Just laughing can be incredibly offensive.
So an aggressor has infinite words to use and is effectively impossible to censor.
I hesitate to mention SouthPark, but they do an episode where Cartman is especially cruel using laughter as his weapon. It's quite effective and obviously offensive. Unlike the list in the article.
You can see this happening in the Stanford list itself - some of the terms listed, particularly in the "Ableist" section, are clearly second or third iteration through the euphemism treadmill.
In fact, some could be about to complete another one - for example, my self-preservation instinct on the Internet tells me I shouldn't use "disabled" as an adjective, despite it being listed as a proper alternative to "crippled". I fully expect "disabled" to land in the left column of this or similar list in a couple of years.
It's as if a choice of words can change the unfortunate fact that losing a leg sucks.
I worked for a company that sold medical supplies and we got a phone call about a disabled user message on our website.
And if people still need a list or a class to be taught that e.g. the N word is offensive, they have no place in Stanford.
The only thing more insane would be the expectation that insults of any kind, for any reason, no longer be tolerated (some do suggest this, which is at least consistent).
Imbecile, special needs, oligophrenic, whatever, something associated with intellectual disability will be used instead.
They are not trying to ban "harmful language" from being said or written, they are trying to have you suppress "harmful thoughts", or ideally render you incapable of harbouring them.
Do you want Stanford (or anyone else) to dictate what you can think?