Red vs Blue takes on Trigger Warnings

[MatParker116]

Honestly, I dont mind them. It's not any different to me than the whole "Rated A for adult"-thing. If someone wants to include them for stuff like Rape or the like, fine go ahead. And I have yet to see a sizeable portion of people _demanding_ that triggered warnings be included somewhere. Usually it's the same kind of crazy people that Moo like farmyard cattle at Rape Jokes or complain that "series X sucks now" in the comment section. And those are mostly just a vocal minority.

And seriously, some Media actually advertise rather badly what kind of stuff they're gonna show. So a warning or note that warns about certain things might actually not be that bad.

Where do you draw the line though? Here's an example of a rather unusual Trigger:

?I worked with a torture survivor who had been forced into signing a blank sheet of paper. The authorities used it to say she had signed a confession. She was conditioned to the colour white. She was not able to come close to white socks, for example.?

Triggers are that broad.

 

[MatParker116]

I'm really tired of this pointless crusade against the "inappropriate" use of trigger warnings, because frankly it's far more prevalent, to my eyes, than the inappropriate use of trigger warnings itself. Furthermore, it's not actually helping anyone, it's not restoring the whole debate on trigger warnings back to a serious discussion on the reasonable treatment of the mentally ill. It's simply mocking the very idea of mental illness itself in service to some pointless and whiny anti-PC internet crusader mentality.

I learned a number of things, but first and most relevant to this subject, is that those with real disabilities (especially mental trauma, and who are aware of it) DON'T WEAR THEIR PROBLEMS LIKE A BADGE.

What are you actually saying here?

What constitutes "wearing your problems like a badge?" Does being open about the fact that you have mental health issues exclude you from actually having them? Does demanding any kind of special accommodation or treatment exclude you from actually being mentally ill? Because, as someone who is mentally ill and has worked with others who are, I feel that's kind of wrong.. I've been in plenty of situations of having to demand special accommodation from people. Heck, I'm in such a situation right now.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that requiring special treatment is part of what makes someone mentally ill in the first place. If you simply think a bit differently from most people but it never affects you or manifests socially, then that isn't really an illness at all.. it's an interior difference which doesn't actually matter.

IMO, Trigger Warnings sound like a good idea (akin to epilepsy warnings) but only on paper because (again, just my limited experience) triggers and reactions vary WILDLY. Some clients exhibited general anxiety when exposed and were pretty to avoid triggering, while others went off seemingly at random.

This is a legitimate concern, and one of the few genuine arguments against trigger warnings. However, it's also based on an assumption that the purpose of trigger warnings is to facilitate avoidance.

Let me give an example: my partner literally tried to jump out of a window once because someone was watching a film in the next room while she was trying to sleep, but I know we could sit down together and watch the same film together without any issues. If your kid who was triggered by the popsicle had been told "you are going to see a popsicle now", would it have had the same impact? People with PTSD do protect themselves, not simply through avoidance but also through cultivating mental states which are resistant to trauma, but that requires control, it requires the ability to preempt the situation.. in short, that requires warnings.

One difficulty of assessing the actual effect of trigger warnings is that their existence generally makes them unnecessary. It isn't simply the case that you have a person who is triggered by depictions of rape, for example, and thus will always be triggered by depictions of rape. It depends on their mental state and the degree to which they are prepared, and if a person knows what is coming they will often be able to protect themselves.

This is actually the principle on which therapy works. Therapy for PTSD is not like fixing a car. You don't reach into a person's brain, find the "trigger" and pull it out and suddenly the trigger is gone. Your friend isn't able to work in a hospital because a therapist reached in and pulled the trigger out of him, but because getting up and going to work in a hospital is a trigger warning. You go to a hospital and you expect to hear sirens, that expectation is control.

