Actually the term was part of the original name for a label for special education... Mentally Retarded, which means only that developmentally the person is not where they should be yet. Because of the intense social stigma that has been attached to the word "retarded" the label has be changed to Intellectually Disabled.

That said, I am appalled that she would say that, but just like Geeogree said, she did it for a reaction. I think this is a good case to support the advice of our parents: Ignore them and they will stop. If people didn't react, positively or negatively, to such horrible statements by people like Coulter, then they would just fade into obscurity as their ratings plummet.

Elara : Unfortunately, people love uproars. As much as Coulter probably did it to make a reaction, many who despise what she did also enjoy making a commotion. It is a vicious cycle indeed. Luckily, I doubt anyone will be looking at a gaming website like this to find support in the uproar That is one thing I like about the debate forum on a website like this. People can just talk.

bvd1022 :
I think you misunderstood, i meant if your reading a column and that kind of wording is in it you should not take the rest seriously. Its suposed to be balance, well worded debate, blatantly biased things like that shouldnt be in papers.
Admitidly i think i called romney and his suporters retards so to put myself on trial:
1: i gave reasons why (good reasons, not on a political but intelectual basis)
2:i dont think of retard in its original sense, i think of it as people too lazy to think, to that extent i dont even think those with mental conditions should be labeled retards.
Many work twice as hard to do the same work an unchallenged individual does, thats something i respect.
3:it was an online debate. On paper i would have made it a lot more eloquent. You expect (or should) a level of profesionality from them.
Or maybe im being hypocritical. Everyone is at some point in time

thenumberone : I understood where you were coming from and what you were saying. What I was getting at is not all columnists do the things Coulter has. It gives a lot of us a bad name and even puts a bad taste in the mouths of those of us who really take pride in what we do and have a professional standard regardless if it’s working for an online website or publication or a printed publication or paper.

In my case I admit to being a screwed up teenager in my youth and I thank god everyday for giving me the gift of writing which is one of the things that helped straighten me out. Things may not be perfect but I am much better off than I was in my youth. I always try my best to keep a professional temperament even on social media when I may have someone take issue with something I wrote and may say in other words that I am full of it or accuse me of being on a promoter’s payroll because I don’t buy into certain things that networks say. At the end of the day I always call it as I see it and give it to my readers as straight as possible.

We agree that those kinds of things should not be in papers. There have been many times while I have worked on material where I have done some second guessing on how I word things and like I said before I always keep in mind as I’m writing what the reaction of readers could be and am thinking of what my responses to such reactions would be. I have written for websites and three magazines over the years. There have been some times where I will either tell the people in charge of a company I am providing content to of an idea of mine that may ruffle the feathers of some but I always try to keep the lines of communication between myself and those who I am providing content to open so that I have all my bases covered. I have also given a heads up on occasion to those companies after submitting material that it may be a little too rough and that I would more than willing to do a rewrite and make adjustments if need be.

I just think of it as professionalism and wanting to make sure that my work is as immaculate as possible even on those occasions where I know ahead of time based on the subject matter of a column that I am likely to take some heat. As I mentioned the piece I wrote following the Ortiz-Mayweather fight, I knew as I was writing it that I was likely going to get a mixture of opinions but I almost expected that I was going to take heat, which I did. Fortunately for me despite the heat I took I actually got more recognition than I expected or aimed for. As I said I never try to deliberately cause a controversy when writing a piece and certainly don’t look to make a spectacle of myself. It’s seems that Coulter’s mentality differs from mine in that regard.

I also agree with you that readers should expect a level of professionalism from those who are writers. I do however think that it can boil down to what a reader prefers. Certain writers individual styles may rub readers in different ways. In regard to my own style I was greatly inspired by George Carlin. As I said I consider him my idol. Carlin’s style was a style that I tried to pattern myself after, particularly how he would break a subject down piece by piece. As far as I’m concern the man was a genius. He may not have been liked by everyone but he was a legend and even if some may not have liked his views or stances on certain issues, I think you have to respect someone like that. I certainly do.

So I try to break down a subject and make as much sense of things as I possibly can. If you follow Boxing you know that more often than not there are controversies both in and out of the ring so I try to make sense of such controversies in an analytical, insightful and, entertaining manner. I will admit I may not be for everyone but the one thing a reader should expect from me is he’s straight forward and doesn’t pull punches.

It depends though on what a writer’s own approach is and a reader’s taste. Like I said I do not want to judge Ms. Coulter because I don’t like judging anyone but I feel that she made a mistake here and her refusal to admit it is troubling.

In regard to what you said about Romney and his supporters well, the only thing I can say is again part of the problem is more often than not people vote based on political affiliation and not on the issues or what’s good for the country. Sometimes I feel that some supporters of candidates no matter what their political affiliation may look for who they may be able to relate to. Who can they see themselves having dinner with etc. Although it is only human nature to look at things that one can relate to, values, wants, etc, sometimes there is more to it than that.

The two elections that I voted in I never tried to base my vote on who I could envision myself having dinner with or sitting on a bar stool next to me. I didn’t pay attention to what seemed relatable to me, my focus was strictly on who I felt would be better for the country in the long-term. When you get down to it those who run for office may be really good down to earth people but it should be what is best for the country and not necessarily how likable or relatable someone is. Some people however don’t vote with that kind of mindset. I feel this is one of the problems with our current system. As I said before the other main problem which feeds into why some people look for who they can most relate to is, there is just so much clutter out there especially in political ads which are designed to blur the lines of factual information, half facts, and fabrication. If there were a standard of honesty where voters were presented with nothing but facts without having to dig through endless excess clutter to see what’s fact and what’s fabrication I think at the very least people may be more informed on the issues.


