Below is a powerful response from a man with Down’s Syndrome to Ann Coulter who recently called President Barack Obama a “retard.” He is Special Olympics athlete and global messenger John Franklin Stephens. He is also the antidote to today’s hateful political discourse.
Dear Ann Coulter,
Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren’t dumb and you aren’t shallow. So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult?
I’m a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the public’s perception that an intellectual disability means that I am dumb and shallow. I am not either of those things, but I do process information more slowly than the rest of you. In fact it has taken me all day to figure out how to respond to your use of the R-word last night.
I thought first of asking whether you meant to describe the President as someone who was bullied as a child by people like you, but rose above it to find a way to succeed in life as many of my fellow Special Olympians have.
Then I wondered if you meant to describe him as someone who has to struggle to be thoughtful about everything he says, as everyone else races from one snarkey sound bite to the next.
Finally, I wondered if you meant to degrade him as someone who is likely to receive bad health care, live in low grade housing with very little income and still manages to see life as a wonderful gift.
Because, Ms. Coulter, that is who we are – and much, much more.
After I saw your tweet, I realized you just wanted to belittle the President by linking him to people like me. You assumed that people would understand and accept that being linked to someone like me is an insult and you assumed you could get away with it and still appear on TV.
I have to wonder if you considered other hateful words but recoiled from the backlash.
Well, Ms. Coulter, you, and society, need to learn that being compared to people like me should be considered a badge of honor.
No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.
Come join us someday at Special Olympics. See if you can walk away with your heart unchanged.
A friend you haven’t made yet,
John Franklin Stephens
Global Messenger
Special Olympics Virginia
Wild Willy, I’m not jumping in here for Mike S, just responding on my own.
We on this blog are quite accustomed to the idea of getting called out for saying something that offends. Goes with the territory. Fine. If I don’t want that I shouldn’t be here blah-blah-blah-ing; I should get down to doing some useful work making this world a better place, clean up an oil spill or something.
So Ann Coulter gets up on her platform and spews her “Retards” speech. So she gets verbally attacked on all sides for it and most notably and most eloquently by John F Stephens, may his name be always remembered! Good for her and Good on him. Anybody else who uses words and gets reactions, fine. Fine with me, fine.
I wouldn’t support anybody responding physically with harmful action to speech that offended them; I do, however, find “speech and responding speech” perfectly A-O-K whether it pleases me or not.
Speaking for myself, I absolutely intend to insult a bunch of my fellow Americans when I call them teabaggers. Arguments from ignorance, their seeming speciality in matters legal, historical and political, are an insult to us all and the Constitution when they are put forward as if they merit serious consideration. Respect is earned not due and the same goes for derision.
And offense is an individual reaction and a consequence of free speech.
You have no right not to be offended.
“It is hardly becoming to criticize Ann Coulter if we are not willing to criticize ourselves, too.”
Mike Spindell,
Why did you assume that “ourselves” was referring to the United States of America? I understood “ourselves” to mean those who post comments on this blog. IOWs, if we’re going to chastise Coulter for saying things that would be offensive to others, why not also hold Mike Spindell accountable for the same when he posts a comment?
I don’t think Coulter intended to offend those who suffer from mental retardation, and I don’t think you intend to offend a bunch of fellow Americans when you call them “teabaggers”. However, if we’re going to hold people accountable for how others may be offended by what is said; shouldn’t it start at home? Your home? My home? This blog?
“It is hardly becoming to criticize Ann Coulter if we are not willing to criticize ourselves, too.”
Wild Willie,
Did you notice the quotation marks I put around that phrase? Did you notice the sentences above it where I explained that that phrase came from a comment by EnochWisner? Obviously you didn’t because you attributed that sentence to me. Now perhaps you want to go back and read that entire comment again to inform yourself that you read it wrong and in the processed mis-judged me.
“I don’t think you intend to offend a bunch of fellow Americans when you call them “teabaggers”.
