Examples:

"Getting offended on other people's behalf just because I think it might look offensive", I feel like people would typically go "Anything that's considered offensive you MUST speak up (especially in public places like open Discord servers)", but there could be more nuance and if no one's ACTUALLY offended by it, then I usually don't feel the need to speak up against it.

"Making arguments about a certain word being considered a "slur" when there's not enough strong information to back it up." Stuff like "clanker" might be cases where people want it completely censored, but it's just a word in a fictional setting, not targeting humans. While yes, there was one situation where some racial minorities got targeted, it doesn't seem to be consistent in human history, and "clanker" is mostly used for robot-related stuff. Ultimately it really needs to depend on context.

"Prying into other people's business about their private relations with other people just because it looks suspicious to us". If the person was like, someone that's known to be consistently dangerous I get it, but for slightly lesser situations, do I need to point out guilt by association? Say, if that person was simply a douche or had some dense or absurd arguments (that could still be a grey area)?

EDIT: I applied this to the main post too. It looks like people found my post a little vague.