If you were a university or journalist or public figure tweeting etc, it's important to consider the generic utility.

Your example is very relevant as it's both very real and also extremely specific to your own world and context.

Trying to predict every potential 'trigger' imposes a major mental burden both on the authors/editors to find them and on the reader in the distracting way it's prominently appended to information

If you're talking to a very specific audience I don't see anything wrong with it. But making it a common/general practice seems like a completely wasteful exercise. Especially with the way the grievance crowd is never satisfied with only a few people getting special treatment, the list always grows exponentially. Then eventually there will be a mountain of trigger warnings for every potential niche.

So if we agree there's some very real (growing) costs involved, the other factor is does it provide real benefit for x% of readers? Then you can evaluate the ROI. If studies show people are even more likely to read it anyway (or maybe can't "prepare" themselves in a meaningful way) it's hard to see much benefits vs costs.

I don't think one should let consideration drive paralysis. But I don't think devoting a modest amount of time to being considerate is wasteful.

That said, I think there are plenty of people who feel resentful that people are now asking them to be considerate when before they could get away with being thoughtless jerks. That's especially the case when the requests for consideration come from groups constructed as lesser (women, non-dominant ethnic groups, gender/sexuality minorities, etc). Those people can go fly a kite.

I disagree that the costs are growing. My experience is that I spend an approximately constant amount of time on consideration. On occasion, somebody points out how something I said could be unpleasant or harmful to some set of people. I think about it, usually find another way to make my point, and move on. From what I've seen, the only people who find this burdensome are the ones who are resentful that they have to think about people unlike them, and so don't end up learning. That's a choice that they can make, but I don't see any reason to coddle them.

> Those people can go fly a kite.

> From what I've seen, the only people who find this burdensome are the ones who are resentful that they have to think about people unlike them

This sort of smug/stereotypical dismissal of why people dont care to add preambles to every comment/paragraph they write or say outloud that might offend or upset someone is exactly why people push back on this sort of thing.

Ignore all counterpoints and just accuses them all of not caring about x victims predicament.

You seemed to have glossed over all of my comment where I said the IRL costs of doing so significantly overshadows the returns. It's unrealistic and naive. And this sort of glib attitude towards how other people are expected to know and react ahead-of-time to hundreds (or thousands) of potential niche cases is not helping your case.

Being sensitive to a highly specific audience whom you're directly talking to != attempting to predict every potential scenario where you might upset someone whenever you write or say anything in public.

Don't confuse the two. One's a common sense social expectation the other is a major change in how people communicate.

Oh, I see. When you write it's an intolerable burden to think of the feelings of others. When I write it's absolutely awful that I don't coddle your incredibly delicate feelings. Noted.

FYI, This right here is how folks get punched in the face or cutoff from their family IRL.

Ah, that's how I know I've found the people truly dedicated to rational discourse: when somebody speaks honestly, just like they advocate for, they threaten violence. Sorry to hear your family relationships are so brittle, though.

You misunderstand friend, rather completely.

Feel free to explain then. But otherwise I'll take this as the kind of faux-superior vaguery you get from people who can't address the actual point.

My point is that being nasty just gets you nasty back, regardless of the validity of your point.

And earns you enemies from all but a tiny fraction of people, regardless of the validity of your point.

You can always say no, politely. Or leave. Or refuse, etc.

I don’t care for the original persons point, but I also don’t care for you. To be clear.

Sure. But an important part of the anti-trigger-warning crowd, perhaps the majority of it, is intervening on the side of historically dominant groups, arguing that people shouldn't have to care at all about the historically dominated groups. It's basically, "Why should I, a man, have to care about women who were raped?" Except it's for all targeted groups and their bad experiences.

To my mind that's quite nasty, even when it's cloaked in false, high-minded BS about free speech and the like. So am I going to be frank in return? You bet.

If you really care about people being nasty, I am sure you'll now start hectoring those nasty pro-kyriarchy types. But what I think is actually happening here is that you'll continue to only object to anti-status-quo frankness, while happily accepting pro-status-quo nastiness as long as it's got a modicum of civility glossed over it.