Well, you go right ahead and attack whomever/wherever that argument shows up. I don't see anyone arguing that it's the single axis. (Correct me if I'm wrong. I miss things.)
Stupid is a perfectly cromulent word. If you can come up with something that can take its place, I'm all ears. Every other synonym I can come up with seems like putting a little frosting on "stupid" and claiming that that's a better solution. I asked above, does anyone think that "maintenance engineer" really gives someone more self-respect and the warm-and-fuzzies any more than "janitor"? Do we really think we can remove "person" from describing a person with autism? What are we talking about? An autistic tree? Do you actually find that putting the word person in the expression somehow separates the subject's "personhood" from their "autism".
Further, the sort of language policing being proposed generally assumes that the user doesn't actually understand the negative connotations of the term being used. Really? Does anyone not understand that saying someone is stupid is an insult, or that saying that their post or their theory or their term paper is stupid is not more of the same?
"Don't call me stupid! That's an outmoded and negative term, based on separating those with intelligence from those without."
"Yeah, I know. And?"
So, I guess I'm biased. I can't abide stupid people. I do agree that it's a rather personal word, though. Not so much as "personal insult" as that's patently obvious, since it's generally meant as an insult. It's personal insofar as we all have different concepts as to what makes up "stupid". It's sort of like modern art... I know it when I see it.
These nitpicks over language have value up to a point. Someone who uses "broad" to describe women and thinks that's acceptable, probably needs to have a (figurative, of course, as I'm a borderline pacifist) little soft shoe routine done on his wind pipe. But some of the current debate/discussion seems to be all based on SJ oneupsmanship.