Trigger warnings can be misused to facilitate avoidance, but that it is not fundamentally the point. The point is to facilitate control. You talk about taking responsibility, when the ability to take responsibility is completely dependent on context. I've seen my partner lose hours of her memory because someone jokingly used the word rape at a party. I've also seen her sit down to watch the film Irreversible. Context is everything, and the value of trigger warnings is that they give people more control over the context. Used correctly, that isn't allowing people not to take "responsibility", it's helping them to do more effectively.

According to experts Exposure Therapy is the most effective way to treat PTSD to quote a harvard professor:

Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder. According to a rigorous analysis by the Institute of Medicine, exposure therapy is the most efficacious treatment for PTSD, especially in civilians who have suffered trauma such as sexual assault. For example, prolonged exposure therapy, the cognitive behavioral treatment pioneered by clinical psychologists Edna B. Foa and Barbara O. Rothbaum, entails having clients close their eyes and recount their trauma in the first-person present tense. After repeated imaginal relivings, most clients experience significant reductions in PTSD symptoms, as traumatic memories lose their capacity to cause emotional distress. Working with their therapists, clients devise a hierarchy of progressively more challenging trigger situations that they may confront in everyday life. By practicing confronting these triggers, clients learn that fear subsides, enabling them to reclaim their lives and conquer PTSD.

To quote another expert:

In a world increasingly mediated by images and content that we have no control over, does he think it?s advisable for the media to issue trigger warnings?
?There would be no point,? he said. ?You cannot get a person to avoid triggers in their day-to-day lives. It would be impossible.?
But, given a chance to think it over, Basoglu went much further than that. ?The media should actually ? quite the contrary? Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure.
?Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That?s not good.
?Exposure to trauma reminders provides an opportunity to gain control over them. This is the essence of the treatment that we are using to help trauma survivors. It involves encouraging the patient not to avoid reminders of trauma, but in fact to make a point of exposing themselves to reminders of trauma so that they can develop a tolerance.
?I liken it to a vaccination. You get a small dose of the virus so that the body can develop immunity towards it. Psychologically it?s the same phenomenon.?

 

[Terminal Blue]

snip

I'm not sure you've understood what I was saying at all.

I agree that avoidance is bad. That is not in question. What I disagree with is that the purpose of trigger warnings is to facilitate avoidance. The purpose of trigger warnings is actually to facilitate controlled exposure, emphasis on controlled exposure.

There is nothing helpful or therapeutic about deliberately triggering people or causing them to have episodes. That is not what "exposure therapy" means. By doing that, you are actually reinforcing the strength of the triggered response and thus doing enormous harm to someone with PTSD, not to mention causing them completely unnecessary distress. Simply repeating the same trauma over and over again is not good, what is important is establishing control.

Used correctly, trigger warnings are an important part of allowing people to do that.

Exposure therapy takes place in a controlled environment where the reliving of trauma is anticipated and can be emotionally prepared for. In short, the person taking part in exposure therapy has been warned. That warning is an important part of the therapy itself, because it's part of what makes the exposure controlled.

I also take extreme exception to the idea that exposure therapy is appropriate for everyone suffering from PTSD. It isn't something that is possible for everyone. For example, not all PTSD sufferers have conscious memories of the traumatic experience at all. They can't be exposed to something they don't remember.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Honestly, I dont mind them. It's not any different to me than the whole "Rated A for adult"-thing. If someone wants to include them for stuff like Rape or the like, fine go ahead. And I have yet to see a sizeable portion of people _demanding_ that triggered warnings be included somewhere. Usually it's the same kind of crazy people that Moo like farmyard cattle at Rape Jokes or complain that "series X sucks now" in the comment section. And those are mostly just a vocal minority.

And seriously, some Media actually advertise rather badly what kind of stuff they're gonna show. So a warning or note that warns about certain things might actually not be that bad.

Where do you draw the line though? Here's an example of a rather unusual Trigger:

?I worked with a torture survivor who had been forced into signing a blank sheet of paper. The authorities used it to say she had signed a confession. She was conditioned to the colour white. She was not able to come close to white socks, for example.?

Triggers are that broad.

