And we have to take responsibility for the fact that we might be saying something to someone that will hurt them which can’t be excused by the fact that the person saying it is less sensitive and therefore thinks the offended person is just being over sensitive.
Yes, we do. But we can't be expected to know whether someone will be upset by any mention of tigers, because their father was eaten by one (daft example so as not to accidentally post something that might upset anyone).
It's always possible that anything might upset someone - that doesn't mean that the person saying it is insensitive, just that they weren't aware of the sensitivities of others. If people can be banned for saying something that upsets someone who is particularly sensitive one day, but a different poster can say something far worse the next day which is not read by the sensitive one, how can any of us know what will result in a ban?
Leaving moderation to reports is always going to be fraught with inconsistency, as there are those who see every disagreement as a personal attack, as (presumably) they are not used to being disagreed with. If they report every time someone disagrees it may make life easier for them, but it's not good for the board as a whole.
Also, there are posters who seem to assume that all reports result in bans, as they say 'I won't report you as I think others should see you for what you are' or similar. Leaving things for others to see requires no action, so what they mean is 'I am pointing out to others that you have annoyed me' . Others do just that with no fanfare, and don't report the most egregious of insults, which means that the posters making them seem to get away with more than others, as HQ doesn't see them. It's far from an ideal system.