Remember how Occupy America didn't have an easily articulated set of politics? It was mostly an expression of anger at the current state of things? I think this is something similar, an acknowledgement that things are fucked up but no knowledge of where to go from that statement.

That seems really similar to this. I sympathize with what I'm reading here. Trigger warnings, for instance, seem like a good idea: we do the same thing for our movies (Deadpool is rated R, maybe your kids will have a Bad Time) and our food (has tons of carbs! lots of processed sugar!). And I think there's value in giving people the choice in what adversity they face day-to-day if they're already struggling (people with suicidal ideation don't need a lot of exposure to more suicidal ideation).

OTOH, I really agree with what Wendy Hyman from the article says. When you bend that far backwards you end up on the far right, circumscribing what people can think or say because you think you know better. For instance, outrage/call-out culture has made it a crime to be called a racist, so now everyone doesn't want to talk about race for fear of being called a racist. But if we can't talk meaningfully about race as an issue then it won't ever be untangled. It's okay to be angry about this stuff but using that as a foundation to halt all discussions forever just guarantees that the problem won't go away.

My mom is a Chicano activist and she's always warned about what she calls the "más que tus": people who used their identities and politics as cards in a game of one-upmanship rather than as ways of understanding and ultimately changing the status quo. I'm worried that we're feeding that now in our search for a progressive means forward.