Merriam seems politically biased imo as this fails to explain the meaning of many modern day uses like "fire retardant" or the numerous uses in physics. The google definition from oxford perfectly explains its formal meaning as well as hint at how it could also be used as an insult.

Holding back a fire in terms of progress also seems like a perfect fit.

Indeed, it is a common word in the subject areas you mentioned. Strange they didn't have an inflammatory or hostile reply when given a legitimate example of correct usage of language.

We're not talking about 'fire retardant'. The quote is:

> macOS still has a completely retarded implementation of DisplayPort MST

> completely retarded

It's extremely frustrating how many people in this community chose to defend this comment as if it were an eloquent description of the issue.

Calling attention to problematic language is not hostile or inflammatory. This term is flagged as offensive in the dictionary in this context. Don't shoot the messenger.

I think deliberately interpreting other people's speech only within the framework that your mind works in is problematic. It doesn't even matter if there's consensus — you're choosing to interpret it as ableist despite it clearly not being used in that manner and you refuse to acknowledge that people different from you use language differently. How is this not a bigoted stance to hold? It's language imperialism.

Exactly right, this is why such snow flake identity politics that redefine words should not be allowed on HN. It's effectively ruined twitter and a good chunk of the internet, so it should stay over there.

It's silly that the OP wishes to turn a conversation into computer monitors into a conversation about bad or good words.

They are biased. By their definition of “anti-vaxxer” people who merely oppose vaccination mandates are anti-vaxxers as well. [1]

Which is, frankly, quite insulting to me, because I’m vaccinated, and consider myself by no means an anti-vaxxer, I oppose vaccination mandates.

But Merriam-Webster says I’m an anti-vaxxer so I guess I must be one ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

Sorry but I think you’ve lost the plot. This has nothing to do with anti-vaxxing.

The first definition is "very stupid or foolish" which seems quite apt given the context. The second one talks about a disability, which does not really seem applicable since we're talking about monitors and not people.

So where is the issue exactly? He used the word correctly as far as I can tell.

That still fits. OP is describing the product which they believe to be sub standard and likely want to imply offense to it. There would be a difference between "This product is shit" and "You are shit". Both are sending offense to the target, but one of them is a computer with no feelings.