So? Again, yes, it's not practical to give trigger warnings for everything, we can only hope to have them for the most common and obvious triggers. That is no reason why trigger warnings are inherently bad.

 

[MatParker116]

snip

I'm not sure you've understood what I was saying at all.

I agree that avoidance is bad. That is not in question. What I disagree with is that the purpose of trigger warnings is to facilitate avoidance. The purpose of trigger warnings is actually to facilitate controlled exposure, emphasis on controlled exposure.

There is nothing helpful or therapeutic about deliberately triggering people or causing them to have episodes. That is not what "exposure therapy" means. By doing that, you are actually reinforcing the strength of the triggered response and thus doing enormous harm to someone with PTSD, not to mention causing them completely unnecessary distress. Simply repeating the same trauma over and over again is not good, what is important is establishing control.

Used correctly, trigger warnings are an important part of allowing people to do that.

Exposure therapy takes place in a controlled environment where the reliving of trauma is anticipated and can be emotionally prepared for. In short, the person taking part in exposure therapy has been warned. That warning is an important part of the therapy itself, because it's part of what makes the exposure controlled.

I also take extreme exception to the idea that exposure therapy is appropriate for everyone suffering from PTSD. It isn't something that is possible for everyone. For example, not all PTSD sufferers have conscious memories of the traumatic experience at all. They can't be exposed to something they don't remember.

Never try and argue on two hours sleep! But I am gonna quote the harvard professor again:

In the noise, it is easy to overlook that trigger warnings originated in the feminist blogosphere in part to emphasize the frequency of sexual assault in America and the trauma that can come with it. The UC Santa Barbara resolution urges the university to require trigger warnings to affirm its stand ?against issues of sexual harassment and violence.? People who have experienced a trauma and developed post-traumatic stress disorder remember their experience all too well, reliving it emotionally in the form of intrusive memories, flashbacks, and nightmares. Warnings on syllabi can enable those who have suffered a traumatic event to avoid reminders that can trigger discomfort. But as the following studies show, these warnings may be counterproductive. The use of trigger warnings doesn?t just underestimate the resilience of most trauma survivors; it may send the wrong message to those who have developed PTSD.

 

[Batou667]

So... schools.

Academia, yes. Is there any particular reason you seem to want to omit schools from this discussion? A lot of social theory originates in, is disseminated by, and is post-hoc justified by, academia; so it seems completely reasonable to include it.

(I see you're banned, so I know you won't reply straight away. Not a problem as I only visit the escapist every other day or so these days.)

 

[Atmos Duality]

I'm really tired of this pointless crusade against the "inappropriate" use of trigger warnings, because frankly it's far more prevalent, to my eyes, than the inappropriate use of trigger warnings itself. Furthermore, it's not actually helping anyone, it's not restoring the whole debate on trigger warnings back to a serious discussion on the reasonable treatment of the mentally ill. It's simply mocking the very idea of mental illness itself in service to some pointless and whiny anti-PC internet crusader mentality.

Y'know, when someone leads off with something like this, and then quotes me specifically for interrogation, I've found that to be a sign I'm being made an example of. I'll come to this later.

What constitutes "wearing your problems like a badge?"

Put simply: Using your condition as a means of attaining social leverage well beyond the necessities of your condition.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that requiring special treatment is part of what makes someone mentally ill in the first place.

I agree, and nothing I've related in any way contradicts that; in fact, I'd say my experiences only reinforces that.

But the key element is that none of the handicapped/mentally ill (at least, that I've worked with or met) go out of their way to leverage their condition as some way of casting moral judgment on others who otherwise have nothing to do with them.

That is...not quite the case online.
So for the sake of eliminating redundancy, I'll save my rant about that for a bit later.

This is a legitimate concern, and one of the few genuine arguments against trigger warnings. However, it's also based on an assumption that the purpose of trigger warnings is to facilitate avoidance.

Which is a correct assumption, considering that's the purpose of a warning.

