What I personally find somewhat disconcerting about your comments thus far, is that you claim to be taking issue, while not directly addressing people and opting instead to speak in generalities, which is a big part of the issue in question.

If you are referring to comments that I made and the exchange I had with b_b, then I'd have to agree with what he said in reply to the comment I'm responding to.

However, from a social-psychological standpoint, my problem with this kind of language is that it avoids conflict and thus avoids deepening an understanding of the issue and while it seeks to protect, may actually shelter and promote the hypersensitivity b_b mentions.

Trigger warnings are simply for the peace of mind of the reader, not for people who "can't handle seeing realities of the world" (an argument I see often, thankfully not parroted here), but for people who legitimately have mental struggles they're coping with such as anxiety, depression, anorexia, bulimia, where reading certain things have a very real chance of triggering them.

Do they actually function in that way though? I can imagine that identifying particular articles as having trigger warnings might actually work in the opposite way. For example, tell someone not to look at something-- they'll often look at it. Furthermore, why don't I see articles with trigger warnings for veterans? PTSD can be triggered by a variety of things, not just stuff in articles. If trigger warnings are as effective in print as you seem to be suggesting, then surely labeling other things with trigger warnings is therefore pragmatic, no?

But how would this operate? Would we then have to painstakingly discover all of the potential triggers for anyone who ever suffered from mental difficulties related to trauma? How would we label the sound of a rumbling truck, a particular smell or a feeling?