1. That it's harmful
2. That it's easy to do something else
(1) is the important point, (2) is irrelevant. On the important point, you seem to have assumed several things:
a) that it is harmful
b) that anyone to whom the assumed harm would occur would see it
c) that they would know what the camp looked like
(a) I see no evidence for this, in fact, research suggests the opposite[1]
> The strange paradox about triggers and PTSD – and this is true for all anxiety-related disorders – is that avoiding triggers makes the disorder worse, not better (Jones et al., 2020). Being exposed to small instances of one’s triggers, in a safe environment such as therapy where one can be helped to process the situation, is a way to gradually become less reactive to those triggers (APA, 2013). Many people have learned to reduce their reactivity to psychological triggers through this process, called exposure therapy.
and (b) really is a stretch, are we to believe there are people in the tech industry who are on-call and were interned in WW2 and will read this article and will have some kind of meltdown because of it? Why would their descendants react badly to it? Unless they have a pre-existing condition, that's untenable, and if they have a pre-existing condition then they should seek help for it.
And to (c), how would they even know what the camp looked like if they're so triggered by the thought of it? They have an aversion to it.
No, none of that makes sense, and cloaking it in "compassion" or trying to handwave scrutiny away because it would be a "low stakes" behavioural change won't hide it.
> Apart from that, I cannot associate with the picture either
We are intelligent people, the link is really simple to make. There being "better" choices does not make the picture a non-sequitur.
I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing this West coast American style of pop psychology being misapplied to real life would die a death.
By the way, George Takei (I believe that's who you meant) is 87, and he's not really in tech.