> But I think collateral damage may be unavoidable no matter which word you use for this ... they might be reminded of their own limitation and feel ashamed or

> But I think collateral damage may be unavoidable no matter which word you use for this ... they might be reminded of their own limitation and feel ashamed or inadequate because of it. This issue is that when people use "retarded" as an insult, they are saying people with intellectual disabilities should feel ashamed. When they use r- as an insult, they're saying that their target is acting like they have an intellectual disability, and that that's bad. https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-word-is-the-r-slur https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-wor... This is distinct, though related, to criticizing people's intelligence. When you say something is stupid, you claim you're saying it's bad because it's unintelligent. Is that why you're criticizing it? Should you be criticizing things for being unintelligent? This is a more general point than the use of r- as an insult, but it is indeed a topic which is raised by avoiding r-. I don't think the broader topic should be used to avoid talking about r- though. > I think the solution to this dilemma is to be aware of who might overhear you. The type of impacts depend on who hears it, but you don't need a target of the insult for the insult to be bad. You are still perpetuating the idea that people with intellectual disabilities are shameful when you use r-.