The latter is a fairly broad concept with multiple shades and blurry lines within. Which is why people with good intentions can still disagree badly on whether

The latter is a fairly broad concept with multiple shades and blurry lines within. Which is why people with good intentions can still disagree badly on whether something someone did was okay or not. Has GP crossed the line merely by expressing his/her/their opinion? This probably depends on his/her/their social status as well. The CEO of a company saying something in an official meeting carries a different weight for all employees than some random employee saying the same thing. Or does GP need to say or do something personal to someone in order to be considered to have crossed the line? Be careful there: add too many constraints and we will end up giving a free pass to people who genuinely offend and cause serious discomfort to those around them. These are the kinds of issues about which we as a society need to have reasonable discussions and make consensus-building efforts, but it all descends into name-calling too soon.