I know we can go into some profound philosophical discussions on acceptability (or not) of one word versus another however it would be a very lengthy conversation that most would not be willing to participate it. This lack of enthusiasm to participate may be due to the fact that it is not there "thing", or because they fear repercussion for their opinions, or because there are no true answers and they feel it is a waste of time or because.....
In the example you provided above, you have to judge the intent, delivery and reception of the word or message. If you fail at any point, then you essentially fail the process. We should work to improve ourselves and uplift one another so when evaluating the "autotragic" are you accomplishing both, either or none. Yes it may be true to you that a sports car should have 3 pedals but what off the person that can't drive stick? Do he feel uplifted by your labeling? Does it serve to motivate him to be associated with a transmission that should be reserved for the handicapped or disabled? Did it make you a better person to use a word that makes you laugh while potentially offending someone else? For the like minded this is a funny label, but you can appreciate that the intent in the matter were self oriented (funny to you, and representing your ideology of a sports car), the delivery was selfish (because you have a constitutional to express what ever is on your mind), and the reception (at least for the person offended) was off the mark. Could some bystander hear your comment and easily extrapolate other negative ideology from you, such as a position that BMW dual action clutches are for sissies, or that Ferrari's paddle shifters are for uncoordinated sports car wannabes etc... Don't get me wrong, I do have certain PREFERENCES for my sports cars but no hard nose positions which may interfere with my abilities to enjoy them or have other enjoy them as well.
I do agree with a previous post describing the 30/30/30 (although I think the current statistics may be a little skewed from such a clean up representation). My question is: "Does the fact that we live in a society represented above excuse our obligations to make it better?". It would be a huge cope out for me to just decide one day to revert back to dropping f-bombs just because it seems more effective and less time consuming then having a rational conversation? I think you can agree with me that the f-bomb in my previous example could be construed as a bullying tactic. Foul language use to be hugely frowned upon (a few years ago), and a sign of de-evolution, but being that the media, movie actors, high ranking people of industries are using it (or expose us to it), we become desensitized and therefore tolerate it... and all of a sudden we wonder why we have 5 year olds with potty mouth that grow up to influence the next generation in the same, and slowly gradually our societal standing start declining in the eye of the rest of the world. Regardless of our desensitization, foul language will never be viewed as an "improvement".
If you did not like my f-bomb example, I could give you the same argument about pornography. It also use to be hugely frown upon and a sinful behavior which lead to the break up of many marriages etc.. Things haven't changed regardless of the fact that we have been so desensitized by the constant bombardment of sexuality in advertising etc... And the fact that close to 40% of the internet is porn speaks volume as to its presence in our lives. Did this improve our marriage statistics or did it create a false impression for the mass as to what should be happening behind closed doors? Actually to the contrary, it improved our divorce stats because we believe there is bigger, better, greater just around the corner.
I could go on and on.... but the message remains the same. We are not improving but regressing. We are not evolving as a society but fronting and other countries are taking notice.