people pushing these ideas aren't "stupid", they have goals you disagree with. explain why the goals are harmful and the arguments are misleading.
in a more familiar context, if you are working with someone and they are making bad design decisions, calling them names isn't likely to be well received, but providing a better design is helpful.
here, in online-debate-speak: "stupid" is an ad-hominem
on edit: not necessarily so that these people are stupid, but I think vanishing the concept of stupidity is a worse result than just sometimes mistakenly describing people as stupid.
Using words that imply lack of intelligence to describe moral failings associates those lacking intelligence with those lacking morals, to the detriment of those lacking intelligence.
GGGP was not calling these individuals stupid, rather, their interpretations of the law. And while they're not argued by stupid people, you would certainly have to be stupid to believe such arguments, e.g. the one at issue in this case. I don't think Axel Springer's lawyers are stupid. I think they're malicious. I think their argument is stupid and one should have to be stupid to believe it.
> in a more familiar context, if you are working with someone and they are making bad design decisions, calling them names isn't likely to be well received, but providing a better design is helpful.
I work with reasonable people. Entities like Axel Springer are not reasonable because they have a vested financial stake in the matter. Reason and debate won't change the money at stake for them.
More on the regulatory and medical usage 'moron' once had: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)
Pejoration is common; it's just something we have to continue to stay ahead of as people negatively adapt language to suit their own short term ends.
As far as I can tell, the other commenter was actually making the opposite point (reducto ad absurdum).