That just doesn't pass the smell test. It sounds like what you want to say is that, "people should spend their effort on fixing things they have control over," but instead it's coming out as, "language that expresses concepts that people can't affect is less important."

It's trivial to find a counter example to the argument expressed literally. I can't change the laws of physics. Therefore the language used to express the laws of physics is less important. The conclusion doesn't make any sense because the argument doesn't make any sense.

When compared to the "language of harm" and the language of "everything's really kind of okay".

This third language is the language of "I don't like the status quo, or a change to the status quo. How do I deal with this?" You can deal with it through:

- Changing your point of view.

- Changing your circumstances.

- Tackling it head on to stop it.

- Team with others to address it.

That's all that I meant. The first two options kind of go with the "it's not so bad" language, and the last three with the "language of harm" (yes, option 2 kind of belongs to both). So it's really not an alternative to either, but the means of moving on from the other two.