Now in addition to misquoting me your also pretend to read my mind. I definitely intended to offend a bunch of “fellow Americans” who call themselves the Tea Party, yet originally called themselves “Tea Baggers”. I find them offensive and I find what they support inimical to the American Constitution. To me they are a rather offensive lot, that I’ve also written about in the past. year: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/03/the-real-tea-party-not-today%E2%80%99s-tea-party-fakes/ I doubt you will take the time to read what I’ve linked because you obviously haven’t taken the time to read everything I’ve posted on this thread which basically disagrees with your statement here:
“However, if we’re going to hold people accountable for how others may be offended by what is said; shouldn’t it start at home? Your home? My home? This blog?”
and explains why I disagree.
“It is hardly becoming to criticize Ann Coulter if we are not willing to criticize ourselves, too.”
Huh?
When I go to a theater and see a great performance and I applaud loudly for the performer, must I then think, “It’s hardly appropriate for me to give kudos to this actor if I’m not also willing to give kudos to myself as well”? No.
When I encounter someone who behaves in a wrongful and abusive manner towards me for no reason, and I give them a piece of my mind about it, must I then think, “It’s hardly appropriate for me to oppose this person’s conduct if I will not also call my conduct into question with as jaundiced an eye”? No.
If Ann Coulter has more media opportunities than I do, and than most people in this country do, to jump up and say something she wants ME TO LISTEN TO and she wants ME TO AGREE WITH, must I be willing to criticize myself if I find her way way WAAAAAAAY out of line in what she offered as a public pronouncement from a supposed authority figure?
HELL NO. Even if I’m a total a55hole who soundly deserves EVERYBODY’S CONDEMNATION, I’m free to criticize Ann Coulter without offering up on the altar of “pseudo-equality-based-self-effacement” a little blushing “me too” of mea culpas. When someone deserves a thrashing as much as Ann Coulter does now, I don’t need to put on my hair shirt to administer a few licks of my own.
id707,
What you do or don’t infer is of little concern to me. If I was talking specifically about you? I would be specific. I have been in the past. There is no reason to change that now.
idealist,
“The rest of my exchanges between ElaineM and I is the usual tit for tat exchanges which so many “discussions” deteriorate into here. Misunderstandings are SO easy, now aren’t they?”
*****
I express my opinion and respond to your questions in the best way that I can. I don’t believe that I have been involved any type of “tit for tat.” I don’t think my responses have “deteriorated” the discussion. Apparently, you don’t agree with or approve of my responses on this post. What would make you happy–that I agree with you and not express my opinion?
ElaineM,
Thanks for your kind and open hearted explanation of how it went from your side. Without details, let me say that I shall ponder but already can say that I accept your presentation.
While it is not solely to your credit, I find the next
step in my development entails two steps actually:
1) Don’t let violation of favorite principles (in my case) lead to questioning others on their use/abuse of them. My admonition of reflection before reacting should apply eqyally to myself.
2) Sometimes, personal considerations override violations by others. I must ask myself also how many times I have been excused in spite of my own violations.
The problem being practicing what I preach. 😉
Mea culpa. Thanks for today.
GeneH,
Just got back.
———–
Gene H.
1, October 26, 2012 at 6:51 am
Nonsense.
People judge each other all the time. That person is nice, that person is naughty, that person is smart, that person is stupid, that person had really got it together, that person is insane, that person is pretty, that person is ugly. It’s what we do as a species.
The admonishment of “Judge not lest ye be judged” from Matthew 7:1 does not mean “don’t judge”. The moral lesson behind it and the mote and beam metaphor is about avoiding hypocrisy in your judgements and accepting that in pointing out the faults of others there is equity in counter-criticism. Just so, hypocrisy is something to be avoided in general, but in the practice of free speech this lesson is reflected in the principle that one is entitled to have and express any opinion they wish but that opinion is not free from criticism nor does the speaker have a right not to be offended. Criticism can be either constructive or destructive but that is in the mind of receiver. It is what it is, but what you do with it is up to you.”
