It does seem that way. It's kind of how a few people have food allergies, but a larger number of people have foods they refuse to eat despite not having allergies. It's not uncommon to find out that someone who merely has a preference to avoid an ingredient has been fibbing and calling it an "allergy" just to smooth things over socially.

This is really frustrating for someone with a genuine allergy because you feel drowned out by all the "fake" allergies that are just preferences and as a result sometimes people take allergies less seriously because they assume your "allergy" is just a preference, or just generally take it less seriously. For example, if someone asks you if something contains gluten, knowing nothing else, what would you estimate are the chances they are actually seriously allergic to it? These days, with the popularity of avoiding gluten in the west, maybe below 50%. This is a scary situation for anyone with a genuine allergy.

I'm sure it's just as frustrating for people with genuine PTSD or other situations where real mental health trauma could occur, to be drowned out and lumped in with all these folks who merely experience mild discomfort at discussing a topic.

So, a plea -- if you don't genuinely suffer from a serious physical or mental health response to a situation, but merely mild discomfort, be honest and just say you don't like something. You're making it worse for people with genuine problems when you lie and call it a genuine medical problem.

If you're not sure, a good rule of thumb is if you haven't been to or plan to soon go to a doctor (or really want to, but can't for some reason eg financial) to discuss the problem, it must not be disturbing your life enough to count as a real malady.

very well put

I don't see a prevalence of trigger warnings. I do see a prevalence of people talking about trigger warnings.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't live/work in California.

I spend a lot of time in SF and LA, and in both places, the types of people who demand trigger warnings (and, related, talk about microaggressions and other imaginary offenses) are pretty common.

That also happens to be where a huge chunk of HN commenters/readers are based.

It is our reality. I do celebrate the news that outside of the SF/LA metro areas this cancer has not yet reached, but my day-to-day is very much affected by it.

It does seem like the discussion often assumes they are or will be widespread, which doesn't seem to be happening. I'd like to see numbers, particularly on college campuses, where they are allegedly more common.

I thought I was the only one.

This whole topic feels a bit... I dunno... fabricated? astroturfed? I mean are these things really an issue outside of maybe a few humanities departments in super-liberal private colleges?

It's an election year folks.