> the article starts with a "trigger warning". Hard pass.

You're passing because someone is attempting to help people with mental health problems? Perhaps the problem is with you, not the warning.

Or perhaps the problem is taking a concept that is poorly understood by most, and running it into the ground until it loses its meaning.

Triggers and warnings are concepts that are absolutely real, but in most usage is instead a fad and a virtue signal. That much is obvious in this case, when the author puts up a warning for authoritarianism. Please.

It's truly horrific how many people are disdainful of those of us who have PTSD, as though this "weakness" were a moral failing, and therefore also a moral failing to accommodate.

> trigger warning

I dislike them, but I have met people who genuinely do not want to think about bad things. I can accept the viewpoint, but these are the people that turn a blind eye during genocides. If you really can't handle discussing topics like these I don't mind a warning, at least rather than self-censoring.

However, I'm reminded of the fuss that was made over the term "Joyplot" due to the term Joy Division - ignoring that band is named after the historical term as an artistic statement, it just seems like pandering into the void.

If you saw your family and friends murdered in a genocide and were understandably traumatized, it's reasonable to not force you to relieve that experience unprepared. A trigger warning for genocide would help you emotionally prepare to engage with the topic, or if you're still not ready, to avoid it.

It's not for society at large to dismiss controversial topics (though some people mistakenly use it that way).