Without getting into the debate at all, the main focus of recent moderation attempts have been to target "abuse"/"hate speech", however you want to define that.
Adding "offensive" widens the scope enormously and unfairly and suddenly we're into the realms of restricting the freedom of speech for normal everyday situations.
This is extremely fuzzy line and pretty much nobody agrees where offense stops and hate starts. It's dishonest to try to distinguish a line between the two because it will inevitably move over time at the whims of the moderators.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the line is as extremely fuzzy as you say, otherwise there'd be relative anarchy.
There are some generally accepted "yes" and "no's", and then, yes, there's a few things at the edge that might give me cause to think twice.
If defining that line is "extremely fuzzy" to you, then you're already way too far down the rabbit hole (in my opinion) and I won't be following you down there.
