What a strange stance to take.
"I don't agree with this concept, so I want it to have an ineffective or misleading name!"
If icepick lobotomies were called "happy sunshine treatments," or if breaking into peoples' homes and killing their pets was called "saying hello to your neighbors" I'm sure we could agree that those are wildly misleading terms and that we should find more accurate ones, even if we didn't agree with those practices.
In that context, typing "we need better language" implies identification with the whole audience, i.e. all readers. 'We' does not mean 'my group of political activists' when used in that way.
Hence why the correction is important. Especially given that he was advocating for the redefinition of language in service of a political ideology. If you are going to suggest that 'we need' to clarify and standardize the words we use to refer to things, then you should probably be extremely precise with your own language, no? Otherwise you are just being a patronizing e-tyrant.