I'm not sure that we're participating in the same conversation. They were medical terms, yes. They have an every day use, yes (that was exactly my point). They became outmoded and less useful, yes. But, no, not everyone who has used or uses those words is a proponent of IQ-based euthanasia, rape, and segregation.
Any reasonable people will criticize someone who bullies others who are in a weaker position. It's the bullying what is to condemn, not their particular use of words.
> But, no, not everyone who has used or uses those words is a proponent of IQ-based euthanasia, rape, and segregation.
But using those words leads to a culture where these things are more possible.
Ann calls Bob a retard.
i) Bob has a learning disability. Ann is either a bully, and should be condemned. Or Ann is using outmoded terminology, and she should appreciate the help she's given when people give her better information.
ii) Bob doesn't have a learning disability. Ann is a friend and they're having fun. What they do between themselves is up to them, but they're using hate speech casually, and they should at least consider the effect that use has on people who have learning disabilities.
iii) Bob doesn't have a learning disability. Ann isn't a friend, and she's using it as an insult. Ann needs to realise that her use of the term as an insult is contributing the continued abuse of people with learning disabilities. By using the word we diminish people with LD as less-than-people.
Part of the confusion is cultural difference. It's normal use in US to say "That's retarded!" and it's not at all offensive to most people. But it's really offensive to people from other countries.
Any reasonable people will criticize someone who bullies others who are in a weaker position. It's the bullying what is to condemn, not their particular use of words.