There's an idea that I agree with there, but I think that the low resolution of the phrase holds within it ambiguity which is conflating different intents and different effects across different contexts: I see "we shouldn't try to control it" as quite different from "it can't be changed", and the use to oneself of such a phrase is much different from using it in response to the concerns of others. I'd suggest that the article is using this phrase as an example for some cases with a particular set of possible intents, which doesn't preclude all possible uses, nor that they might be 'non-negative', as you're suggesting here. Similar cases can be made for some of the other examples; this shows that they're not absolutes, but it doesn't show that they can't be used in a context where their effect is less a healthy affirmation on the limits of responsibility and effort, and more of an unconsidered dismissal of responsibility outright—and I don't even see that the article paints the essential dismissal of the concept as inherently negative, only that dismissal is occurring. I can clearly see it being legible with a negative tone, though, particularly given some of the examples.
I wouldn't say the article suggests that there should always be further discussion, either, only that these phrases tend to shut it down. I don't see such evaluative statements around the examples of that term at all. Does it seem like I'm missing something?
I think there's quite a meaningful difference between the suggested phrasing (which is quite honest and open, and I think should be generally acceptable) and the general character of the listed instances which serve to exemplify the concept, which dismiss the general (rather than contextual or personal, immediate) importance of the subject (e.g. "it's not that deep" rather than "I don't find it that deep" or "it's not particularly relevant right now").
I see it as a kind of refusal to take responsibility for refusal of engagement: external deflection of unimportance, rather than acceptance of non-engagement/disregard of (externally recognised) importance.
I'd rather welcome people speaking as you exemplified: it's an explicit 'self-veto' from the relevance of the situation (and thus basis of involvement), rather than a dismissal of others' engagement (which ideally needn't involve the one who doesn't wish to be involved, of course).
It sounds like this kind of 'low-order dismissal' serves you as a kind of coping mechanism for anxiety. With respect, I suggest that, while it might be the best way of dealing with it that you currently have, there may be ways of addressing the deeper reasons that you need to stop yourself from worrying so often, else perhaps better ways of managing that worry: dismissal doesn't make a problem solved, it only mutes the warning signal—and we should ideally be able to trust (and bear) our warning signals. It thus seems fair to speak of the negative effects of such a fault of reasoning, whether it's a coping mechanism or not.
To be clear, I appreciate your 'use case', and would agree that this kind of response is thus not an absolute negative; a more nuanced view might also spare people like you from (ironic) unfair dismissal or disapproval for depending on this kind of attention management strategy: the world is messy and optimisation is context-dependent, and almost all situations almost necessarily must involve some (or even all) 'non-ideal' methods.
Is there a particular part of the article that notably reads to you as unhelpfully negative or overgeneralising? I'd like to see what you're seeing here for how it might improve the article.
Describing these as 'excuses' seems to reduce a yet broader, overarching idea to its essential fault somewhat cleanly: looking at the listed cases in the article, they generally seem to be serving as excuses to others for not engaging by replacing a counter-argument with fundamental invalidation—an excuse to the standards of the self, and a corruption risk to the standards of the other.
This mechanism seems a little like a run-time exception for responding to preserve internal coherence in response to an unmanaged (perception of) expectation. Ideally, an honest and coherent refusal of the engagement would be possible and provided—"Sorry, I don't have the capacity for this discussion right now"—but such circumstances often align with mental resources (and thus capacity to provide such 'cooperative refusals') being limited, and so the response may drop to a 'lower order', where the basis of the disagreement is invalidated (excused) instead.
Then, there's the more negative case of low-effort rejection of engagements which don't seem worthwhile ("I've had this argument a hundred times, and it never goes anywhere"). Here, the general heuristic of 'effort optimisation' seems to lead to narrow-mindedness and (in turn or in parallel) dismissal of others' perspectives and the understanding of others in turn, such that they warrant neither coherent engagement nor coherent reason for refusal; thus, the basis of the discussion is again discarded, regardless of its general validity. In my experience, this can cause severe misunderstandings when the 'prejudice' underlying that dismissal isn't recognised; I've found it to 'mess me up' more than a few times with an over-literal reading.
I've been nebulously plagued by various such phrases and noticed them individually and sporadically; this article seems to have provided a basis for an over-arching concept which may help me to consolidate the way that I think about them, making it easier to recognise the underlying dynamic and corresponding fault in communication integrity, and thus navigate it coherently. I much appreciate this.
I wouldn't say the article suggests that there should always be further discussion, either, only that these phrases tend to shut it down. I don't see such evaluative statements around the examples of that term at all. Does it seem like I'm missing something?