I have come across this issue several times in the past couple of years by the virtue of reading comments under articles. These criticisms are a part of the public record.
> And why do you suppose that is?
Most people learn words by figuring out what others call a certain thing, and then reusing that term to build a shared understanding of the world. This word is no different. At no point did this label acquire (in my perception) any connection to ability (mental or otherwise) until I first heard of it from US-centric English speakers. In my perception, it's the opposite: anything that is "retarded" is perfectly capable of being better designed/implemented or of making better choices, but instead actively chooses to do the worst possible thing for seemingly irrational reasons.
So you have read several times that this term is criticized as offensive, yet claim that in your perception the word is the opposite of offensive. What more would it take to get through to you?
> In my perception, it's the opposite: anything that is "retarded" is perfectly capable of being better designed/implemented or of making better choices, but instead actively chooses to do the worst possible thing for seemingly irrational reasons.
This is a such strange thing to double down on.
Not everyone is "rational" as you perceive them. That's the point. And it's not always an active choice. Some people are disabled. Some people think and act differently than you. You don't get to call them irrational any more than they get to call you intolerant.
> So you have read several times that this term is criticized as offensive, yet claim that in your perception the word is the opposite of offensive. What more would it take to get through to you?
Why do you want to "get through" to me? I heard the discourse, and disagreed with the arguments, it's that simple. I am perfectly capable of understanding a conflicting point of view without being convinced by the arguments.
> This is a such strange thing to double down on.
There is nothing for me to double down on, this is simply how I see the situation. Whether you choose to believe that I'm sharing my view in good faith, is up to you.
> Some people are disabled. (...) You don't get to call them irrational any more than they get to call you intolerant.
I already made it clear that I consider irrationality in the light of whether someone is capable of making the opposite (rational) choice. If they are not (for any reason, including disability), then there is no reason to call them rational or irrational, because you cannot measure their behaviour with this metric.
I have come across this issue several times in the past couple of years by the virtue of reading comments under articles. These criticisms are a part of the public record.
> And why do you suppose that is?
Most people learn words by figuring out what others call a certain thing, and then reusing that term to build a shared understanding of the world. This word is no different. At no point did this label acquire (in my perception) any connection to ability (mental or otherwise) until I first heard of it from US-centric English speakers. In my perception, it's the opposite: anything that is "retarded" is perfectly capable of being better designed/implemented or of making better choices, but instead actively chooses to do the worst possible thing for seemingly irrational reasons.