Note that this is about trigger warnings, and therefore teaching more than research. It also hasn't really aged well. I remember this criticism was far more pr

Note that this is about trigger warnings, and therefore teaching more than research. It also hasn't really aged well. I remember this criticism was far more prominent a few years back, including on HN. What happened since? Trigger warning were renamed "CN", for "content note", I believe. We also got ourselves some actual problems, so nobody cares about these things anymore. Popular perception of these warnings also became less scandalised with their increasing popularity: first, because people note that the abundance of "CNs" they come across mean precisely the opposite of what was feared: it's a sign that people aren't censoring themselves, but instead using a commonly accepted practice to mitigate any possible negative effects without the need to self-censor. And here's the second misunderstanding: "CNs" aren't really meant to make people leave the room or not read the book, and the examples from these articles were pretty rare back then and are almost unheard of now. They are, instead, an acknowledgement that I, the speaker, realise that this may be a sensitive topic for you. By flagging this up-front, I show that harming you is not my intention, and that I will be supportive if any issue arises. This understanding defuses the situation. Because it's not usually texts about the Holocaust that are traumatising for jews. It's people using those texts and that history to hurt them anew.