[user104658]

To be honest some of the list I agree with and some I don't, and the reasoning for picking the words seems really haphazard and sometimes in reverse? For example, there's nothing wrong with the word "handicap" used as intended, the offensive part is that it was EVER then used to describe people with disabilities "as handicapped" (presumably, in comparison to the average). The complicated part there, I suppose, is that you could argue the same for "disabled".

I personally totally agree with stopping using terms and phrases that are unambiguously linked to slavery.

I also agree with using gender-neutral terms in place of the male default (police officer over policeman, etc.) however I don't agree with forcing gender neutrality where it isn't warranted.

On principle I agree that people shouldn't use terms like "crazy", "insane", "sanity check" as throwaway words though I think the meanings of those have possibly shifted to the point where that's unrealistic.

That's sort of what I mean about the reasoning and it seeming to come from both angles.

Some words that have had the meaning totally change over time, they want to ban because of the etymology. Others they want to ban completely IGNORING the uncontroversial etymology, because of current word associations. I find it hard to see how we can have it both ways without ending up with an untenable list of "not ok words and phrases" with volumes A-Z.

Picnic is a bit of a bizarre standalone example because the offense taken to the word is based on an imaginary etymology that never actually existed in the first place...