Fun article!  Much of the discussion of the recent campus demonstrations about "safe spaces" and an alleged right to not be offended, looked like a two-year old's tantrum; and one talking-head characterized the demonstrators as "panty-waist fascists".  I liked that one.  There was video of one of the student leaders saying that she was sick and tired of people were using the first amendment when it resulted in her feeling unsafe.

Then there was a large, declared safe-space on one campus which was invaded by protesting black students who demanded that all whites had to leave because the blacks were feeling unsafe in the presence of whites because they represented white privilege.

Much of the leftist rhetoric often looks like a facade of pseudo-reasoning fronting for either angry or whining demands.  And I think you could almost divide the left into those who are the angry whiners and those who are the fearful appeasers.  Like when the Missouri University demonstrators wanted the universities president to apologize, publically admit his white privilege and hire more people of color.  He promptly resigned showcasing his fearful-appeaser type in response to the whinning-angry types.  Both all about having the proper emotional response to a specific emotional stimuli.  (Without political correctness none of them would know what was the proper conditioned response to a given behavioral stimuli - since thought isn't involved :-)

And the issue is really not important... race, climate, political correctness... whatever.  Was it Lenin or Saul Alinsky that said the issue doesn't matter, it is all about the revolution?  And today's revolution's transactions seem to measured and delivered as emotional units wrapped in thin rationales.  Look at what John Kerry said when comparing the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack to the Paris attack.  He said that "we all feel" (not think, but feel) that in the Charlie Hebdo attack the terrorists were focused - had a rationale - but were just indiscrimate in the Paris attack.  Then, referring to the Charlie Hebdo publication of the Mohammed cartoons, he said "...they're really angry because of this and that" and this seems to be what his appeaser-worrier antenna is catching - their anger (what they are angry about isn't that important - it's just "this or that").  In his peculiar psychepistemology the greater the anger the more they are justified or excused.  This goes beyond just using emotions as tools of cognition, but also stand as guideposts in value detection.  You've heard that the closed mouth doesn't get fed?  This is kind of like, "The quiet terrorist won't get appeased."

Not unique to leftists anymore it seems

http://ncac.org/resource/ncac-report-whats-all-this-about-trigger-warnings/

[-] Media commentary often portrays the demand for trigger warnings as coming from politically left-leaning students who seek to limit discussions of offensive material—because they are either "coddled" and thin-skinned, or they want to chill speech in the name of "political correctness." As the headline of a widely-read essay at Vox.com put it, "I'm a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me."

While this dynamic is certainly real, the survey paints a more complex picture. Many professors report offering warnings for the sake of conservative or religious students. "I used trigger warnings to warn about foul or sexual language, sexual content, or violence in order to allow our very conservative students to feel more in control of the material," wrote one instructor.