I'm not sure about building a list of restricted words, because there's a whole lot of words that could be used in inappropriate ways and I feel like such a list would become unsustainable as more and more words gets added to it. Don't get me wrong, I certainly believe that using words like autistic as an insult is worthy of moderation, I'm just not sure if that's the best way of handling it.

I'll leave my personal view on this here, for the sake of transparency. I don't think that we need to add the word "autistic" to some kind of black list. The truth is, we already have rules in place against things like trolling, as well as insulting or disparaging people in broad terms. If we feel somebody is using autism - or whatever other language - for these purposes, it's already within our discretion to take action against them. Furthermore, and I believe this is what this whole thread comes down to (at least from the perspective of curl's intentions), there's this: "You have the right to express your opinion, as long as it is relevant, justified, and presented in a civil manner."

I mean at the end of the day, it's very simple guys. Just be civil. Sure enough we can all have moments where tempers might flare a bit, and we say something we regret, or perhaps something that seems innocuous to some, but is ultimately hurtful to someone else. We deal with it, we move on. Real problems only truly arise when people are purposefully, and continuously disrespectful towards one another. If you are somebody who feels that they cannot get their point across without resorting to some form of verbal abuse, or purposefully provocative language that might incite it. If being asked to be just a little mindful, and considerate towards people is an issue for you, that's a problem. 

Brief example: Let's say I'm hanging out with a friend, and we regularly use the word gay to describe something we think is lame. We do this completely non-maliciously. It's just a habit developed during our teenage years. We are then joined by another friend, who is gay, and is perhaps - justifiably - more sensitive to the usage of that word, in such a context, than we are. Well, then we're going to go ahead and not use said word, in that manner, around him. Not because it suddenly means something different to us, or because we think our friend might misinterpret us as using it maliciously, but simply because we know it bothers him, and we're not assholes. Now, take a similar scenario, and imagine it online, where it is much more difficult to gage a person's tone, and nobody is as well acquainted as they might be if they knew each other in person. In this type of setting, it's even more important to be mindful of what you're putting out there.

TLDR: Just don't be an asshole

Okay, I've read only a handful of pages, but I've read enough to feel that I know what the rest say. I think most of our members are wildly overreacting to a very mundane post that does nothing more than request consideration. The prevailing reaction has been to suggest that the OP is demanding the blanket prohibition of the word "autistic" and kind of freak out. The said contributor himself clarified way back on page 1 that that wasn't the case and that he was but kindly requesting its more appropriate application in the future, but since people apparently can't be bothered to read more than one post before replying, the needless controversy continues on page 18. There is a real irony to this collective meltdown in that the purveyors thereof accuse the OP of hypersensitivity. I just wanted to point out that irony because it's really, really stupid.

It all really depends on the context you leverage such words in... As often certain derogatory homophobic-insults are leveraged as greetings in the LGBT community... (I know this, because I am part of said community.)
But if you have someone with a little more malice in their intentions, such wording can be extremely derogatory and in some instances, harmful rather than a friendly greeting.

Treat others the way you wish to be treated.

Again... Context is key. There is a time and place for everything.

Being in a Democratic country doesn't entitle you to freedom of speech, they are separate, unrelated constructs.
Just like some dictatorships do allow freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech doesn't actually entitle you to state whatever you desire without repercussion, there is a crap-ton of restrictions on free speech.

And you should care.

In short... Just be nice to others. It's not hard.

I do actually agree. Calling anyone anything that is remotely derogatory shouldn't be allowed.
I would like to think we are all mature enough to forgo such rhetoric anyway.

Well. I am of the belief we shouldn't need to ban specific words.... Because a single word can be applied multiple ways to a situation.
Rather we should place a ban on how words are used.

I.E. Ban using any word as an insult, regardless of how benign it may initially seem.
Of course that does mean that there is a degree of interpretation on our behalf.

Never heard of jokes or sarcasm? Also so what if someone uses the word as an insult. Ad hominem is already against the rules.

Calling people 'assholes' & 'Nazis' in this thread is fine, but 'autistic screeching' is where we draw the line?

Calling people Nazi is not fine either and most in here agree with that.  

I'm not a fan of blocking words outright, but I can't think of a single time where I would condone using it in a negative context. I mean come on...surely the English language is diverse enough that we don't need to be double-dipping on mental conditions to insult people. Outside of its intended use, I've only seen "autistic" used in the same context as "retarded"...and I really don't see why anyone would want to reserve that right. Freedom of speech shouldn't imply freedom to be an asshole, and surely a little empathy isn't so hard to grasp.

Overall, I'd say context is key, like usual, but I just can't imagine someone calling another user or individual "autistic" negatively and not supporting moderation on it.

It's not about negatively calling someone else autistic. It's about people using the word autistic as part of a joke, but they're not intentionally trying to insult anyone.

As the OP says, people should have the general courtesy not to use it if others are bothered that much, but you can't ban people for a word if they're not being intolerable or abusive.
People have different views on what's appropriate or how sensitive they should have to be, but if they're not being malicious I don't see why you can't just ignore them.

Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

A good read: https://medium.com/personal-growth/hanlons-razor-how-to-avoid-common-missteps-in-judgment-c83afc4e2168

" Hanlon’s Razor is an effective check on a tendency that we humans have: to quickly judge that something bad that happens to us is the result of an intentional evil action. This kind of thinking is mistaken for 2 reasons:

1. Intentionality of the robust kind we assume is rare.
2. Evil intentionality is even rarer. "

In other words, people who use memes like "autistic screeching" are just having stupid fun. The chance of them actually thinking ill of autistic people is pretty low.

Sure, I can see that, chances are you aren't actually saying someone has a mental condition. It all comes down to how you're using it I guess. I'm probably guilty of using "retarded" to describe...say...manga endings I disliked, but if I used that word to describe someone then I'd expect to be moderated. No one has the right to be a jerk, even if your intention isn't literal, there's no mystery what the implication is.

As far as the example you cited...honestly it seems classless to me and I don't find it very funny, and not sure why describing it as 'autistic' drives the joke home better. Maybe I'm just crazy. I think empathizing with people who might actually have that condition is never a bad thing though.