[PhasmaFelis]

I am really confused by this post. ChristianBundy linked to an article by a suicide prevention professional, and you're accusing him of pushing anecdotal evidence based solely on his own experience. Are you under the impression that he wrote the article? Did you reply to the wrong post?

[byerley]

The author, Franklin Cook, has a Master of Arts degree in humanities. He's an "editor" for "SPNAC" in that, as far as I can tell, he's the only contributor and uses the site to advertise his paid services as a grief counselor.

The article itself offers no credible reference and is self-labelled as an opinion piece.

I'm under the impression that the ChristianBundy merely googled an article that agreed with his personal experiences. We've all done that, but it's important to apply skeptical scrutiny.

[PhasmaFelis]

Okay. Maybe Cook has no actual credentials and is just some dude pontificating on the internet. He still makes a coherent and level-headed argument for why that phrase is counterproductive. If you disagree, the ball's in your court to provide a reasoned response. You won't convince anyone with dismissive, content-free snark.

[byerley]

Look, I'm sorry if this sounds snarky, but the burden of proof definitely has to be on the person trying to censor rather than the person being censored. Otherwise we end up in an endless political correctness circle jerk where no one can propose anything of substance without being shamed for it.

That being said, it's trivial to write a coherent sounding argument with the exact opposite conclusion. I won't bore you with the details, but it works because people (especially in times of stress) will often react completely differently in response to the same stimuli. Psychology arguments that sound coherent and clever are fun, but without proper scientific study they're more often wrong than right.

[PhasmaFelis]

Censored? You think suggesting that a phrase commonly used in mental health treatment is detrimental to that treatment is censorship?

I'm starting to think that calling people censors for disagreeing with one is the "well, that's just, like, your opinion, man" of the 21st century.

[byerley]

If you know a better word for requesting someone not say something I'd consider using it. Rewording things because someone might read too far into connotations wastes a lot of time though, which I guess brings us back to the original point.

[PhasmaFelis]

Okay. Maybe Cook has no actual credentials and is just some dude pontificating on the internet. He still makes a coherent and level-headed argument for why that phrase is counterproductive. If you disagree, I'd like to see a reasoned response instead of dismissive, content-free snark.