To a 1980s Christian mom? All of them.

But we're not talking about an 80's christian mom since you proceeded to make the observation that "People are outraged by whatever they are told to be outraged over and ignore everything that they aren't".

Which is to say, being exposed to extreme violent/abusive content could only cause PTSD iff one is subject to a specific social construct that define these acts in a certain way. Let's just assume you're right, what kind of employees would that imply are immune to getting PTSD from such content given your previous observation?

The answer is in the question: Whoever has been raised in a culture that doesn't make a big deal out of whatever the given content is.

And what culture is that?

You're lying and you know it. I remember the 80s as much as anyone else. Especially the part where Elton John and Freddy Mercury where at the peak of their popularity, unless you where living in a religious shithole but that was (and still is) a small part of the world.

In 1980 75% of adults thought that homosexuality was always wrong and 20% that it was never wrong or only sometimes wrong.

https://lgbpsychology.org/html/gss4.html

https://lgbpsychology.org/html/prej_prev.html

Your feelings about the period mean nothing.

Seeing something you think is culturally wrong is not necessarily traumatizing, is it? And surely there are degrees of "wrongness", ranging from the merely uncomfortable to the truly gross to the utterly horrifying. Even within the horrifying category, one can differentiate between things like a finger being chopped off and e.g. disembowelment. It's reasonable to expect a person would be more traumatized the further up the ladder of horror they're forced to look.

This would be believable if not for the fact that hanging gutting and quartering was considered good wholesome family entertainment to watch while getting fast food in the market not three centuries ago literally everywhere.

How did that go away, if people only do what they're brought up to do?

We found out that keeping people homeless to die of exposure slowly was much more effective at keeping the majority in line.

No one is actively trying to keep people homeless or watch them die on the streets, much less use that as a lesson to keep people in line. Drawing and quartering is way more scary and effective if you want to make people obey. You're just mixing nihilistic bitterness with outright nonsense.

Depends seriously on the country, the Netherlands was way ahead there. In many ways more ahead than it is now because it has become so conservative lately.

In what 80s fantasy were you living in where gay people were open. Rumor was John was bisexual and Freddy getting aids in the late 80s was a huge deal. Queen's peak is around 1992 with Wayne's world. No men kissed on stage or in movies neither did women.

It might have induced 'disgust', but no, two men kissing didn't give 1980s Christian moms actual PTSD.

Not defending this person in particular, but you should take a look at how anti-LGBT, including at the government level, most countries are in Africa. Maybe a decent number of them do regard seeing homosexuality as PTSD inducing.

There are several places where they legally can and will kill you for homosexuality.

The existence of anti-LGBTQ wasn't where their argument was leading to though.

Their line of logic was that our society moral values are but social construct, that change from place to place and with time, therefore being exposed to sexual violence, child abuse, gore etc. is PTSD inducing only because we're examining it through our limited perspective whereas it's quite possible that all these things those FB mods were exposed to can be perfectly normal in some cultures.

I wanted to see where that argument would lead them to, as in, what kind of people would FB should have hired that would be resistant to all these horrible stuff, but other than to let me know that in fact there are such cultures, I never got a straight answer out of them.