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.