Sorry, I think we're talking cross purposes somewhat. I don't think that what you've described is in of itself harmful, and I don't think I've made that claim.

Sorry, I think we're talking cross purposes somewhat. I don't think that what you've described is in of itself harmful, and I don't think I've made that claim. I do think that the language used in the original tweet does a bad job of "redirecting emotional responses" because it doesn't give the person a meaningful, useful task, nor is it even particularly pro-social. Whereas in the anecdote given in the article, the author was given a meaningful task to do, and was able to learn from that.