My point is it’s largely to protect people’s feelings on the internet.
And what is wrong with that?
Being allowed, or permitted, to express oneself in an uninhibited manner does not - or, ought not - allow casual insult, or deliberately giving profound offence under the blanket, or cover, of the protection afforded by the ideal, or notion, of "free speech".
An argument ought to be possible without having to seek recourse to insulting or offending someone. Answer (refute, rebut) the argument, rather than insult the person making - or advancing - that argument.
Worse, and moreover, and most unfortunately, language isn't neutral.
Alas, all too often, it comes complete with the cultural baggage and weighted with the freight of those who have the right to use it, and the right to define what words mean, and how they are used (and abused).
The thing is, advocating the right to (untrammelled) free speech is all too often a convenient cover for allowing insult, or excusing offence on the grounds that those who are traduced - and who then react, stung - are feeble beings unable to handle their "feelings".
If, in a post, arguments are addressed (rather than people insulted) acknowledging - or, being obliged to acknowledge - "feelings" should no longer be anything of an issue.