On what basis are we to accept this claim? Is this simply grounded in anecdotal evidence?

I agree that simplistic warnings are not a good idea, but that is because I believe they are not sufficiently responsive to the moral reasons in favor of providing advanced warning.

Neither!

I do not accept that the use of trigger warnings by professors ought to be done "in the hope that it might influence public policy."

There is an answer to Drum's question: viz., that carefully crafted and delivered trigger warnings can help students learn by preventing them from disengaging.

This raises the issue of the scope of any alleged obligation to warn about potentially triggering material.

Kang raises an interesting point about trigger-warnings; viz., that they prescribe reading texts in a certain way, much like his professor's comment about Lolita prescribed reading it in a particular way.

I'm not sure what I think about this as a general claim. I imagine that this may be true in certain cases, but not in others. It is also important to note that even if we accept the truth of this claim, it doesn't immediately follow that this is a criticism of the practice.

St. Bonaventure on the relational quality of grace.

Henner's painting could've just as easily been titled, "The Harrowing of Hades." What is the descent into Hell, but God "experiencing"—extending God's self into, being made subject to—the nonbeing that is death? I don't conceive of God's descent into Hell as anything other than God really, truly (yet paradoxically) being subject to the separation from God, which is (or we should say: was) death. This is perhaps the aspect of the good news that is more paradoxical than even the God-Man: it is the death of God, which thereby conquers death, for death is now not beyond God. And those who have died are now not separated from God; the incarnate God has shared in the same.

An mportant insight concerning Tea Party belief and values...

He argues that transubstantiation is an example of an doctrine that cannot be confirmed by a miracle because it is "contrary to sense." In other words, the thing proposed contradicts what is given by sense observation. The question will be whether this is because something which contradicts the senses is impossible or whether it is because one cannot justifiably believe the thing for some other reason. I suspect it is the latter.

Tillotson argues that some doctrines are uniquely incapable of being proved by a miracle...

Tillotson claims that miracles were originally needed to help establish and make people receptive to the gospel, but this is no longer necessary.

Tillotson asserts that miracles constitute the chief "external proof" or evidence in favor of the "divinity" of Christian doctrines. (Notice that he doesn't put it in terms of "truth.")

Tillotson's definition of miracle: "a supernatural effect, evident and wonderful to sense"

This is a great illustration; we can easily see how the repetition would allow her to be (re)acquainted, so to speak, with the traumatic moment, but in a way that would allow her to experience it from the other perspective.

Tauves' definition of apocalypticism.