And actually demonstrated a pretty noticeable (generational?) divide. There was one side that advocated for those Trigger warnings...in the hope that the very small percentage chance of people with <insert potential issue here> would be affected to such a large degree that they would potentially <insert ill-advised action here>. That's a whole bunch of potential individual potentially disturbed to such a degree that they potentially do something destructive.

Then there was the other side which advocated for the fact that trigger warnings are unnecessary. I don't know if I'm knowledgeable enough to state the motivations.... At least from my perspective, those trigger warnings would do nothing more then create an artificial environment where an individual is warned of any and all potential idea, concept, topic, or subject that would upset them in any way, shape, or form. Seeing as how part of life is learning how to adjust to circumstances as they happen....maybe they need to toughen up.

It's much akin to a parent sending their child outside to play, but having multiple layers of Personal Protective Equipment on for any activity....all on the off chance they may get hurt in any number of ways. Sometimes that kid is going to get a skinned knee. Sometimes they will break an arm or wrist. This is life.

(Back to trigger warnings)...if that individual is so sensitive that reading a piece of literature, attending a lecture, or being asked a question is enough to <insert destructive action here>, then perhaps they shouldn't be out in the world at all. The solution does not rest with changing the world to suit them in their fragile state, but helping them grow beyond that fragile state to be suitable for the world.

~Jeordam