Is this based on something specific or...?

If it's just generally speaking of course it's in our best interest to try and make life as less "hurtful" or painful or whatever as possible regardless of whether a perfect system is possible or not. Some rules are generally good to be imposed on people if it can largely protect the rights of others.

I like the cookie cutter humanist mindset where we go about trying to make a system that maximizes happiness and allows for someone who is born, regardless of their race/gender/sexuality/disabilities and so on to be able to achieve the same happiness as others. Again, no system is perfect and the idea of perfection is subjective at best but it's a better mindset to go forward with even if we can't always agree what that means or how to achieve it.

Creating a world of zero hurt/offense (let's face it, people are talking about offensive stuff, not hurtful stuff) is impossible unless you'd be willing to eliminate variability as in only 100% conform structures could assure uniform preferences; to eliminate discomfort, you'd have to eliminate any deviating perceptions of sources that cause discomfort! In other words, systematic eradication of 'outsiders' after 'insiders' have been defined, in yet other words: genocide! Plain as that, really.

You'd have to create an 100% artificial and 100% controlled society and enforce it. That in itself is impossible under any form of the definition of "humane" living standards. Anyone who seriously argues in favour for safezones simply never bothered to follow that line of thought to its logical conclusion. Half-assery at its very core, which just reflects the basis on which those people operate: lazyness. Lazyness to confront conflicts, lazyness to mediate, react and adapt. Instead of working out any given situation, people want the situation to never exist in the first place or have it solved for them.

The standard response still stands: get your head out of the sand and confront reality, don't try to meld reality to your egoistic preferences. A perfect world for one person is an imperfect world for 99.9%+ of the other people that have to share it with you. Such are the limitations of individuality and as much as your parents have always told you how special you are, you are still one person living with many others and your existence is no more important than anothers', as such forcing one's own beliefs and perceptions unto others is essentially a crime against individuality.

You're more of a hazard than a safe zone, so all things be good.

That said, we as a tool creating species evolve primarily driven by difficulties. Can't cut thick skin? Get a sharp rock. Can't kill an animal with rocks? Make spear. Can't kill animal with spear? Throw spear, invent javelin. Can't throw javelin far enough? Invent bow and arrow.
People who shy away from problems rather than try to overcome them are a dead end to advancement. The status quo might be comfortable but if our ancester thought like that our safe zones today would still be a simple cave.