"Never said anything like that, but to your point, who decides what's abusive?"
The given student association has a say in who it allows as members and as guests in to their private spaces. This has nothing to do with professors deciding to analyze the work of the Marquis de Sade (sp?). It's more about saying these associations have legal autonomy from the university itself when it comes to governing their private spaces no different than private associations being autonomous from the government in managing their private spaces as well.
"Let me reiterate that. Because trigger warnings and safe spaces are just code names for censorship, they cannot exist at the same time as a proper education, and the students that want to learn should not be punished by the stupidity of the students who only demand censorship (safe spaces and trigger warnings)."
Let me break this down here. When safe spaces are invoked they are only reasonably invoked in private spaces of student associations. This excludes class rooms of any given course on campus. So if the local LGBT students association refuse membership to some alt-right/nrx students or not to attend an open conference or just to simply not interact with specific individuals as a general rule there's no censorship in the sense of banning people from university speaking. You just happen not be free to speak in one private space independent of school functions. It's really no different than a club setting. To argue that this is censorship dilutes the meaning and impact of censorship throughout history and demands that private spaces become public spaces when case law on this matter in the United States is effectively settled (i.e. you have no right to a venue of your choice so long as that venue is private).
As for trigger warnings, this is not censorship, as I've had actual course descriptions that noted there were topics such as incest in the literature discussed and analyzed. Putting such notes in the course description effectively defines it as a trigger warning. No one is stopping the professor because in the vast majority of cases the professor was the one who wrote the description at least my university. And this wasn't some liberal bastion, either. It just happened the professor in question was sensible enough to give an accurate description of the course. Now, if you think trigger warnings are bad because people avoid courses that might cause them major emotional stress (like said talking about the topic of incest in relation to a work of fiction) then you need to show me how that violates the free speech of a professor. Don't give me this high minded bunk about "but you're there to be challenged." Because at the heart of the matter that's up to the student to take a course. If a student refuses to take a course that's not censorship that's a student refusing to take a course. It would be one thing to say that a professor should be forced by administrators to not cover the literature in question or to not offer the course, that is censorship but anything else you try to shoe horn in as censorship has none of the sufficient conditions to satisfy the definition in the most general sense.
In short, private spaces being handled by private organizations as such have the legal authority to refuse to offer their spaces as venues to anyone and for any purpose. That is the law and you can't debate it either way. Nor are trigger warnings (really they're just course descriptions) censorship since the course isn't being halted by the mere existence of them in their course descriptions in the course catalog. Nor is the absence of students who refuse to partake in courses they find troubling censorship as the professor can continue to offer the course. If they don't meet the required minimum to maintain the course that's just a tough break there. I've had courses cancelled all the time for similar reasons on far blander topics of circuitry and logic. So I'm not going to entertain nonsensical and vague definitions of censorship as such. Either produce actual evidence of what I've listed as censorship or admit you're incorrect on the matter.