I don't want to condemn your thoughts/feelings on this as I'm clearly not familiar with the specific situation, but I think what people are getting at is that imagining that other people may be offended by words and then policing based on that seems like moral posturing and trying to change people's habits for very little reason. If you take into account that (for the most part) the users of those words/idioms don't actually mean the 'bad' meaning, it all seems ... pointless. An action to make an in-group feel superior to an out-group, but that doesn't actually make any difference.

It sometimes reminds me of the (very middle class) campaign that took place in the UK in the last decade to stop people feeding bread to ducks, swans and other waterfowl. Well meaning, virtuous people took to putting up home-made signs about it at popular spots, and to intervening and even shaming those that continued the centuries old tradition. Pictures of swans with wing conditions were often used to try to shock.

While there is truth to the idea that there are better things you can feed ducks (oats, leafy greens), eventually the royal master of swans and a well-respected professor of ornithology got together and put out a statement begging people not to stop. Bread does no detectable harm to the birds, there is no known link to the medical conditions and it forms an important source of calories for many populations over winter. But the signs and the behaviour don't really stop, because it gives some people a way to look down on others, to signal that they know and those other idiots are just awful.