That's fair! Negative impacts certainly exist on a continuum! I felt like "harm" was a reasonable synonym for "negatively impact", but you're right that it carries a stronger connotation than "mildly inconvenience"; and it also has a more direct connotation than "perpetuate negative stereotypes in listeners" (using homophobic slurs has negative impact _even if no homosexual people are around to hear them_, because it emboldens homophobes and normalizes homophobia)

So let me loosen my original statement to "using this particular form of speech will negatively impact (whether directly or indirectly) certain people, ...etc.". And please do notice that I didn't describe the outcome as "then you are a bad person"! It's reasonable and justifiable to pick a point on that spectrum and say "you know what - negative impacts that are weaker than this just really don't matter to me. There's a certain level of tip-toeing around that just isn't worth it for the miniscule risk". Hell, I do it too. There's a tiny chance that my use of "hell" as a casual interjection might offend a religious reader - but in my determination, that offence is less important to me than that particular form of speech. There are probably a ton of other words or phrases I use for which I've made a similar (conscious or unconscious) determination.

My point is - speech has an impact. Indeed, if it didn't, it would be pointless. The point of speech is to communicate. Communication distributes ideas, concepts, thoughts from one brain to others. Those ideas will not just be the ones that are directly communicated in the speech, but also "meta-ideas" communicated by the form of speech. Meta-communication, more often than not, is about the speaker rather than just the content. If I hear someone teaching a complicated topic, I will assume (rightly or wrongly!) something about their level of intelligence and knowledge. If I hear someone speaking clearly and convincingly, I will assume that they've taken the time to prepare and research - and vice versa. If I hear someone using an obscure word, I'll assume they have an interest in vocabulary (and/or are involved in the field in which that term is common). If I hear someone using a well-known slur, I'll assume that they have made the deliberate choice to do so in the knowledge that it _is_ a slur. It's a form of social signalling.

So, y'know - if you believe that forms of speech that do cause "discomfort" are acceptable, and ones that cause "harm" are not (based on your own determination of the likelihood of those impacts, hopefully informed by the people who are actually impacted), _that's justifiable_. I'm not saying that words should be banned. I'm asking for a recognition that the use of a word - _any_ word - is a signal; that some signals are more distinct than others; and that that signal will be interpreted by listeners as reflecting something about the speaker's value system. That's not policing - it's a recognition of personal choice.