3 ms·

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 wo

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.

selfhoster11 5y ago
> 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.

selfhoster11 5y ago

> 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.