Hey I’m a linguist and I’d like to chime in! Great article!
There’s this misconception that language is exclusively a communication tool. In reality it’s a cognitive tool that helps us process the world around us. This is why writing something down helps you figure it out or why we sometimes talk to ourselves. So, very broadly, the more ‘linguistic effort’ you put into a task, the better you’re going to remember it. This is also another reason why writing notes in lecture by hand helps you remember better than if you type on a laptop. Pressing a button or tapping on a screen is a lot less ‘linguistic effort’ than writing a letter by hand.
Another consequence of language being a cognitive tool is that it’s intertwined with a lot of the ways we use physical tools. In fact, some historical linguists use the emergence of complex hand tools as evidence of when language emerged in our pre-history. But that’s a very complicated subject for another time. There is some evidence that cognitively, proficiency with fine motor skills are correlated with language processing functions (big caveat that I’m not a cognitive linguist). So writing might not only help you slow down and be deliberate about what you’re putting on a page, but the act of writing itself might also be intrinsically linked with language processing.
This is all not to say that typing is a somehow bastardized version of language production. It’s just that we’ve decided that easier is better, which in the sense of language learning and maintenance, isn’t really the case.
Edit: TL;DR: O’Neill is passing a value judgement on language change, something the field of linguistics considers poor practice.
Linguist specialising in swearing and offensive language here. Furthermore, I am actually a corpus/computational linguist who has done statistical and computational research on the subject (O’Neill is a statistics and mathematics professor). The gist of O’Neill’s argument is that words are made insulting by virtue of having euphemistic counterparts. To simplify, euphemism here is a technical term for any word that takes the place of a word considered more offensive. So “mentally handicapped” by this definition would be a euphemism for “retarded”. In reality, euphemisms develop as a reaction to a term that has become offensive. “Retarded” did used to be a medical term that referred to someone who is developmentally disabled, but it began to be used as an insulting term in non technical speech, and so the technical term changed to reflect this semantic change and distance itself from the offensive term. (This is wildly simplified. I wouldn’t even consider “developmentally disabled” to be a euphemism at all but this is just to make it easier to explain the point without giving a whole intro to linguistics lecture)
He also argues that a lot of terms now considered offensive are changing primarily for performative reasons. This is also not really the case, and we can demonstrate that with “retarded” versus “developmentally disabled”. In general, people have started preferring terms that are more specific and descriptive. When we rephrase the term “mentally retarded”, we see that it essentially means someone has a “slow brain”. This, however, is no longer considered to be accurate for many people that used to be diagnosed with conditions under that umbrella and so the label has changed to reflect that.
Language is always in flux and will never stop changing, just like species will never stop evolving. O’Neill is taking what is considered a prescriptive approach to language, which means deciding how language should be used. Virtually all linguists now agree that linguistics is a descriptive science and prescriptive approaches to defining language are often futile at best and counterintuitive at worst. Basically what I’m saying is if people want to use these terms, even if it’s for the reasons that O’Neill is describing, it is not inherently a “bad thing”. It’s just a “thing”.
Rude language, swearing, and insults are also constantly changing as society changes. It’s an established fact that the semantics and pragmatics of a term will change over time. Some terms will become more offensive and some will become less offensive. It’s just a thing that will inevitably happen as society shifts and changes.
Edit 2: O’Neill also does not provide any linguistic evidence for his claims, he’s mostly going off of his own perception of them. Basically, his argument doesn’t really hold any weight because he hasn’t actually proved that these terms are actually used in the way he describes or for those reasons.