More than one thing happens at a time. I'm fairly certain the people urging us to change our metaphors are also the ones pushing for more substantive change.
I am ambivalent about these language change campaigns myself. On the one hand, you're asking for almost nothing of people other than the agree that they agree something is wrong. On the other, inevitably it results in an ugly, violent backlash which reveals that that which you thought was beyond the pale isn't. Everyone rushes to die on the hill you pointed out.
I have a similar feeling about people insisting that starfish and jellyfish be called sea stars and jellies, but here I think the moral argument lies entirely with the resisters. No one is confused that these radially symmetric things are fish. What, are we going to call cardinals redbirds now because they aren't actually clergymen?
But in the case of metaphors that belittle or bother someone, why not just change? It demands nothing of you but courtesy.
It really doesn't. The human brain is very adept at accepting renames for concepts and we are so accustomed to alternative references to the same thing that we take physical pleasure from wordplay and give nicknames to our favorite things.
It takes only a few tries to start learning a new name or reference to something for normal people.
Hell, give it a try! Take a completely meaningless or harmless term in your life and attempt to use a different word for it. Hell, there is a wonderful children's book about doing this called "Frindle".
I would go so far as to argue being able to liberally and arbitrarily adjust how we reference things is one of the key powers that makes language work, and one of the main ways it enhances our ability to work with concepts and logical systems. Language DOES affect the way we think.
If using a different word for something really does cause you significant cognitive load, consider seeing a psychologist because there might be something "abnormal" about your brain.
> goes on to describe significant cognitive load
You know, it’s fine as well, when there’s a point to it. In this case we have a fairly well written article giving some interesting context around cargo cults, but certainly nothing that contradicts the central idea around the metaphor, and no injured parties AFAICT. So that’s a no.
Consider how factory, mill, works and plant are all usable to refer to a place where some human endeavor is conducted. The term plant has several etymological hypothesis, including one linking it to slavery and colonization through plantations.[1]
https://shuncy.com/article/why-are-factories-called-plants-c...
I’m not a English native and I’m unaware of the "homeless" vs "unhoused" tensions. But to my mind they still seems same-minded compared to "indigent", "pauper", "sedentarized", "nomad" or "settler".
Like the difference between couchsurfing in a friend's house (homeless but not unhoused) and sleeping in a car or on the street (both homeless and unhoused).
I think the biggest problem comes when this type of language policing is the primary way of changing behaviors. Lack of adequate conflict resolution leads to dysfunction.
It's correct to be anti-racist / anti-sexist / etc. but that doesn't come from just changing your language while still operating the same as before. It reminds me of the whole fuss over using "homeless" vs "unhoused" - while actual policies to help homeless people get ignored or defunded.