———————
My name did not appear in your comment. But supposing to judge from your later comments to me, one could assume that it sas.
In fact, in relation to me, the whole is a strawman argument.
I have never said that anyone should hold in with judgements. It is quite impossible for all mammals to do. So to suggest an impossible is not something I would do. But it makes a convenient strawman for you to set fire to.
—————
The rest of what you wrote is irrelevant to me, as it does not concern things which I said. I called merely for a clarification. The rest of my exchanges between ElaineM and I is the usual tit for tat exchanges which so many “discussions” deteriorate into here. Misunderstandings are SO easy, now aren’t they?
David Blauw,
Most people are not all one thing or the other. I have a friend who is similar to yours although his particular boogie man is Rush Limbaugh. He’s not a bad guy otherwise, but when it comes to politics and pundits he’s nuts. If Rush said it, it must be right, which as history has proven is rarely the case. Entertainment is not news. I try not to pay attention to most of them personally. They are entertainers. What they say and think is irrelevant other than it impacts what ordinary everyday people might understand as the truth because their celebrity gives their often uninformed or deliberately deceitful opinions more weight than they should were they exposed to critical scrutiny of both their logic and usually cherry picked facts. That’s a long way of saying when it comes to pundits, their specific content is less relevant as it is almost always flawed by ideological spin than their disproportionate effect on society is because of their “status”.
enochwisner 1, October 25, 2012 at 7:10 am
John’s comments are a rebuke to anyone who “races from one snarkey [comment] to the next,” just for the amusement it affords them – or to achieve a completely unjustifiable sense of superiority, take your pick.
It is hardly becoming to criticize Ann Coulter if we are not willing to criticize ourselves, too.
————–
Is there another John on here!??!
Where I come from you don’t have to criticize yourself, there are plenty that will do that for you…and don’t think I haven’t had my turn in the barrel! LoL
As with most I do have opinions, and I do put them out there, but unlike some I don’t carve them in stone. Make a good argument and my mind can be changed…I try to be open minded.
As for my post “someone got a good spanking”, it wasn’t tearing down anyone, it wasn’t a negative against her, it was a positive comment of support for the letter.
(There must be another John on here….)
That’s supposed to be a 🙂
GeneH
“Succubus-like media personality spreading hate with almost every pronouncement across a wide swath of mediums because some vile bitter old rich white guys think she’s a cute cheerleader when she’s really simply a hateful imbecile much like her supporters.” :0
One of my water hole companions has a number of good human being qualities**/ .. but does buy every Coulter book and brags about his desire for her !!!
SHEESH… That’s when I usually order a shot and look for other conversation.
I worked with him for 3 years before I realized he was NOT joking. We seldom talk politics, it is futile. The only way I can talk politics with him is with my fingers in my ears so I can’t hear what he says, and ditto for him. Kinda like what occurs much too often in our current political Red-Blue dichotomy.
idealist,
You wrote: “You are here using the familiar tactic of implying that I insult the whole of the other members of the blog, and strive thereby to enlist their support for your cause.”
My response: I wasn’t talking about you. I was referring to Enoch.
*****
You wrote: “Now I have reached the conclusion that you address me not to confine and solve our differences, but instead expand it so as to avoid solving it by discussion of the original points of difference. Does my every word of rebuttal raise new ire in you? It would seem so.”
My response: That’s your perception. I left comments on this post. You chose to address me to explain about Enoch and his prinicples. I responded to you. I’m not looking for an argument–just expressing my opinion.
*****
You wrote: “Just as ignoring, in my view, unbased and inaccurate accusations by you to Enoch, have and will not be ignored ever. ”
My response: What are the unbased and inaccurate accusations that I made about Enoch?
*****
You wrote: “Go ahead and exchange knowing smiles. Nothing new there.
But will you turn around and look in the mirror, realy look, as you do when searching after new wrinkles.
“I would not be surprised if you both found a good portion of judgementalims in disguise, but also a bit much of -righteousness also. They usually ride in pairs.”
