Yes, this resource can be used to more effectively sanction individuals who consistently demonstrate behavior harmful to those around them. It can be referenced early and often, so that repeat offenses more quickly lead to dismissal. Even so, I don't see this as good or bad, a wrongful dismissal can litigated, no? Cannot this reference be used to better defend someone who uses a poor choice of words as their sole offense? There are so many words and phrases enumerated, it aptly demonstrates just how challenging and context dependent things are.

Have you ever seen this argument work?

The whole point of "arson, murder, jaywalking", of "motte and bailey" argument style, of mixing obvious cases together with the things you want to make otherwise indefensible claims about, is because it makes the argument work only in one direction.

The only valid counter is to fight the inclusion of "jaywalking" on the same list as "arson" and "murder", but once it's your company's HR department quoting a Stanford-published list of "bad words", it's too late.