There are lots of examples, reported hysterically by the right-wing press, which ostensibly illustrate this very neatly. If nothing else, a trigger warning for suicide on Romeo and Juliet is a Spoiler with a capital S. One could argue that allowing students to opt out of lectures on potentially distressing subjects is cruel rather than kind: after all, an education is supposed to prepare you for the world after the cocoon of university rather than freak you out about it. Trigger warnings are being applied to texts, films and criticism for topics including 'underage sex, homelessness and religion'. In January 2017, Glasgow University warned their theology students about the graphic content in images of the crucifixion. Quite aside from anything else, these kids will be shocked when they emerge from the chrysalis into a world brimming with all of those things and worse.
Why shouldn't people strive to exist somewhere with softer edges? Sure. The parameters someone applies to their own interactions with the world are none of my business. What does strike me as tricky is when topics or their proponents are not just prefixed with a warning but kicked out of the conversation all together, thereby striking them from the collective record. Again, that's not to say that I agree with the - frequently deplorable - opinions of people shouted down by twitter mobs. What does seem important, though, is that they are allowed to speak and be argued with as long as what they're saying doesn't fall outside the realms of legality.