You are being actively obtuse if someone informs you “lots of people are offended by this” and you just plug your ears and go “you don’t speak for them”

They’re not necessarily speaking to those people specifically or exclusively. They could be speaking to the broader language community that through their collective action has established that the conventional meaning of the word isn’t dehumanizing (because conventionally it isn’t) when someone like you comes along & tries to twist their words.

It’s common knowledge.

Your “common knowledge” is mistaken: the language community is the authority on their language & there are wrong answers. Someone informing you “lots of people are offended” isn’t a reliable authority, being offended doesn’t make someone’s opinion correct. The fewer people recognizing some niche, novel reinterpretation don’t decide for the rest of the community the conventional definitions of words.

The conventional definition of that word has stood far longer & holds more weight, so people are justified to generally accept it & reject unconventional ones. I think you’re aware of that: innocuous instances are common.

Blanket condemnation based on an unconventional meaning of a word punishes nonoffenders instead of actual wrongdoers. The general community would be right to consider such antagonism & the people who defend it unjustified & petty.

asshole

You like this word. Reflect a bit: do good people twist people’s words when they understand the usual meaning isn’t what they claim? Do good people think it’s right to antagonize nonoffenders?

I think good people would try to interpret messages according to their likely meanings & not the worst, unsupported ones.

There’s a fair argument here that your understanding of this situation is backward.

You aren’t arguing in good faith here.

That indicates your clouded judgement: you’re failing to recognize conventional language isn’t just a matter of opinion (no matter how strong).