Even though I disagree with the article, a variation of "not here," is appropriate in a bunch of different contexts. The way the article presents it is just as

Even though I disagree with the article, a variation of "not here," is appropriate in a bunch of different contexts. The way the article presents it is just as a thought terminating cliche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A..., which itself is an oddly circular reference), but there are a bunch of legitimate ways to recognize what are essentially personal epistemic boundaries. However, someone collecting catchphrases to re-use as cliches in discourse is only signalling they are beneath the bar for engagement. Cliches are the torches and pitchforks of cognitive tools. "Please not here," I would evaluate and accept. "We don't do that here," just begs one of dozens of responses that would humiliate them and reinforce their sense of aggreivement. What I think triggers people is the passive appeal to authority in the use of "we" that doesn't exist. If someone addresses me from the royal "we," without establishing some kind of bona fides, it's just a threat that earns an insult. The funny things about a lot of the words that are now policed is that those words themselves were informal shorthand or euphemisms for much more serious accusations. As if to say, "I'm not going to issue an ultimatum to your integrity, but your behaviour is a bit <euphemism>." These weren't challenges, they were collegial and polite. The sentiment behind many of the words that are now policed can be adequately (if less satisfyingly) captured in terms like fatuous, pretentious, unctuous, perfidious, pandering, ingratiating, pusilanimous, inferior, morbid, infra dig, perverse, lurid, oily, prefect, errand runner, unmasculine, unfeminine, impetuous, disgusting, dishonest, misleading, back biting, patronizing, matronizing, histrionic, low, cunning, brutish, proletarian, palooka, bumpkin, predator, seducer, sleaze, lazy, fraudulent, sadistic, animus, avarice, petty, small, spiteful, vengeful, begrudged, aggreived, etc. These are all important concepts and values, and I can see why someone invested in behaving this way would like to remove our words for them, but the concepts and sentiments are there whether we use a shorthand for them or not. Our species uses words as an alternative to violence, and if we want to dissolve language we can, but the outcome seems foreseeable. I talk to people all the time who repeat phrases they think are powerful, and they're not trying to be enlightening, they're invoking an imagined power. They want to be humiliated because it reinforces their sense of self righteousness, and the more absurdly they behave, the more of a burden they place on others not to give them the humiliation reinforcement they are seeking. Personally, I've shrugged. I deal with individuals, and not groups, symbols, or identities. The rest is small.