[mitthrowaway2]

That's the euphemism treadmill though, isn't it? "Retard" literally means late or delayed (hence French: en retard). Back when it was originally introduced to refer to a handicap, it was chosen for that reason to be a kind, polite, and indirect phrasing. That will also be the fate of any new terms that we choose. Hence for example in physics the term retarded potential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential) was chosen to refer to the delaying effect of the speed of light on electromagnetic fields, before the word had any association with mental disability.

Words don't need to retain intrinsic hurtfulness; their hurtfulness comes from their usage, and the hurtful intent with which they are spoken. We don't need to yield those words to make them the property of 1990s schoolyard bullies in perpetual ownership.

To that extent I'd still say this article's usage is not great.

[barrkel]

> Words don't need to retain intrinsic hurtfulness; their hurtfulness comes from their usage, and the hurtful intent with which they are spoken.

Yes; and a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Words don't need to retain intrinsic hurtfulness, but it's not quite right that the hurtfulness comes from the usage either. The hurtfulness comes from the actual referent, combined with intent.

If I tell someone they are idiotic, imbecilic, moronic, mentally retarded, mentally handicapped, mentally challenged, I am merely iterating through a historical list of words and phrases used to describe the same real thing in the world. The hurt fundamentally comes from describing someone of sound mind as if they are not. We all know that we don't want to have a cognitive disability, given a choice, nor to be thought as if we had.

The euphemism treadmill tries to pretend that the referent isn't an undignified position to be in. But because it fundamentally is, no matter what words are used, they can still be used to insult.