The recent very serious edition of theWashington Post tackled the question of Retards: what of this word, "retard"? Are there perhaps pros and cons to the word "retard," and can we divide the competing arguments into two page-filling columns, from "retard" experts? What can the art department gin up for a "retard" debate?
Okay, got it: for the pro-retard, bring out the ol' eternally-missing-the-point stock column, "[This word], too, is protected under Free Speech." The word in this case will be "retard." If "retard" is a word (presumptuous?), and we are allowed to say any word, because of the Constitution, then what are people so worked up about?
For the anti-retard, get Tim (it's Tim, yes?) Shriver to fax over one of his "Why retard is a mean word" columns that he keeps by the toilet.
Objectivity remains key, and interactivity is also a thing: get a poll that asks people: Should we outlaw a really mean word, or would the Constitution make that unconstitutional? Because there's no clear answer. And why won't Obama bomb Iran anyway?
Illustration: This is how "retards" would write out the word "retard." Vertically, unaligned, scratchy, and with little snow bullets clamoring at the gates.
Defending the R-Word [WP]