My response: Enoch was the one who claimed to be so principled. He suggested that anyone who criticized Ann Coulter was as bad a she. I’d call that being judgmental–not principled. That’s why I agreed with Blouise when she wrote the following: “Don’t you just love the judgmentalism that tries to mask itself as fairness.”
AY,
That is why there are true trolls (paid trolls or those who do the work freely for their own ideological reasons) and the trollish (others who do the work unwittingly either out of ignorance and/or being deceived by others working against their best interests). Both use trollery (bad logic, suspect argumentation, misinformation) as their methodology. But being a true troll is an act of specific intent. For example, Enoch is shaping up to be a purposeful volunteer for the Koch manipulated teabagger agenda. Bdaman on the other hand simply often didn’t know what he’s talking about and/or his logic was just wonky. Both are trollish, but only one is a true troll by the mens rea standard.
I’ve learned not all trolls are trolls…. They just appear that way….
You got an answer. That you did not like it or (more likely) did not understand it is not my problem. Believe it or not, whether you in particular understand what I write is not only not a primary (or even secondary) concern of mine but it presumes (wrongly) that when I address you that I am necessarily speaking to you or for your particular benefit.
I explained quite clearly what got Enoch’s trollery attacked, id707.
Nice snowstorm GeneH.
All I ask and still ask, unanswered, is what specifically of what Enoch said, motivated her condemnation of him.
And that was expressed as and is obvioudly a neutral question.
All else since has bes been to her “seeing” me as an attacker, as of olden times, ie mine here.
Not having succeeded in getting an answer I retire content, Not all tasks can be achieved.
No snarks, haven’t been any on my part the whole time. Although some have managed to implicate me with several, falsely so.
Defending unpopular causes is one mistake. Defending those who come out with trolling the thread away to other themes, which happened to be mine too, is no reason to defend the cause just then.
Apologies? No, to myself only. For not thinking before speaking. Came to learn I claimed.
Bye for now. Read you later. Errands.
“All I ask and still ask, unanswered, is what specifically of what Enoch said, motivated her condemnation of him.”
ID707,
To answer that question why not look back at my comments on Enoch’s first response. I think you’re strangely not getting the point that he avoided totally any condemnation of Coulter by pivoting to this endpoint:
“It is hardly becoming to criticize Ann Coulter if we are not willing to criticize ourselves, too.”
Think of the implications of that:
It is hard to criticize Hitler, without criticizing Stalin our ally to.
It is hard to criticize Hitler, without condemning FDR for not bombing the train tracks leading to the death camps.
It is hard to criticize Pearl Harbor, without criticizing FDR for America’s presence in the Pacific Rim.
Hyperbole perhaps given Coulter’s relative importance in the world, but apt examples of this type of logic. Perhaps in my life I have been a really bad person, does that fact keep me from being able to state the truth about the acts of another bad person? I think not. The difference here is I think Elaine is a very good person, just as I think you are and Enoch’s critique was, as I’ve shown, hardly one of a disinterested bystander. By his own words he sees commenting here as “guerrilla warfare”. This specifically indicates that he has a specific agenda, which he is loath to reveal.
Nonsense.
People judge each other all the time. That person is nice, that person is naughty, that person is smart, that person is stupid, that person had really got it together, that person is insane, that person is pretty, that person is ugly. It’s what we do as a species.
The admonishment of “Judge not lest ye be judged” from Matthew 7:1 does not mean “don’t judge”. The moral lesson behind it and the mote and beam metaphor is about avoiding hypocrisy in your judgements and accepting that in pointing out the faults of others there is equity in counter-criticism. Just so, hypocrisy is something to be avoided in general, but in the practice of free speech this lesson is reflected in the principle that one is entitled to have and express any opinion they wish but that opinion is not free from criticism nor does the speaker have a right not to be offended. Criticism can be either constructive or destructive but that is in the mind of receiver. It is what it is, but what you do with it is up to you.
