No, I think they get that we are aging pedants with law degrees, who needed to write accurately and with purpose professionally. We can recognize and draw distinctions between facts, thoughts, opinions, and feelings. We also understand the differences between how we frame our arguments, and whether we employ active & passive verbs. We're also less inclined to expect an elevated value being attached to anti-intellectual posturing, though we may work our rhetoric more pragmatically in real-time verbal encounters.
And in transactional settings, we need precision & clarity to get the job done, and manage foreseeable risks that could occur if we were sloppy or disordered in expression.
And then there's a whole new set of challenges when seeking to work together collaboratively with counterparts who see advantages in not competing in zero-sum activities.
Just because these elements seem picayune & feel tiresome for many sports fan(atic)s doesn't mean they are dumb, wrong, bad, without value, etc.