Kat, I don't think you'll find anyone here who will object to the removal of truly hateful or pejorative language from common usage. That's not the point. What people find aggravating is the frequent and arbitrary changing of language, making once-acceptable language unacceptable.
"Nigger" was clearly an unacceptable term and "colored" was kind of a transitional word (still used in the name of the NAACP), so decent people willingly changed to "Negro." It took a little longer to change to "black" as the acceptable word, but it really wasn't that big a step because the word had been used in some situations in the past. Now, the move is to require clumsy, bureaucratic-sounding "African-American." What's that - four or five changes to a term in 40 years? I think that's ludicrous. I'll hold onto "black" until they can come up with a better term than "African-American."
I have no idea what are the polite terms to use for handicapped people any more, so I've essentially been removed from any meaningful discussion of issues relating to the handicapped because I just don't understand what's being said. The terms have changed too quickly, and many are ludicrous, especially the "xxx-challenged" series of euphemisms. Somebody here was throwing around a four-letter acronym the other day, and I had no idea what they were talking about.

Certainly, language is powerful. So is logic. If you put the two of them together, you can do wonderful things. If there is no logic behind your changing the language, people may start to look on those changes as ludicrous, and that defeats your purpose.

-Joe Offer-

ludicrous so absurd, ridiculous, or exaggerated as to cause or merit laughter.
op. cit.