Example: I don’t want others making sexual choices for me. It interferes with my right of self-determination and my natural proclivities. Ergo, I do not judge people for their sexual orientation (unless it’s children – which is evil – or animals – which is just ridiculous). Why? What two consenting adults do is their business, not mine, just like what I do is none of their business. A perfect lack of hypocrisy.
What I do judge is when people think it is their business to interfere with the sexual lives of others engaged in consensual sex because they are (usually) religious busy bodies. They want to try to oppress other under the guise of their right to free exercise and that violates the principle of “your rights end where others begin”. It’s a valid principle of equity and egalitarianism in the examination and execution of individual rights. Ff people don’t like my criticisms they are perfectly free to respond in kind.
Elaine is free to criticize Coulter however she pleases, but the hypocrisy isn’t there when Elaine is not guilty of the very criticisms she levels against Coulter. Just so, Enoch is allowed to say what he likes in defense of Coulter but quite simply not all defenses are meritorious and one based on “look to yourself before you criticize” is the equivalent of calling Elaine a hypocrite for her attack on Coulter and her actions, in short, it’s ad hominem and not used for impeachment but rather to simply attack the speaker instead of the argument.
It’s a common troll tactic on Enoch’s part.
Just because some buy it as some kind of “principled” stand because they “just want everyone to play nice” or some other such hooey that is in fact a limitation on free speech instead of seeing Enoch’s weak tactic for what it is based on its argumentative form simply means they haven’t learned the lessons of either good argumentation or how propagandists work.
Ad hominem attacks have there place. They are not the same thing as simple insult. This is a fine example of the misuse of ad hominems that don’t impeach the speaker (Elaine is in fact not a hypocrite as Elaine is not a Succubus-like media personality spreading hate with almost every pronouncement across a wide swath of mediums because some vile bitter old rich white guys think she’s a cute cheerleader when she’s really simply a hateful imbecile much like her supporters) and are meant to distract from the argument/criticism proper by attempting to shift focus to the speaker.
Anyone not a Succubus-like media personality spreading hate with almost every pronouncement across a wide swath of mediums because some vile bitter old rich white guys think she’s a cute cheerleader when she’s really simply a hateful imbecile much like her supporters can criticize and judge Ann Coulter for being such all they damn well please both ethically without danger of being a hypocrite and legally as a matter of free speech.
“Anyone not a Succubus-like media personality spreading hate with almost every pronouncement across a wide swath of mediums because some vile bitter old rich white guys think she’s a cute cheerleader when she’s really simply a hateful imbecile much like her supporters can criticize and judge Ann Coulter for being such all they damn well please both ethically without danger of being a hypocrite and legally as a matter of free speech.”
Genes righteous rant bears repetition. This game is a common tactic of tea-baggers and faux Conservative hypocrites. Coulter has made a career out of making vile judgments (i.e. being liberal is un-American) and consequently deserves vilification for her obviously hateful pandering. Those who vilify her specifically are not logically countered by saying words to the effect of: well your side does it to. A hateful act is not mediated because someone could point to a hateful act done by others. An example of this is a terrorist attack on innocents. The act can be rightly condemned in and of itself. Offering evidence that the entity being terrorized has acted similarly, is merely an immature, illogical way of justifying murder.
Egality is great, let’s all do it, and until attacined fight on.
But since our funding and effectuality is insufficiaent, we should perhaps try the method proposed by Enoch—–ie
start within yourself. Eventually we all may merge seamlessly–in 10,000 years.
“Elaine M.
1, October 25, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Blouise,
“Don’t you just love the judgmentalism that tries to mask itself as fairness.”
Sure do!
————————–
Go ahead and exchange knowing smiles. Nothing new there.
But will you turn around and look in the mirror, realy look, as you do when searching after new wrinkles.
I would not be surprised if you both found a good portion of judgementalims in disguise, but also a bit much of -righteousness also. They usually ride in pairs.
Gathering the tee-hee group for a mutual support session, are you girls?
Typical human frailty from childhood, never leaves some.