Sorry, unclear on my part. I'm happy to argue all day! (Okay, I do have laundry to do eventually.)

I meant that to assert "if you can't talk right don't talk at all" is to assert that disagreement should be silenced. Which I do think is eh, a bit strong. I'm a big fan of disagreement, and don't care for the idea that it should be silenced.

referred, very specifically, to people who use words like "retarded", "lame", or "bitch" as put-downs.

I'm afraid this wasn't very specific. As you'll see upthread you said If you can't express your feelings or ideas without using words like "retarded", "lame", "bitch", etc., maybe it's time to sit down and let someone else talk. You failed to include that part about "as put-downs" explicitly, although you may think it an inmplication so obvious it doesn't need to be stated. I don't think it's that obvious, which is why I restated your argument in bald terms to see if that was what you're really saying.

Also, I don't agree that "dehumanizing language" or even slurs are objective, inarguable categories. Dehumanizing and casting aspersions can be done easily in polite terms, as any member of Congress can tell you; and words change meanings often, not just in different contexts and to different individuals but over time.

Given that it's the put-down you seem to feel strongly about, and given that a put-down may come in many flavors including flavors that include no starred vocabulary words, I don't think that focussing on the vocabulary words is the way to go, when telling people to sit down and let someone else talk. Focussing on their intent to use those words for meanness, much more important in my book.

I would generally agree with "If you are opening your mouth only to be mean, then don't open it." If that's what you meant by the above, then we aren't disagreeing at all!