I think even if there’s no absolute “intrinsic” meaning, with sufficient cultural use, that negative meaning is impossible to extricate from an unironic, active use of the word.

I’m not sure of a succinct way to say that, so I see why intrinsic may have felt right. Maybe firmly established meaning?

I think it’s a little academic to say “any offensive word” can be said in an “inoffensive manner”

Technically correct best kind of correct? 😄

I point it out because some people get carried away with bizarrely simplistic claims that make the rest of their argument hard to follow. The best way to interpret their argument is unclear.

we’d then need to debate what it means to “use” a word in an offensive context versus another

I think it could suffice to state it was used in a conventional sense as an insult or to stir animosity. Musk clearly is using it in the conventional, offensive sense to outrage progressive & elicit right-wing support of outraging progressives: classic demagogy.

Back to your contention, yes, he’s using the firmly established meaning to offend & be bad, which bad people do. People criticize him to try to hold him accountable, which he is exploiting to advance his agenda.

While I can’t see the comment you’re responding to, I’m going to guess it concerns the question why do words offend & do we need to let them offend us that much? You wrote

Nobody is making the word bad.

This is the crux of the matter. Conventions change, words change meaning. It’s not instant & uniform: various people influence & promote changes that not everyone agrees with, leading to contention. Some people do make words bad. This case had a campaign to do specifically that when the word was uncontroversial until then. People had to choose to make that word more offensive than it conventionally was, and not everyone was onboard with that with many still holding out.

To see that choice, consider the words idiot, imbecile, moron. These words had similar origins as technical designations for mental disabilities, they have similar meanings and serve the same role as insults that aren’t that offensive. The current meaning & usage crowded out the historical one enough that it’s effectively forgotten.

The word we’re discussing could have taken the same course & was on track to do that until some well-meaning activists intervened. What good does changing a word objectively do for the subjects they’re trying to support? If anything, it reinforces taboo. And it introduces a new, easy button to provoke moral outrage: if you don’t agree this word in particular is very offensive (unlike before), then you hate people with mental disabilities. Seems like a disservice.

This moralizing conflict over words gives demagogues easy ammo to exploit. Was there a better way to support people that doesn’t do that?