It's not easy for me to actively model the mental states of others at all times and tailor my words in order to prevent those states from entering negative territory. I can do it, but it's not as simple as you imply.
Moreover, it suppresses the actual facts ("this SQL is bad because...") in favour of that negativity.
Or it suppresses the actual facts because I didn't feel like writing a longwinded example. "Too few examples" and "too little detail" is a critique people rarely make of me.
I think the personality trait of "upset by strongly worded negative language" is incredibly common, so being able to communicate with people who share it is part of basic social literacy. To me, your saying it's too much effort sounds like those people who say using correct spelling and grammar is too much effort. If you can't do it without thinking, you should learn, because it's a widely applicable skill.
I have learned - anyone outside the mainstream has to. But I think you underestimate the effort that it takes to adapt to a culture or way of thinking alien to your own.
But that's not the question here. The question is whether it's acceptable for a group of people with non-mainstream tastes to build and protect a culture where their preferred modes of interaction are the default, and to prevent others who might change that culture from entering. I get the impression you are saying it isn't. Is my impression correct?
I believe you are probably right that 80% of people think like you and 5% think like me. I don't believe that this implies that 100% of organizations should cater to you. On the contrary I think if you don't like my organization with a niche culture, it should be very easy to find a more feelings-driven organization and shift to it.