In either case, it feels a little overly dramatic to worry too much about a scenario where HR asks you to not use a word anymore. Is this what people mean when they worry about people being cancelled?
Right now there is a wave of people that are upset over "violent language" (https://hopeandsafety.org/learn-more/violent-language/) If push comes to shove.. they'd lose their marbles over that.
There's absolutely nothing on that page to indicate they're upset about violent language
> If push comes to shove.. they'd lose their marbles over that.
There's even less indication of that.
If the goal is for fewer people to overreact, why are we inventing boogeymen to overreact about?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11714189/Latest-phr... (DailyMail.. yuck yes)
https://www.fastcompany.com/90865534/its-time-stop-using-vio...
https://elizabethgrim.com/adopting-inclusive-and-non-violent...
> The guide is for those who would like to replace mostly violently framed idioms with more positive and inclusive language
Clearly this is a dog whistle and they're coming for me and my guns(-related words)
Your question is phrased in such a way that I honestly can't figure out how to answer it, but non-derogatory and non-slur based does not mean non-offensive and never has. As I previously mentioned people are plenty creative at hiding insults in "respectful" words.
See also: the many nuances of "bless your heart"
When it comes to my professional work - if apologizes are not accepted I will not work at the company. If there are words that I cannot say - I request a list. Thankfully my current company is great.