You’re wrong. I mean, it’s possible you’re short-term right about individuals’ views, but you’re long-term wrong about the efficacy of protest, rallying, and even anger.
When I was young (and we’re talking 1995, not like the 1800s here), it was still totally acceptable to call people a lesbo, a dyke, a faggot. Things people didn’t like were “gay,” like it was totally OK to just say that. Gay marriage was unthinkable. Gay panic defense (the idea that a man propositioned by another man was justified in killing him) was successful in several murder trials around that time.
Ten years before that, the actual US government had a policy of letting people die of AIDS.
None of those things are true today, because a bunch of LGBTQ+ people stood up and said something and fought back and rallied and got really angry. Black people get to vote now because a bunch of black people stood up and said something and fought back and got really angry. Women can wear pants at work now because a bunch of women stood up and said something and fought back and got really angry.
So you don’t have to be angry. You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to. But if I’m protesting because I see something I think is wrong? I don’t care if you think it’s because I’m “triggered.”
And if you think I must care because I wrote this long a response? I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to other people reading your article.