This is kind of a mixed bag of terms. I'm generally in agreement with the application of explicitly and solely medical terminology being applied out of its context as being harmful language. That is, the belittling of ADHD and OCD etc. by way of attempted sympathy. This is obviously harmful. On the other hand, some of these are so far removed from any specific medical condition, or are in reference to conditions so common to human history, that the term in question doesn't seem to be used in a way that meaningfully stigmatizes the condition further. In other words, words can have multiple meanings. By this, I'm talking about the use of blind, insane, dumb, stupid, tone deaf, psychotic etc. Often those are used as strong language, and strong language is no substitute for real argument, but I think there are better reasons to avoid using them in serious argument or characterization outside of claims of ableism. Calling someone you don't agree with stupid isn't usually convincing to them, and in itself doesn't constitute an argument; on the other hand, it's a useful idiomatic shorthand for inherently short sighted positions informed by nationalist propaganda. The r word does still have its attached stigma; that's why no one complains about banning it in our supportive leftist space.

All that said, explicitly policing wide swathes of informal language, where the claim of ableism is arguable, is in itself a form of classism often. Insisting that comrades who have been failed by the already shallow education system, whose natural expression of their own oppression will likely include many of these terms, have themselves become an oppressor by not using sufficiently formalized language, that they have failed to meet a standard for comradeship by not changing deeply ingrained parts of their idiomatic expressions, reeks of a privilege without a praxis. Should we try to use better language than this? Of course. But it should be because we have better arguments to make and as a natural extension of community strengthening, not as a measure of immediate linguistic purity. To insist otherwise is to emphasize an exclusionary measure against the naturally expressed informal form of language as it is really spoken. I welcome someone explaining to me why being more thoughtful than the blanket condemnation of any language that refers to disability or can be construed as referring to disability is a bad thing.

Pre-post edit: I am once again sincere posting on dunkable material that I took at face value. Post still stands though, ableism is worth thinking about so we can resist the inevitable turn to making it the next battlefield of identity politics without meaningful change.

e: saying autistic people don't have empathy...wtf. I honestly think that this thread might be an elaborate bit.