Unfortunately our current system doesn’t seem at least outwardly to have that kind of standard. Those who want to vote certainly deserve it. Just one man’s opinion.

bvd1022 : well said.
And my objection to romney was that people were voting based on party instead of the character of the individual. Romney in the sense of uneducated i said was retarded. Like tying his dog to his car roof. Equally i questioned the intilect of those who voted for that kind of man. However aparently a lot of people still asociate that word with mental disabilitys though so in that sense id say i regret it. Language, its complex little thing. Meanings vary nation to nation. Here we dont call people with real conditions retards.

thenumberone : Language truly is a complex thing. Especially when it comes to different backgrounds and cultures. It always is an important factor. I say that because I don't want you to be offended by what I am about to say because this is something that I know applies to here. You said 'here we don't call people with real conditions retards'. Social protocol is the same here in that matter. It is frowned upon to call people who are mentally challenged retards. But that rule implies that it is less wrong to use that word as an insult for people without mental disabilities, which I dislike. Mainly because the word retard stems from the formerly acceptable term 'retarded'. At least in the teaching world and the mental health communities, using it that way is frowned upon too. When someone calls another retard or retarded, it is a way of calling them stupid. That implies that people who are mentally retarded are stupid, which is far from the truth. Again, I'm not saying that that is not your way of thinking or that your social norms are wrong. Like you said, language is a complex thing when you look at how it differs from nation to nation.

thenumberone : Thank you… Well it can be a challenge deciding who to back in an election primarily because again there is far too much clutter that blurs and clouds the real issues. It is on that basis that it can be difficult for someone to simply say “I like that guy” and truly know what that candidate stands for. It’s not so much about intellect as much as it is I think it’s A party affiliation and B those who are the powers that be of said party being able to really condition those loyal to their party of what they want to achieve. A good movie that I think fits into this discussion is a movie that HBO did regarding the last election called Game Change.

The movie centers on Senator John McCain’s selection of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate in the 2008 election. It is actually as about an unbiased look at things as I have seen. Although various parts of the movie make it appear that it is a comedy, it goes to show how certain tactics are used by political parties and entities in order to garner support. It seems that a lot of PR takes place to in essence condition those loyal to said party/cause yet almost completely ignoring facts. It also shows tactics and how Palin was in essence coached before her interviews and such. It is a really good movie for those who haven’t seen it. I do think that if there were mandatory things in place to force a standard of honesty with the American public and candidates, parties and special interest groups were forced to present their plans in full and only present factual information then things like intellect would have more of an emphasis rather than merely the “Us vs. Them” kind of mentality of our current system.

I do believe that people are far more intelligent than those political parties and special interest groups really give credit for. I think that is the reason why you see things as the way they are now. I mean for God’s sake you can’t even watch television or even some streaming services without seeing a political ad every couple of minutes during election season. It seems like those said ads have increased more and more over the years. If there wasn’t so much clutter maybe, just maybe we would see an election result in something truly fair and just if the voters were presented with the facts and only the facts. It would go against the formula of the current system and perhaps such a concept probably seems like a radical idea to some but I believe that something like that could honestly represent true change and maybe even a step toward true democracy.

As far as what you said regarding a candidate’s character. I think it goes without saying that we are all human, even politicians and we all make mistakes. I would feel safe in betting money that I don’t have that you would be hard pressed to find any public official on any level that you could say has never made any mistakes etc. I do think that if all facts were presented adequately to the voter that it might make things easier to determine one’s character or I should say what one’s opinion is of a person’s character so long as it’s something only relevant to the election and the actual issues at hand and not digging for personal attacks in an attempt to blur the lines and take focus off of the issue at hand. I think the voters deserve that much to be presented with the whole issue and not propaganda.

I think the conversation in the thread has moved too far towards the Presidential campaign. Though it somewhat ties, I don't want it to be a Presidential thread.

rcarter2 :
I am not insulted. As i said in my other post i may just be being hypocritical. In that sense id apoloise on my part for that, i didnt realise in america the association was still made, thats not my intended message so il abstain from using the word on the forum for clarity.
Also i didnt intend it to be about the us election, i agree its maybe to far that way now, i merely used it as an analogy of my view.
Although what i meant is that retard isnt generaly associated with mental disabilities here, as much as extreme stupidity.
As they say though, when in rome.
Im in rome and i apologise for what evidently was interpreted differently to what i perceived.

thenumberone : No apologies needed. It sounds like the word is used in the same context here as it is there. Here, it is also used to refer to mentally challenged and extreme stupidity. I'm on the side that strongly believes that the word should no longer be used to reference extreme stupidity because of the implications toward people who are mentally retarded. But I understand where you are coming from.

rcarter2 : As far as extreme stupidity a better word that could be used is ignorant or ignorance so long as it’s used in proper context and not in an insulting manner. As I’ve said there are better ways to get points across without being harsh or, resorting insulting others. There have been times as a columnist and commentator that I have to be harsh on certain things, certain topics, and certain situations. Even when I need to be hard-nosed in regard to my work I try as best as I can to not insult people particularly when a column concerns a particular person or while answering my readers. It can be a delicate balancing act at times but it can and should be done by everyone not just writers and public figures. My apologies if my previous posts took somewhat of a political tone, was merely trying to answer questions.

Odd how, of all the horrible (sometimes even racist!) things Coulter has said, *that's* what got people's blood boiling. Which isn't to say I condone it of course.

This is absolutely a true story. One day some months ago I was standing in the book store section of Hastings, the greatest store on earth. I happened to be in the "politics" section and I decided on a whim to pick up a book at random, open it to an equally random page, and see what I found. My eyes quickly fell upon the sentence, "Conservatives believe that civil society needs to be, you know, civil." You know what the name of that book was? "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America". By guess who. Isn't it great when things like that happen?