Trigger warnings can be misused to facilitate avoidance, but that it is not fundamentally the point. The point is to facilitate control. You talk about taking responsibility, when the ability to take responsibility is completely dependent on context.

Yes, but there are potentially INFINITE contexts at work here.

Case in point: Your partner had an incidental triggering based on spontaneous conversation, and that was unfortunate.
However, I doubt the other person was trying to trigger her deliberately. (if they were, well, they're just a horrible person and none of this matters anyway)

So I guess my question is: How would you go about preventing that incident in the first place?
Mandate trigger warnings for all conversation? (including idle conversation)
Ban all rape jokes and/or Mind-censor the populace? (which seems to be the "Tumblr Feminist" method)

I realize this sounds cold, but risk is part of life.
(risk assessment and dissemination is a big part of my profession)
Shit's going to happen to someone at sometime, and it's not always going to be for insidious (or even impractical) reasons.

That's why I went on my long spiel about therapy and taking responsibility in the first place; because it boils down to understanding risk and the burden of risk on individuals vs the general public.

So people when with conditions default to demanding trigger warnings for every possible little thing and foisting their burden onto everyone else I can't help but see them as either being really lazy, or insidiously pretentious.
And the hell of it is: If I even say that, they will immediately call me "ableist" or "uncaring" or preach at me about how hard their life is vs mine, etc.

Some of which may be true, but even if it is, fact remains that nothing useful is actually accomplished.

Used correctly, that isn't allowing people not to take "responsibility", it's helping them to do more effectively.

Yes, "Used correctly".
I don't take umbrage with the concept of trigger warnings, just issues of their practicality and application.

And I question why they're suddenly a big issue now. In fact, it seems more than a bit of a coincidence that Trigger Warnings correlate with the rise of outrage culture online. The biggest supporters for Trigger Warnings are in line with the same kind of "social justice" zealots pushing all manner of ill-informed nonsense.

While that doesn't disprove them outright, it makes me highly skeptical to just how many people are actually, legitimately being triggered in the ways they are claiming. (and consequently, using their supposed episodes as a way of shaming others into their line of thought)

I know there are assholes out there demanding warnings just so they can maintain their ruse of FAKING PTSD; far more I think, than the number of legitimate cases. And they fake it to either make others feel sorry for them, to publicly shame them for leverage.

Now I've worked with the mentally ill, have friends and family with conditions.
Some who are so well beyond therapy that their approaching death seems like true mercy.

(Someone I've known well for most of my life developed multiple sclerosis and brain lesions. She went from being fully functional to living perpetually afraid and confused in hospice within just a few years; Her brain and nervous system deteriorating until she couldn't do really anything. Not even simple arithmetic and reading. It's horrifying on its own, but it scares me even more because I may have those same faulty genetics).

So forgive my tone, but fakers are becoming pretty fucking obvious to me and I get pissed when I see them pushing their so-shitty-so-pity-me shame-game crap on others. (the tell is in the attitude, not the thing that they claim as a trigger; like I said before, I've seen a kid piss and shit their pants at the sight of a popsicle)

So when you lead off with a response to me with:

It's simply mocking the very idea of mental illness itself in service to some pointless and whiny anti-PC internet crusader mentality.

I'll tell you flat out my view goes well beyond some petty "internet crusader mentality".

People with conditions can either do the right thing and work with others (within reason) to account for their limitations, or they can pretend it's everyone elses' problem because life was unfair to them and some pretentious twat on the internet told them to milk it for all it's worth.

 

[Batou667]

Not "Academia". Schools. Nothing as broad as all of academia, and if we're being REALLY honest "Colleges" would be the real answer.

I want to omit a place where children spend money they will (mostly) not pay back, or spend their parent's money (mostly) on drinking and sex. The things that children believe when they are still in school, and not working or trying to live are not important except at key moments of cultural exchange, which this is NOT.

Fortunately even in schools, it is a loud, tiny minority involved anyway. Most are too busy partying or studying to be bothered with gender politics and the like.

