Now, you are making some sense.

You now explain your reasoning, and your reasoning makes perfect sense, though I completely disagree with your first statement. From a strict design point of view, there is no such thing as a redundancy: you design to solve a problem, your solution is ONE solution — even if it includes multiple features to allow a user to reach the same goal.

We do need to be “technical”, if we want our field (and culture in general) to push forward. That requires (among other things) a lexicon of words with somewhat precise meanings. “Redundancy” is one of those words. It has a very specific meaning, and I think your article erodes that meaning.