[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.