2 small observations. I guessed you were from N Europe or The Netherlands (NY has a lot of roots from the latter, which you may know) from the first 3 words of your comment. There seems to be a distinct lack of concern about offending people over speech in those countries, and I don’t have a strong opinion about whether that’s good or bad but does the attitude stem from racial/cultural homogeneity in that region? Or is that merely a necessary prerequisite but the reasons that shaped that attitude are found elsewhere? I’m genuinely curious if you/others know the answer to this.

Secondly, not sure how much you know about US history but slavery was a big thing that has a huge impact on what is culturally ok and not. As a non-white (non-black as well) individual I see white people judged even more harshly for using the word because of the historical loadedness of the word in the context of its usage by white people, so it’s not hard to see why it could be perceived as making light at the expense of a people who have been subjugated and continue to be in this country — Netflix, coincidentally, has a good episode of Explained that talks about how African Americans are to this day actively discriminated against by govt policy and businesses in a short segment on racial wealth disparity (to illustrate the fact that it’s not just a thing that happened in the past that you can forget about). I don’t see this as “programmed”ness so much as sensitivity towards a topic that is a much bigger deal to people who live in a society tinged by the after-effects of a really bad thing. Perhaps if society existed in a historical vacuum you might have a point.

You really can't function well in society by risking large amounts of social capital on saying things that could potentially offend large groups of people (even if only when contextually mis-interpreted).

Obviously, doing this when you're in a position of power means you're risking a lot more and so you have a lot more to lose.