Would you like to explain why you think the ideas of children at school shouldn't be treated like the isolated microcosm it is?

First off, these "children" are generally 18 or older, if we're talking about US colleges or what the rest of the world would call University. These are young adults, of voting age, and who are primed to become the next generation of policy makers.

Secondly, I reject the idea that this is an isolated microcosm. The fact that we're having a discussion about this is proof in itself that there's a trickle-down of originally fairly niche sociology/psychology/gender studies concepts that are being popularised and entering the mainstream. Trigger warnings are just one example. We could also talk about stuff like the shifting attitudes towards onus of proof in cases of rape (and in fact the changing definition of rape itself). Media portrayal and representation of women and minorities, and depiction of violence. Fat acceptance and body image in general. Cultural appropriation. None of these are particularly new topics, but in each case we can trace a clear line from their recent repackaging and insertion into the public discourse to their origins in academia-led campus political activism; and the subsequent signal-boosting in the blogosphere and parts of the mainstream press.

Lastly; how do you suppose these ideas are being sustained and repackaged for each subsequent cohort of student activists? The teaching staff themselves. Far from being the sole domain of fickle young revolutionaries, much of this activism comes from educated, respected, published, tenured and in some cases policy-making academics - most of them women in their middle age or older.

 

[Batou667]

Sounds like you have a pretty hefty thesis to prove then, because I don't believe much of what you're saying, and it's full of positive claims.

Still waiting on you to back up your claim that campus activism is an isolated microcosm of children with no effect on broader society.

 

[Batou667]

Trying to play a little Judo with your burden? Get back to me when you have some good faith to offer, or don't.

Right back at you, buddy. You're the one who dismissed a three-paragraph post with a one-liner; how is that demonstrating good faith? Especially since you've made plenty of uncorroborated positive claims yourself which I haven't pulled you up on.

If you have anything to contribute regarding my last post, great. But if we're going to get stuck in some iterative loop of pedantically shuttling the onus of proof back and forth and quibbling over citations for general claims which a cursory Google search could satisfy, count me out.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Y'know, when someone leads off with something like this, and then quotes me specifically for interrogation, I've found that to be a sign I'm being made an example of.

That wasn't my intention. I'm sorry if it came across like that.

But the key element is that none of the handicapped/mentally ill (at least, that I've worked with or met) go out of their way to leverage their condition as some way of casting moral judgment on others who otherwise have nothing to do with them.

I don't really see why not.. I mean, yeah, that wouldn't be a particularly nice thing to do, but sick people aren't always nice.

Which is a correct assumption, considering that's the purpose of a warning.

It's really not the purpose of a warning. I have a bottle of vitamin pills here with a warning on the back. It isn't there to ensure that noone ever takes vitamins, it's there as information on how to safely consume the product. That's all a warning is, information.. I agree that information can be misused, but we should not assume that the purpose of information is to be misused.

Case in point: Your partner had an incidental triggering based on spontaneous conversation, and that was unfortunate.
However, I doubt the other person was trying to trigger her deliberately. (if they were, well, they're just a horrible person and none of this matters anyway)

It doesn't matter whether they were trying to do it deliberately, because the result is ultimately the same. The damage is done nonetheless. We still have to deal with the aftermath and the consequences, which can be very serious. Yeah, sure, sometimes there will be things you can't plan for or things noone could have forseen. Should that excuse ignoring the obvious, forseeable things? What kind of principle is to to say that because we can't completely predict what's going to trigger someone that we shouldn't even try or be sensitive the possibility that certain common things might..

So I guess my question is: How would you go about preventing that incident in the first place?

I don't know if that particular situation could have been reasonably avoided. Again, why does it matter? Why is this an excuse for not trying as and when it is possible?

So people when with conditions default to demanding trigger warnings for every possible little thing and foisting their burden onto everyone else I can't help but see them as either being really lazy, or insidiously pretentious.

