I don't think this is feasible since you would need constant appeasement and the source of offense often cannot be deconstructed by argument. For an idealistic approach it is well intentioned, but that would gradually shift the level of accepted speech towards a form of orthodoxy. The stigmatization of feeling superior for more eccentric speech is an example of that actually.

Look at history where the "moral" authority suppressed speech, it will end up just like that. There are also people that lie about being offended. Reaching out is falling into a trap in that case.

The dichotomy of these "routes" is wrong. A discussion must not be an argument, even if internet exposure lets you believe otherwise, but it can be.