensive to blind people.
Keep in mind that making such a correction is usually more than simply a matter of retyping it. Once things go to printers, making small changes can be a big deal. Valid as you complaint might be, they may only be willing to go so far for the complaint of one person.
I think you were out of line to call within 24 hours and demand to know when they get back to you. They’re a company that makes board games, their complaint calls are going to be about missing game pieces and bad directions, not, you know, cultural sensitivity issues. And why would you need a copy of complaint procedures? From their perspective, you give them one day to reply and are already upset with their timeline. I would have given it at least a week for the message to land on the desk of someone who is able to make an appropriate response (probably whoever writes games), and I would not have made response time an issue so soon.
So I think your complaint is valid enough but your approach was rather confrontational, and suspect the company has written you off as one of those customers.
Better go after these people, too, then:
The Catholic Church.
Like Marley23 said, the person writing the letter probably does not have the authority to make any changes to the game. He may not even have the ability to speak directly with anyone who has the authority to make changes. So he can’t promise that changes will be made. He can’t even promise that the complaint will be forwarded far enough up to have a hope of causing a change.
Heck, if there’s no complaint procedure, there may not be a procedure in place to make changes to the game, either. If that’s the case, the complaint would have to be adopted by someone willing to push the change through all of the meetings and arguments and flack that setting up a new company procedure would take. And someone’s bound to say, “well, if we’re making changes, we might as well do a full review and update while we’re at it.” If that happens, the change is either killed or delayed.
I don’t blame whoever wrote the letter for not promising to make the change. And if they outright admit in writing that the card is offensive and then the higher-ups don’t change it, they’ve made the company vulnerable. It still could have been a better letter. The only up-side is that you’re not dealing with someone who’s good at weaseling. And the complaint is on file. If someone else complains, they may get a better letter.
Give yourself credit for making the complaint and following up. A lot of people would have just complained to friends and family.
You insisted on a fairly immediate answer. This is all they can tell you right now. It may be that the next edition of the game, or the next printing, might not have that card. But there isn’t anyone there who can simply say, “Okay, we’ll fix this now. That card won’t be in there anymore.” It will require some retooling somewhere along the line, and that will involve some expense and time. So, yes they will discuss it. Did you want them to promise something they don’t know about yet?
Do you mean like “sign language” rather than “deaf-and-dumb language”? Because that’s a much more universally understood, simple construction and it has the added benefit of not being offensive.
It was already unacceptable in 1986. I must be getting old; all of a sudden it seems people are getting a pass for being ignorant during times when I was fully adult and aware. I mean, sure, my mother told me we had to make allowances for my great-aunt using the word “pickaninny” because she was brought up in a different time, but 1986 was really not all that long ago.
But yes, I’d be satisfied with that response from a company. They didn’t blow you off, and now that you’ve brought the issue to their attention, I’d be willing to bet they’ll fix the language for the next printing of game cards.
Cheatwell games? snerk
You do realize that the Catholic Encyclopedia linked to above is a 1917 edition… right?
Spastic? I know why retarded is considered offensive now, but why is spastic? And when did it get added to the list?
“Dumb” was pejorative when I was growing up in the 1960s. I’m quite surprised that a company used it in the '80s to refer to mute people.
I’ve never heard it until now. Having dealt with a lot of deaf people, I actually hear the name of the actual language (either ASL or SEE) far more often than just “sign language,” which is ambiguous. Obviously, though, most Americans wouldn’t know what ASL means (it stands for American Sign Language).
Are you somehow of the opinion that deaf and/or mute people are unable to play charades or games like it?
I can see why the OP was offended, but the companies response was about what I’d expect.
I was kind of shocked when I received correspondence from an animal shelter in Colorado called the Denver Dumb Friends League. I kid you not.