> Anyone should be allowed to question and explore a topic without having to issue trigger warnings or generally be expected to manage the "visceral" response t

> Anyone should be allowed to question and explore a topic without having to issue trigger warnings or generally be expected to manage the "visceral" response their questions might evoke from a bystander observing the discussion or even the participants. That's a non-sequitur. The author is a researcher responding to statements he read/heard from a justice who isn't an expert in that particular field. His main point is the premises underlying the justice's questions reveal a misconception, quite apart from the justice's intent. He's also addressing a general audience in a newspaper, not the Supreme Court, so his intent to clarify misconceptions without regard to the Supreme Court justice's method of inquiry is perfectly reasonable. Furthermore, each argument the author puts forward is not a "visceral response", but instead is supported by links to research. The only thing that could conceivably be different if the quoted justice were, say, Ginsburg, is the author writing a clause opining that she was probably playing devil's advocate. But to shoehorn "trigger warnings", "identity politics", and false labels of bigotry into that discussion is as silly as talking about how the Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer’s table.