In general, I agree with you; however, I do believe that the ableism activists often go too far, and as a language professional, I'm not going to stop using an appropriate word because someone is offensensitive. There's a big difference between using "gay" (with its historically positive or neutral denotations) as a slur and using something like "lame" or "weak" as slang. Those words have negative connotations because they have negative denotations. It's built in to the words. Disability IS bad. That is not the same thing as saying that a person with a disability is bad, and if someone chooses to define themselves by their disability, that's not my problem. Language needs opposites and our brains need dichotomies. It's medically and linguistically ridiculous to insist that we shouldn't apply negative connotations to words that only exist in the first place because they represent concepts that are negatively experienced by most of those who do experience them. "Lame" is negative because being lame SUCKS. It hurts and it's inconvenient and awkward and tiring and sometimes scary. And anyone who tries to tell me there's nothing wrong with being lame is just going to get an eye roll from me. Same with "weak" and "crazy" and "insane".

And speaking of reasons for existing, I really hope you're not trying to "reasonably enlighten" yourself via drama communities. By definition, those places are not going to be bastions of well-reasoned thought, balanced arguments, and common sense. They exist because people enjoy getting huffy and histrionic or enjoy watching others get huffy and histrionic. If you think being outraged is fun and go looking for reasons to get outraged, well, sure, you'll find plenty. Doesn't mean they're good or valid reasons. Might as well drop a potato in boiling water then complain that the potato and the splashes are both hot.