>or they can leave

That being the key thing here. They won't throw tantrums--that's pretty much the exclusive domain of the sorts of people who want to control how people speak--but they will just go elsewhere. Or stop mentoring people, because it's more trouble than dealing with thin-skinned people.

Interestingly, I'm not suggesting that people have to be brusque or short. The sort of person who demands speech codes is the sort who will brook no personal interactions other than the perfectly harmless and anodyne, which seems pretty authoritarian to me. Quite a few of the technically minded do not care for authoritarianism, and they tend to be way out on the right tail of the Bell curve. You lose those at your risk.

The strong phrasing you use in your comments betray that you are the one showing emotions here. I totally get where those are coming from, and certainty share some of your exasperation, yet I believe this world view of thin-skinned versus thick-skinned is a fantasy.

Nothing wrong with showing emotions. Irritation is an emotion. There is a difference between showing emotion and throwing a tantrum. E.g., you might notice at no point have I demanded anybody's resignation or their groveling public apology.

The whole point of the article was a man's journey to understand Feynman's personal definitions of words, which were based on how he thought and understood problems. Knocking all the sharp corners from interpersonal communications means you value conformity over diversity of thought. That seems a poor tradeoff to me.