RAA is exactly what I said it is in my last post. It isn't a fallacy as you said before. It isn't my exaggeration. All you have to do is google it and you will see.

IEP: Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable.

My thesis that must be accepted: some words are inherently offensive regardless of whether they're directed at someone or not.

Absurdity from its denial: It would be okay for teachers to call themselves 'cunts' in front of their class. It would also be okay (not offensive) to shout 'I am a nigger' in a train station.

The consequence of your argument are absurd, as is denying my counterfactual claim.Therefore rejecting my thesis (or adopting yours) is untenable.

Slippery slope has nothing to do with it, as I'm not saying 'if you allow this guy to say nigga in his username, then teachers will be allowed to swear in front of kids'. I'm pointing out that it being okay for teachers to swear in front of kids is a logical consequence of your argument. Since this is clearly not okay, there must be something wrong (fallacious) with your argument.

Once more for clarity, RaA is not a fallacy, but a method of arguing (like modus tollen, which is a method of arguing - rather than denying the antecedent, which is a fallacy). You are mistaken and no amount of disagreement on your part will change this. Indeed the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy, but it is inapplicable here as I'm not arguing that my two examples above are undesirable consequences; I am arguing that they are logical consequences of your argument. As these consequences are obviously and plainly unacceptable, your argument must be wrong.

I'm guessing you missed the mensa lesson on fallacies?