I don't know how you can make this argument when this exact situation is caused by the very thing you are advocating for. “Be welcoming”, “Be considerate”, and “Be friendly” is something most people understand as much as "asshole" and "jerk". And yet here we are -- the counterexample is literally this topic.
But that is the point: we need to get back to a situation where something like don't be a jerk is seen as just that, a simple suggestion not to be a jerk. As long as simple suggestions like this lead to cancellations the public discourse is on the wrong track, the one with the sign 'Warning: weak bridge'. We - as in those of us who are favour true intellectual discourse over partisan/polarised rhetoric - need to take back control over the meaning of words and the fact that words in fact have specific meanings which can not and should not be allowed to be changed on the spot to fit some narrative - viz. Websters dictionary suddenly changing the definition of the term 'preference' [1,2].
You're arguing a meta-point rather than the issue in question. That sexism, racism, and harassment is not uncommon enough and these are real issues that need real solutions.
Arguing about the meaning of words couldn't possibly be less to the point.
Is is very much the point here since it is these words, and the way their meaning has been made malleable to fit the narrative of the day, which enables these practices. As long as this practice is tolerated it will be difficult if not impossible to agree to a basic level of civic discourse. Without such an agreement it is impossible to 'agree to disagree' which has been one of the tenets of liberal democracies since the concept was first implemented.
Just like he who controls the present controls the past, he who controls the dictionary controls the discourse.
