Peter, I was merely pointing out (in my usual incomprehensible way) that:
- those seeking to be offended have an easy time of it, given that a lot of phrases "in general usage" have questionable origins and/or connotations;
- if the burden of not offending others is codified, we might as well all stop communicating before we all get criminal records.
I'm not saying that this is happening (or that it would look anything but ridiculous in almost all instances), but there is no point on the line between total freedom and complete censorship that can be defended on purely logical grounds. That means we have a cultural choice to make: allow the "easily offended" to bend (or even determine**) the rules or to reserve this right to our collective selves and suggest that someone who is "easily offended" remember that he or she (as an individual) is not the centre of the universe around which the rest of us must orbit.
** - Which is the effect of any law that says the offended, an individual person, is allowed to determine that there has been a (legally transgressive) offence. I'm not keen on kerbside justice by, for example, the police; I don't see why I should accept being judged by anyone who just happens to hear what I say. (Not that, I hope, I
could be accused of being offensive when speaking aloud in public. *fingers crossed*)