[zahlman]

That's the thing. They aren't taking offense to mean-spiritedness directed at the person being referred to that way, except in cases where that person actually does have such an intellectual disability. And such language is normally directed at people of ordinary intelligence, to call them out for failing to think things through when they're perfectly capable of it.

There are, and should be, contexts where insulting people is socially acceptable and where such insults should not be censored. And no matter what words you use (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill), it's fundamentally impossible to get rid of the idea that a lack of (demonstrated) intelligence is inherently negative.

(It's noteworthy to me that the same activists don't seem to be able to identify any terms denoting lack of physical strength that are inherently offensive - except insofar as they invoke gender stereotypes. Why should it be any less objectionable to call someone a "weakling", for example?)

[tshaddox]

The criticism of the target’s intelligence or competence isn’t the mean-spiritedness I’m referring to. I’m referring to the deliberate and inherent mean-spiritedness towards people with intellectual disabilities that the slur is explicitly invoking.

[zahlman]

>I’m referring to the deliberate and inherent mean-spiritedness towards people with intellectual disabilities that the slur is explicitly invoking.

I disagree that any such thing is invoked. It seems that you believe that when the word "retard" is used in these contexts, that it's meant to describe a person with an intellectual disability. I think it's merely intended to describe someone of low intelligence, which neither necessarily qualifies as nor is necessarily caused by a disability.

Nor do I agree that it's mean-spirited in a way that, say, the word "stupid" isn't. It's just more intense.

[gitaarik]

I don't think insult should be socially accepted, it shouldn't, it's not a nice thing. Rudeness, impoliteness, offense, why would we socially accept them?

Freedom and cencorship is another thing. You have the freedom to be rude and impolite, and it shouldn't be censored. But yeah you shouldn't expect people to like you or listen to you.

[zahlman]

>Rudeness, impoliteness, offense, why would we socially accept them?

Because multiple kinds of social space exist, and some people enjoy being able to interact with each other that way and are happy to accept being the butt of the joke their fair share of the time.

[gitaarik]

Ah yeah, you are right, there are people that have been exposed to it so much that they think it is normal, and a necessary part of life.

Well you know, things can change. In the past it was a family outing to go watch a beheading. That was normal for them and good entertainment. And they would have used the same arguments as you to somebody critical about it.

And you're right, it is a valid choice, and if you really enjoy being humiliated, by all means, you have the freedom to.

I do think eventually when the rest of the people have grown up and moved on to much more intelligent endeavors, that you might start to think differently too. But maybe not, everyone has their own interests.

[zahlman]

This sort of dismissiveness is not helpful to your cause.

[gitaarik]

What am I dismissing?

[gitaarik]

Haha, wait, are you offended? I thought you were one of those people who would enjoy that.