I do not agree with your assessment of “reality.” Only one side is actively against bodily autonomy (especially for women) and wants to look at kids genitals and police which toilet a human shits in. Only one side courts the religious ethnostate fascist where their whole stance is in-group vs. out-group (aka, demonization). Pointing these out isn’t demonization, these are facts. If someone likes politicians from that side, the odds are good it does indeed make them suitable for the various negative labels they don’t like. The late Dr. Bob Altemeyer studied right wing authoritarianism (both the leaders and followers) and even developed a rubric that would predict right wing authoritarian followers. They are dangerous because they eschew reason for vibes and are extremely susceptible to demagogues.
Give this a read and see if it changes your opinion on “both sides”
I think “slur” also requires a component of direct offense for it mean anything. I don’t think it is valid to be offended for somebody else if that somebody else isn’t actually offended. If I make up a slur on the spot denigrating some aspect of your person that you do not find offensive (eg. Flumplenook - for a person who’s a bit clumsy), is it really a slur?
So if you call someone retarded, and they do not have the mental faculties to be offended, is it really a slur?
For slurs to have any meaning, any power, they need to be understood and internalized as offensive.