Okay, so what makes it less pretentious or less lazy when people who don't have to fear that they might throw themselves under a bus in a fit of panic somehow think they can foister that "burden" onto those who do? That's still an imposition, right, it's still arrogance. In fact, it's worse because it's not even coming from a position of perceived need, merely a desire not to have to bother with anyone else whose circumstances differ. What is the definition of laziness if not that?

If you can't countenance the possibility of a meaningful compromise, then I really don't think you have a leg to stand on in terms of accusing others of demanding more than they're entitled to.

And I question why they're suddenly a big issue now. In fact, it seems more than a bit of a coincidence that Trigger Warnings correlate with the rise of outrage culture online.

Outrage culture comes in many forms. Some people on this thread seem awful outraged by the idea that other people might have the temerity to be outraged. Of course, some people might say that part of having freedom of speech is the freedom to be outspoken in terms of what you find to be unacceptable in the world, but god forbid such a doctrine be extended to the wrong sort of people..

The biggest supporters for Trigger Warnings are in line with the same kind of "social justice" zealots pushing all manner of ill-informed nonsense.

And the biggest detractors are in line with some kind of "anti-PC" zealots pushing all manner of equally ill-informed nonsense. I don't see the functional difference.

While that doesn't disprove them outright, it makes me highly skeptical to just how many people are actually, legitimately being triggered in the ways they are claiming.

And to a degree, skepticism is good. I've encountered the misuse of trigger warnings (on both the political left and the political right). Not nearly as frequently as I've encountered the "OMG! SJWs are takin' our freederms" though, which makes me wonder who is really "outraged" here.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I don't really see why not.. I mean, yeah, that wouldn't be a particularly nice thing to do, but sick people aren't always nice.

No, they aren't. But it takes a bad situation and makes it worse, because if you try to correct their objectively poor behavior, it makes you look like a complete dick just because the person is handicapped. And that's unfortunately, the kind of scenario I've seen played out with this trigger warning business.

It irks me because I know PTSD is no laughing matter, and when pretenders arrive on scene, it devalues an otherwise legitimate subject.

It's really not the purpose of a warning. I have a bottle of vitamin pills here with a warning on the back. It isn't there to ensure that noone ever takes vitamins, it's there as information on how to safely consume the product. That's all a warning is, information.. I agree that information can be misused, but we should not assume that the purpose of information is to be misused.

Allow me to rephrase: The purpose of a warning is always THREAT AVERSION. "Do X at risk Y".
The threat can be legitimate, or a bluff; like how certain species of frogs are red/bright colored to indicate they are poisonous; while other species that aren't poisonous mimic those that are. The "red" is the warning, whether it's true or not.

How we use risk and assess it is ALWAYS contextual. My field is meteorology, and a big ongoing issue on the operational side is HOW to properly express warnings and communicate risk to the public. It's much harder to get a largely apathetic and cynical public to pay attention than it seems on paper. Yet, when people get hurt, die, or are grossly inconvenienced by the weather, the operators are frequently blamed in some way (sometimes, rightly so).

"Your forecast was bad!" "Why didn't you issue a warning sooner!" "I don't want percentages, I want yes/no answers!"

But I digress. In any case, the ultimate purpose of a warning is to suggest avoidance of personal harm.

I don't know if that particular situation could have been reasonably avoided. Again, why does it matter? Why is this an excuse for not trying as and when it is possible?

I think you missed the purpose of the question: WAS IT ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO AVOID.
And your answer is uncertainty.

Until you can answer that question as "yes" with a reasonable degree of certainty while retaining a reasonable amount of burden on the general public, there's no it's not an "excuse", but valid skepticism.

Okay, so what makes it less pretentious or less lazy when people who don't have to fear that they might throw themselves under a bus in a fit of panic somehow think they can foister that "burden" onto those who do?

Which is false equivalence; you can't flip the tables and come from the other side because the burden was never theirs to begin with if they don't have PTSD. They aren't the true source of the issue here.

