Response 1: Wait Don't Pull The Trigger Just Yet!

In Sam Finch’s article, he explicitly explains the ignorance of those who find trigger warnings annoying, trivial using an informal, modern language, while also expressing what he thought an ignorant person say, through eight points of why they believe trigger functions are irksome. He uses insensitive diction to describe their heartless behavior. On the other hand, he fails to really establish much of its importance, due to his anger, which implies that the audience that Sam was writing to are those who know about trigger warnings and are also furious about this as well. The author being transgender and his experience with his friend shows how the author’s history and background can implicate such a passage. Meanwhile, in Jenny Jarvie’s article towards the controversial topic of trigger warnings, the writer is uses more sources, references and recent studies, with longer paragraphs. This implies that Jenny’s audience are more curious towards the topic, possibly vacillating as to which side to choose, thus Jenny tries to lure the audience in through data and facts in order to demonstrate her cause of disagreement. The author uses a large font for paragraphs demonstrating new sub-topics, similar to a newspaper, and uses a quite vast use of vocabulary in comparison, which demonstrates the contrast of audience of ‘New Republic’ to ‘Every Feminist’. Also, Jenny must have not experienced anything like PTSD beforehand, which is a possibility of her lack of similarity to Sam. In addition, her former articles seem to demonstrate a lack of sympathy towards mental differences in society (disorders, sexual orientation. Etc). Overall, I believe that Jenny was more convincing and was able to offer more evidence against trigger warnings, hence her perfective use of logos and ethos. Albeit I believe that trigger warnings everywhere could develop into social lassitude, I could see why one would side with Sam, as Jenny and Sam’s social and cultural contexts resemble a disparity.