With the carnival ride analogy, you know a carnival ride has a physical strain that could cause problems to certain types of people, like pregnant women.
How are you supposed to know the set of topics that could potentially trigger a large classroom of people? And how are you supposed to know what topics will be brought up in discussions or questions asked in a classroom?
If someone is triggered by the topic of war or fire, it could come up as an analogy in any subject. "90s music was like a war on being happy - depressing alternative rock spread like wildfire."
Also, I think the burden of evidence is on requiring trigger warnings for classrooms. Why should they be implemented?
Completely agree with this. Trigger Warnings - good intentions or not, preventing panic attacks or not, are completely unreasonable from a practical standpoint. One cannot know in advance which information might or might not "trigger" someone. Not to mention, in a college setting, you can't just say "I refuse to attend this lecture because it triggered me.". Well if it causes you distress you can remove yourself from that environment.
You can't just know beforehand what might "trigger" someone, and you can't account for the majority of the cases. Add into it the fact that you cannot just avoid discussing uncomfortable topics because _some_ people might find it distressing -- sometimes discussing uncomfortable topics is the entire point, especially in academia, what else are you supposed to do?
How are you supposed to know the set of topics that could potentially trigger a large classroom of people? And how are you supposed to know what topics will be brought up in discussions or questions asked in a classroom?
If someone is triggered by the topic of war or fire, it could come up as an analogy in any subject. "90s music was like a war on being happy - depressing alternative rock spread like wildfire."
Also, I think the burden of evidence is on requiring trigger warnings for classrooms. Why should they be implemented?