As I've said before, it's mental trauma and thus not anywhere near as self-evident as something like blindness or physical handicapping.

If you can't countenance the possibility of a meaningful compromise, then I really don't think you have a leg to stand on in terms of accusing others of demanding more than they're entitled to.

So, if I don't "compromise", I'm a bad person. Doesn't matter what my reasoning has been thus far.
*sigh*
Because you've tried to level with me here, I'll give my proposed "compromise", out of mutual respect:

-MOST BROADLY: Let content creators post specific trigger warnings at their own volition. Don't force them to play God.
-COMMON BROADCAST: (large, regulated media) post the most common and relevant trigger conditions (war-time PTSD, rape).
-ELSE: Leave niche venues in peace. Those should be quick at self-correcting for exposure anyway, due to tiny audiences.

Apart from that, trying to mandate all possible relevant warnings is a pipe dream.

Outrage culture comes in many forms. Some people on this thread seem awful outraged by the idea that other people might have the temerity to be outraged. Of course, some people might say that part of having freedom of speech is the freedom to be outspoken in terms of what you find to be unacceptable in the world, but god forbid such a doctrine be extended to the wrong sort of people..

You say that last bit in mockery, but there is a kernel of truth in it.
Bad ideas are just as protected by free speed, and can proliferate via free speech as much as anything without opposition. Ergo, opposition to those bad ideas is a natural dynamic of possessing free speech.

The mistake, (and one frequently invoked on this site; especially in that aGG/GG mess), is that someone opposing a point is equivalent to revoking their free speech.

If someone starts a campaign proclaiming the Earth to be Flat (this actually happened not long ago, I kid you not), and the scientific community counters to debunk such lunacy, it doesn't automatically infringe on the others' right to free speech.

Being disproved (or even discredited) does not mean some magical boogeyman comes and takes your rights away.
People may not take you seriously anymore, but that isn't the same as losing free speech.

And the biggest detractors are in line with some kind of "anti-PC" zealots pushing all manner of equally ill-informed nonsense. I don't see the functional difference.

As a general rule, I agree; the biggest detractors tend to lean the most radical (or zealous).
It's the absence of reason and blind reliance on dogma or "the feels" that provokes zealotry, and provides the greatest drive to speak out on the matter.
Or more briefly: zealotry comes from the heart, not the head. In there, the functional difference lies.

When practical need and reasoning aligns with fervor, progress occurs. But that simply does not happen all that often now in today's "Politically correct" or "social justice" causes.

As a matter of principle, I want those with PTSD to live without fear of triggering episodes; but principles are not the same as practices, because what is practical ultimately, is what dictates reality.

So while I have my share of biases and "feels" on this subject, I haven't based my entire position on them, or tried to back-build my reasoning to support what would make me feel good because I know what is being asked is impractical or unfeasible.
That, and I believe there are better options of dealing with PTSD than having everyone else deal with it too.
I don't just mean in the sense that we all have to be inconvenienced by some nanny-stickers, but the burden of making sure when a content creator accidentally misses one and invokes needless (and damaging) outrage.

I'm against PC culture where it goes past being obnoxiously pretentious, and into the realm of oppressive and damaging.
If you think that makes me a zealot, then fine. Call me a zealot. I'm confident enough in my reasoning to know otherwise.

And to a degree, skepticism is good. I've encountered the misuse of trigger warnings (on both the political left and the political right). Not nearly as frequently as I've encountered the "OMG! SJWs are takin' our freederms" though, which makes me wonder who is really "outraged" here.

I'm actually in the opposite crowd, where exposure is concerned. In the past year, I've closed out accounts on several sites, entirely because the outrage and "corrective demands" were just getting crazy. (and no, Tumblr isn't one of them; holds no appeal to me)

I've frequently considered doing the same here; but it's between a few remaining contacts (PM stuff) and the (ironic) fact that The Escapist is actually far more moderate than the other places I (used to) frequent that I haven't.

Guess it's the company you keep...(generally, not "you" specifically)