It's ok people we don't have to get all philosophical and say "but oh, the ideas that no one understands are the world changing ones!".
No, just no.
I understand this just fine. It's retarded.
"Retarded" to me doesn't mean what you may think it means to me. When you call something "dumb" do you realize that the word was originally used to refer to mute people? No? Well, neither does anyone else. Words evolve, and I'm sure that no one uses "retarded" because they want to make fun of people with real medical issues. They use it because it evolved to mean something completely different.
No, wait, you see, it now means something entirely different! It doesn't mean anything to do with gender, it means you should have a thicker skin. So it's not actually offensive, right?
Let's take the word "bitch". It is deemed "offensive" but it's original connotation was just simply "female dog". However it evolved into the meaning it has today.
1) Some people are legitimately hurt by the use of the word retarded in a derogatory manner (eg. http://www.r-word.org/r-word-effects-of-the-word.aspx).
2) You are choosing to use it and offending them.
Argue all you want, but the fact remains, you have no doubt offended someone. Is using whatever word _you_ want (ie. being a bit selfish) worth hurting someone else? Would it be that much trouble if you used another word, was still able to make your point, and not hurt someone's feelings?
It's one thing to accidentally stumble upon something that might offend someone, but it's quite another when you ignore the fact that your actions hurt someone and continue to engage in that activity willingly.
I don't mean to single you out as others below have used similar language, but it's something to think about.
did you really, truly, honestly believe that that comment was a roundabout drive-by on mentally-challenged people?
because frankly, that kind of uncomplimentary inference impugning someone else with unsavory motives is repugnant.
i came here to say a dirt-simple "no thanks" to the idea, without commenting on it, because its stupidity was simply too obvious to require any statement. but that doesn't mean i believe kevin rose is "stupid", because i certainly don't.
i can separate the idea from the person who suggested it.
and if somebody else calls it a "retarded" idea, which is simply another way of saying that it is a _stupid_ idea, then i don't think they're criticizing kevin rose either, let alone a class as _remote_ as the mentally-challenged.
retarded people can use lots of help. so give them some, instead of engaging other people in pointless semantics.
because you're _not_ helping, or making anyone "think"...
-bowerbird
-bowerbird
A simpler as well as potentially better idea might be to just make it easier for bloggers to attach small animations or videos, of any length, to their posts. A way of sort of merging Youtube vlogs with regular text blogs. A GIF or MP4 of the author could maybe make gestures/facial expressions at certain things on the page as you scroll down, and perhaps you could just have a static one waving in the background. Probably audioless as well.
I'm not sure my alternative would be very useful either, but I think it would be a little less "retarded".