You definition of microagression isn’t usual or useful. That’s why the rest of the argument made sense, but missed the point.
"a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority"
That is consistent with the definition I had in mind when I wrote my comment. I do think trying to document unintended offenses is a bad idea. The recipient of the microagression should instead learn not to dwell on minor slights, ignore them, and/or assume good intent instead. It seems very toxic to live as if the people you talk to are secretly hurting you. Better to think of them as nice people with different methods of communication until they prove otherwise.
You keep saying “imaginary”, but microagression is about what has been said, not relevant to dwell on what the person might have wanted to mean.
You keep coming back to this perceived paranoia: “as if people are secretly trying to hurt you”. This is not what this is about. This is people that got hurt, and no matter what others are trying, secretly or not, that hurt is better be documented.
It doesn’t mean that someone ought to be punished right away for each comment deemed offensive by anyone. It’s just that these occurrences might be relevant later on and if they’re not documented, it’s gone.
Documenting all offenses is a good idea for people who are at risk of finding themselves needing that later. And if you don’t think this happens frequently enough, you haven’t been paying attention.
Microaggressions do exactly what you say: force people to feel as if they're walking on eggshells. And telling them "Oh, just shake it off" gets exactly the same response as if I told you to just shake off the accusations of microaggressions.
The downward spiral already exists: people do exhibit a range of racist, sexist, etc. behavior on a spectrum every day, from outright asshole behavior to small, incidental assumptions about people that make them feel unwanted and singled out. It afflicts some people more than others. So you can take this as a thought experiment to see why it's a problem for them, and if "just ignore it" doesn't work for you, then maybe we can find a better answer.
Your entire argument is based on this pretence that is demonstrably false.
Getting reported to HR by these neurotic professional victims is not something you can "just shake off", you literally can't "just ignore it".
It's asymmetrical warfare, and the externalities are all on you, the microagressor.
All of this reminds me of the 90s when Evangelicals wanted schools to ban students from talking about, wearing clothing with, or playing anything related to Pokemon, because it was an affront and a "microagression" to their religion.
Here we are, just a few decades later and leftists and SJWs are now the ones playing the victims, being "microagressed".
And I can assure you that this is not the case. They've always been perceived and caused hurt. The difference is that we now have a name for it and decided that people deserve better.
> since they are primarily a matter of interpretation
They are not.