unacceptably offensive on two grounds

Mind if I have an attempt at analysing that

1. It uses the word "shit".
   Dictionary definition:
   1. Excrement.
   2. The act or an instance of defecating.
   3. shits Diarrhea. Used with the.
      1. Something considered disgusting, of poor quality, foolish, or otherwise totally unacceptable.
      2. A mean or contemptible person.
   4. A narcotic or intoxicant, such as marijuana or heroin.
   5. Things; items.
   6. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
   7. Insolent talk or behaviour.
   8. Trouble or difficulty.
   9. A small or worthless amount: He doesn't know shit

   If the meaning intended was the 1. above, then the subject matter is vulgar, but hardly offensive.

   There is a saying over here. "Even the Queen's shit (probably) stinks".

   Excrement may be unpleasant, but how something that every human being in history has had no option but to deal with on a daily basis can ever be considered "offensive" quite boggles my mind.

   However, the literal use of the word excrement is pretty obviously not the intended meaning here. The most likely meaning is 5. "Things; items".

   Again, this usage may be considered vulgar, but "things" are offensive?

   Sounds like a Carry on... style caricature of Victorian prudishness to me.

   • It makes a negative and insensitive reference to the mentally handicapped (retardo).

     The vernacular, "retardo" presumable derives from the word "retard".

     re·tard2 P Pronunciation Key (rtärd)

     n. Offensive Slang

     1. Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
     2. A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.

     The dictionary definition agrees that retard can be offensive. However, there are two possibilities given. The first is genuinely offensive. To disparage a person for something entirely beyond their control, is offensive.

     To the individual concerned, and to the wider group of similarly afflicted people. But it seems likely, the usage in question is the second.

     The person on the receiving end of the quip is being accused of acting like they were retarded, when they in fact aren't. The term is not used disparagingly of the mentally handicapped, only comparatively.

     If I say you are taller than Michael Jordan, am I disparaging Michel Jordan in a height-ist slur? Or simply comparing you to a known standard?

     In this case, the use of "retardo" may be offensive to the target of the quip, but so would comparing them to a mentally handicapped person. Should we be offended for that person?

     The lack of vulgarity doesn't remove the offensiveness to the target person. And the comparison does denigrate the mentally handicapped. The use of a group reference in a comparison can be offensive.

     Example: Saying to someone: "You're as stuck up as the English".

     This can be deemed offensive as it implies that all English people are stuck up.

     But saying: "You're like the English"; is not, without some further context.

     In this context, saying: "You're like a mentally handicapped person"; would be tantamount to being offensive, because it categorises all mentally handicapped people as being at some, implicitly low level, which they clearly aren't.

     But saying that someone is acting as if they were mentally handicapped, isn't offensive to the group, only the individual. Should we be offended for that person?

     Personally, I think not. We all have our moments of acting below our ability or without proper effort with the result we do less, or achieve less than might be reasonable expected.

     Is it offensive to have this pointed out to us?

So then you get the questions:

• Is there a difference between the vulgar and the offensive?
• Should the group (society) protect (censor) the individual against either?

  If the answer to this second question is "yes"; how does either the individual or the group benefit from such censorship?