Just those two? Why not Columbus, Georgia? Kentucky? California? Mississippi? Missouri? Kansas? New Jersey? Minnesota? Illinois? Montana? Texas? Wisconsin? North Carolina? Nebraska? New York? New Mexico? Wisconsin (again; they have two!)? North Dakota?
I mean, if you're requiring perfection, let's be perfect by all means . . . maybe a US constitutional amendment prohibiting any cities or towns being named "Columbus".
Why stop there? Why not require Washington state, Washington, DC and all of the other towns named after George Washington to be renamed . . . after all, he was a slave owner. Why not require Virginia and Georgia to be renamed, since their names are derived from British monarchs who oppressed the US? Besides, Virginia is misleading . . . not that many virgins there anyway, especially with D.C. next door. Heck, New Hampshire, New York and New Jersey are all named after places in Britain; it's easy to see how someone could be offended by that. CHANGE THEM!!
And what about good old Indiana? It's not only potentially offensive to two ethnic groups, it's downright inaccurate.
And then there's abraxis . . . I bet there are a whole bunch of girls who were sexually assaulted, molested whatever while listening to an album with a similar name - Abraxas, pronounced the same as abraxis - by Santana. Maybe we ought to require you to change your Rivals handle . . . .
BTW, what's your hometown? I wanna see how offended I can get.
I could to on . . . but I actually have productive things to do.