I haven't been following this thread too closely, but there are some random additions, anyway...
I think a hypercritical reaction to language is annoying and to a limited extent not that relevant. Policing language has a place in law, in institutional policy, and in formal public pronouncements. So I would support a certain formal position in relation to language, when language is considered as an institution. But then luckily I am not an official spokes-person for anybody but myself so....
On the other hand, everyday usages can be indexes of ignorance and intent to be harmful. But these are usually obvious. Among children it makes sense to correct their use to conform to a certain respect and tolerance for differences. It's not okay for kids to use n-word, beaner, chink, bitch, faggot, etc. and so using spaz, retard, etc probably falls into a similar category of obnoxiousness. Outside of these sorts of provisions, I usually ignore the politics of language, unless of course that is the topic of discussion.
And yet again, language is public perception, made concrete, so it requires some modification to re-entrain that perception---bring it into conformity with a more enlightened, tolerant, and accommodating position.
In any event, of all the various groups I've met, probably the Deaf are the most addiment about the uses of language. In this case, many deaf people, don't consider deafness a disability. I am not sure what I think about that. I've never been in a position where I had to decide the point so I could conveniently leave it to others. On the other hand, as long as you are around mostly deaf people, there is no disability as such. If you don't sign, then you are the disabled stranger. And I have sensed a certain mild enjoyment taken in talking passed me in those contexts...
But in the case of the Deaf, the primacy of place of language makes sense, since language itself is a central component of Deaf culture. That is to say, language is a public institution of the Deaf as the Deaf. And yes, I think there is such a thing as Deaf culture.
Yet, if this position on the Deaf is taken to its formal end point in law, then what? What happens to the ADA definition of disability as conditions that significantly impair...? I think if you take the more radical Deaf position to its end point, then you arrive at a socio-cultural determination similar to Native Americans---that is peoples of separate nations. Thankfully, I don't have to figure that out, since I can just go along with whatever the Deaf formally decide.
My real problem with language is I can't seem to invent sufficiently vindicative, harmful, and hate filled epitaphs for the rightwing, religious fundamentalists of various breeds, and especially GW. Dehumanizing language just doesn't quite capture the depth of feeling I have for these .... whatever they are.
Chuck Grimes