Perhaps it would be worthwhile to define a seven-level Nicomachean Scale of Rhetoric, by which the effectiveness of various rhetoric can be judged.
- Thermonuclear. Example: racist, pedo, you have to go back
- Nuclear. Example: Holocaust denier, cuckservative, mudshark, superstraight
- Highly effective. Example: SJW, sexist, BlueAnon, feminazi, judeo-christian, Proposition Nation
- Effective. Example: tranny, slut, conspiracy theorist, anti-Semite, neoclown
- Mostly Harmless. Example: global-warming denier, glowie, incel, quisling, extremist
- Harmless. Example: truther, hypocrite, propagandist, agist, anti-science
- Give it up. Example: Dems are the real racists, crybully, TERF, handicapable
Keep in mind that the more amusing and memorable the variant of the term, the more biting it will be.
Telling someone “you will never be a real woman” is always going to be more effective than simply calling them a “tranny”, particularly when the target isn’t at all gender-confused.
It’s also more effective to say something like “calling her a feminazi is offensive to the German National Socialist Worker’s Party” than to just call her a feminazi.
Also, note that the more a rhetorical term ju-jitsus the other side’s rhetoric, the more effective it is. That’s why SJW and BlueAnon are far more effective than people with a dialectical inclination tend to understand, because it is simultaneously parrying the other side’s rhetoric while launching a rhetorical attack on the other side’s self-image.