"I have been offended, that means I have rights."
-I know that sounds really weird, but people used to say this all the time, especially when they were crusading against things they found offensive. So I had to put up with it quite a bit when I was listening to heavy metal albums, punk rock, and stuff like that. Whenever someone said "That means I have rights" that right was always "I tell you to shut the fuck up, and you shut the fuck up. You take a knife cut your own tongue out with it right this instant and never speak again or you are actually violating my rights!"
Of course this is one of the most ridiculous bullshit arguments in the world. Being offended doesn't actually mean anything. It just means YOU'RE offended. You don't magically gain rights from being offended. Really clever people like Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry explained very clearly what it means to be offended. Ultimately it means nothing. It just means you are off in your own little planetary orbit, being upset, and it has no bearing upon the universe whatsoever.
And people don't like that. Or they can't deal with it. When they're offended that want mountains to move and planetary orbits to realign to see everything their way. So what do they do? They attempt to redefine what it means to be offended by making the grandiose claim "I have been offended and that means I have rights!" -because what is more important than rights?
This argument usually came from the religious conservative right wing. What has happened now is the far left wing liberal SJWs have taken this concept and redefined it for their own purpose, by calling it "Triggering". Instead of saying 'We have rights' they're making the ridiculous grandiose claim we are doing grievous bodily harm by not shutting the fuck up when we are told to by a Social Justice Warrior.
Originally 'triggering' was related to people who suffered from genuine psychological trauma, like people who suffer from PTSD, and we asked "Please don't shoot off fireworks around the veterans home, it may trigger someone". So whenever someone uses the phrase 'triggered' for themselves they're attempting to relate to something as serious as a PTSD flashback.
However, in the common use, 'trigger' is not being used to protect people from serious emotional damage. The whole point of why it exists is to abuse the fuck out of it just get people to shut the fuck up on certain topics and arguments that SJWs don't like, and try to define the playing field for what is allowed in freedom of speech.
What we need to do is to treat 'trigger' with the exact same contempt that we have for 'offended' . When someone said "I have been offended that means I have rights" -we said prove it. When someone says "I am triggered and this is doing me grievous bodily harm through crippling emotional trauma" we say "prove it". This onus is on them to prove they are suffering genuine emotional damage, and if their argument sounds like bullshit then we are free to disregard it completely. And honestly if some people actually are so terribly fragile they will actually curl up into a ball and die because they heard certain words in a derogatory manner, then they're just going to have to die.
I have always held to the belief we bear absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to the sensibilities of other people. It is not for us to censor ourselves to cater to someone else's "Trigger". It is for them to grow a fuckin hide and deal with that shit.
I have been saying this ever since I drew cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, I'm saying now to people who bitch about being "triggered".