Since lifestyled has me muted I'll just call the ignorant mother fucker out here :

Oh yes! I'm definitely a new hubski member! I definitely did NOT read the article and respond to its contents, which heavily implied as part of its opening paragraphs that "all potential triggers should be removed from literature" in an attempt to demonstrate that "this might be a bad thing ."

NO, asshole, I don't believe that those who are honestly trying to encourage and propagate the use of trigger warnings are attempting to whitewash literature in order to ensure all are appeased. You wanna try a conspiracy theory why don't you try reading the contents of the article, to which I was (surprisingly! - yeah sorry buddy this isn't reddit and I am actually going to read a link before masturbating on about my opinion) responding? Maybe then you will see the - oh I believe it's called - context to which I was responding. Or have they not got around to teaching you what context is in eighth grade yet?

Hey p.s. Mr. still-an-asshole, I'd like to add that "Censorship" = a word I not only never used but never even fucking implied in my statements regarding trigger warnings.

I stand by the idea that literature devoid of all potential triggers is not literature in all. In fact, it would be better compared to soy protein: completely inoffensive and completely devoid of taste, flavor, nuance, and in short, interest.

You're pissed off at the article. You're not actually pissed off at me. Go and reread some shit, you jackass.

P. P.S. If you decide to 'rebut' this comment by correcting my mobile-typed spelling or grammar, you have already lost. Only a person who cannot prove their actual point resorts to correcting grammar instead.

P.p.p.s. Is this when I start talking about all the times I've been raped, molested and/or harassed to prove the validity of my remark? Because fuq that.