1) This wasn't exactly my point. My point was safety tools and trigger warning becoming the norm, seems to be having a negative effect on people. This is definitely an opinion.
Please stop with the hypothetheories. If you think that the normalization of trigger warnings "has a negative effect on people" beyond a minor annoyance to you, provide evidence.
2) I never claimed humans can read minds. I said we can get a sense of other people, and have a feeling based on our past experience, social cues, what people say, whether they are expressing a feeling that is genuine or performative (and I was clear this can't be known, only speculated and inferred). The point was people can be dishonest about their feelings, they can misunderstand their own feelings, and they can exaggerate their feelings, and we shouldn't automatically accept something because someone says they have feeling X about it. We should sometimes be skeptical if it seems warranted.
I never claimed that you said that humans could read minds. I just said that humans can't read minds in order to support my argument. Not everything I say is directed to attack your argument.
Okay . . . if you say that you can tell what other people's triggers are, how say you can't you tell whether or not someone is faking it? If you "get a sense of other people through social cues, what they say, etc", how can you not tell whether or not they're lying about their triggers? Also, most people don't have the ability you seem to have with deciphering the triggers of others, so while it may not be helpful to someone with your skill, it can almost definitely be helpful to someone without it.
No. Full stop. No, absolutely no skepticism is warranted. If you don't trust your players to tell the truth about their triggers, they shouldn't trust you to DM for them. D&D is a game. Not a social competition to see who can point out who's lying about their triggers and who isn't. If you view your players as selfish monsters that will leap at the chance to somehow take advantage of you by lying about their mental health, I have a feeling that you should stop DMing due to social paranoia or find a different table that doesn't give you that feeling. D&D is a collaborative game, and as the saying goes "no D&D is better than bad D&D". No good can come from assuming that your players are out to get you at every moment.
3) Yes this is an option. Things like trigger warnings, and safety tools are not proven science at all and they are still hotly debated by professionals. I've seen good arguments for both positions, but I tend to find the arguments against these things more persuasive. This is also not a matter we have at all settled as a society. In gaming this has certainly gained widespread acceptance: that doesn't mean gamers are right.
You claim evidence, but do not present it. Also, the fact that a topic is a matter of debate does not mean that it's subjective. Climate change is real, but that doesn't stop people from debating about whether it exists. Something does not have to be "proven by science" in order to be beneficial, either.
4) This argument rests on the assumption that the resource in fact helps prevent the problem. I am disputing that assumption. You are definitely making a strong argument but isn't one a person can't disagree with without denying reality or objectivity (very few moral arguments are so objective---if they were it would be a lot easier for humans to get along with one another). What is more, this argument doesn't account for the things I am pointing to: for example even if we accept the premise that these resources can help prevent said problems, if they create other problems in the process, that is a complication that needs to be addressed (and I am saying, I see other problems emerging & I think the notion that these tools prevent problems is not fully true)
I have no idea what the hell this means. Please clarify, because right now, I'm reading it as "this argument rests on the assumption that because I have no evidence, my side is wrong". If that is your meaning here, you are objectively not arguing in good faith. You're saying "I have no evidence to support my argument, but that doesn't matter, because I still want to argue!!!"
It doesn't matter whether or not something is true, without evidence you cannot debate to support the fact that it is true. It matters that you are attempting to debate without the tools or intent to debate. Debate requires evidence, even though reality doesn't. It doesn't matter that the Americas existed if there was a debate between Europeans in the 7th century who had no evidence of the existence of the American Continents. If two Europeans were attempting to debate whether or not the Americas existed back then, the side without any evidence of their existence would not have the tools to debate, therefore their side in the debate was objectively wrong, even if their side in reality was correct. You are speculating instead of providing evidence, and using "evidence doesn't make something true/not true" to justify your argument. That is logically fallacious. You have no ground, so you might as well stop debating.
