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.
Many of the people who are actually condemned for being offensive are condemned by the media or by some third party who's being offended on behalf of someone else, who we never get to actually hear from, and who might not even exist.
Are they trying to get support from the government, but government officials are offended that they use the term "Black Market" in their communications and refuse to engage with them?
Are they trying to raise public awareness, but their posts are being flood with replies demonizing them for using the term "Black", and so they feel they're not able to effectively spread the message?
Are their efforts proceeding exactly as hoped, but the media is demonizing them for using the term "Black"? Or maybe a grandma facebook group? And they feel slighted when they are trying to bring about this great benefit for the world?
Are they not actually seeing any offense at all and just want people to beat down a strawman for them?
Or you might also consider the route of "these people get offended and i don't understand why so i'm going to work to listen to them and talk with them one by one until i do understand on a core level how they feel and where those feelings are derived from, and based on that i will do my best to share my thoughts in a way that is considerate of my deep connection and understanding of all the people around me, and because everyone has built a personal connection to me, they too will be able to accept my feelings and assume charity."
Just depends on which route you derive more self-satisfaction from. You can assume an air of superiority and righteousness in either direction, and that's something that all humans love to feel.