Physical harm requires an action, whether legislative or physical. Words don't ipso-facto lead to actions and not all actions lead to atrocities. An opinion do

Physical harm requires an action, whether legislative or physical. Words don't ipso-facto lead to actions and not all actions lead to atrocities. An opinion does not cause physical harm. This is the error with political correctness- as precisely defined-- it is the idea that you must be politically correct, otherwise you're causing a moral wrong. I don't think this can be justified rigorously. But it is taken as an article of faith, almost, among its adherents. From my perspective, it is used as a tool to control, by moving the overton window to exclude areas of thought that are different, and to rationalize actual actions that cause damage. (Firing someone isn't an atrocity, but it is harm.) So, ironically you're advocating doing the harm you're using as justification to defend your ideology.