I think if you accidentally say something to set someone off, you're not an evil person, but that's not what this article is about. There's a large distance between a social faux pas and forcing a PTSD victim to relive their experience(s). And yes, many people will have things that set them off, but most of the time you have to intentionally be an asshole to set off important things (for example, jokes about rape, domestic abuse, death in general, etc.). For the vast majority of things, it's pretty difficult to just stumble into--and for almost any situation, a heartfelt apology is literally all that you need to be right as rain in most people's books. I really, really want to emphasize and be very careful to state that I don't think the educator is at any fault here. I think that Ovid should be taught, if that's what the college chooses. The professor, the university, and the Greek Poet are not crooks because they've delivered this literature to the students, but it would be incredibly considerate if they would all keep in mind that the subject matter is very intense, and to give proper warnings to people who might have good reason to avoid it.
And that's where the divide really shows itself. In general, and obviously this is anecdotal, the people I speak to who are most critical of trigger warnings are the ones who express that no joke should be off-limits. So there's this worry that trigger warnings = censorship = jokes about rape not being allowed. Which is flawed thinking, in my opinion. Trigger warnings aren't meant to censor anything, they're in fact meant to allow people to create whatever they want while taking a quick second to warn potential consumers that there might be some graphic or obscene material within. The trigger warnings = censorship thinking seems, to me, like one that has a subtle slippery slope most people don't consider. What I mean by that is, it seems people thing trigger warnings need to be given out for literally anything that someone might not like. And I just don't see that happening. I don't think we're going to get to a point where someone requires every article to put trigger warnings in it for a political viewpoint just so they don't end up upsetting someone who doesn't agree with that viewpoint. Trigger warnings are meant for the types of things that can cause psychological demons to resurface and put someone in major distress. I can't say I've ever met someone who undergoes an anxiety attack because they read a conservative viewpoint on Fox News. But I've met someone who had no warning that The Hills Have Eyes was going to contain a graphic rape scene, and had a massive breakdown because her father had raped her years earlier. Sure, someone could say, "But people can suffer PTSD from lots of things so there might just be someone out there who gets triggered by Fox News and now you're requiring them to put warnings on their articles!" However, I'd have to see some evidence and proof and hear from actual professionals to believe that someone would be diagnosed has having Fox News be their trigger due to some event that occurred in their life, rather than something much more traumatic that has some real research explaining it.And yes, many people will have things that set them off, but most of the time you have to intentionally be an asshole to set off important things (for example, jokes about rape, domestic abuse, death in general, etc.).