These terms are quite subjective, I think. Each one can have a very different meaning or effect. I find some terms stupid like insisting upon "firefighter" over "fireman" or "police officer" over "policeman". In my opinion the suffix "man" is just an archaic term for the job, not specifically derogatory to females in that line of work. On the other hand I can see how it would grate to be a female in the police force and having a constant reminder that you were once deemed too weak to do the job.
"Retard" has heavily negative connotations and is an offensive word on a par with most racial slurs in my opinion. I have a sister with Downs Syndrome so obviously I'm a little sensitive to the issue and pick up on the negative connotation more, but it may not be as offensive to someone who doesn't have that connection, if you catch my drift. To someone with no connection to anyone with such disabilities "retard" may still be the original medical term, and have no connotation for them. This can lead to the term being used benignly but offence being taken anyway.
So to answer the question I think political correctness is needed to a certain extent for polite discourse, but not to the extent that it actually infringes on free speech, as has happened in some examples endlessly cited by the Daily Mail or Fox News. I can think of very few cases where political correctness has objectively gone mad, but from someone else's point of view it very well may appear that way. Personally, I don't think so.
"Retard" has heavily negative connotations and is an offensive word on a par with most racial slurs in my opinion. I have a sister with Downs Syndrome so obviously I'm a little sensitive to the issue and pick up on the negative connotation more, but it may not be as offensive to someone who doesn't have that connection, if you catch my drift. To someone with no connection to anyone with such disabilities "retard" may still be the original medical term, and have no connotation for them. This can lead to the term being used benignly but offence being taken anyway.
So to answer the question I think political correctness is needed to a certain extent for polite discourse, but not to the extent that it actually infringes on free speech, as has happened in some examples endlessly cited by the Daily Mail or Fox News. I can think of very few cases where political correctness has objectively gone mad, but from someone else's point of view it very well may appear that way. Personally, I don't think so.