@Irick How about we get off the semantics train for a minute and back to the discussion at hand, please.

You, in a position of privilege, have defined actions taken by sufferers of abuse and trauma to restore a sense of security and community as "immoral" and made the statement that you "feel obligated to disagree publicly [and] use whatever power you have to oppose it."

You judge no person, only _communities of people_ formed from actions you deem _immoral._

@mawr
If such a group exists by which all members support an immoral act, is that group immoral by nature or accident?
Your theory of identity informs your answer. Mine says that such immorality is accidental to the group, but principle to the act.
Still, such actions must be evaluated in context, because morality is not an absolute Truth.

@Irick You keep extrapolating this conversation into theory and waxing poetic on philosophical concepts surrounding the accusations you're making. I am not interested in that conversation at this time.

I want to know whether or not you intend to continue to argue against whitelisted communities without first taking time to understand why those communities chose to whitelist in the first place.

@mawr
I've read their CoC.
I've listened to the rational.
I've stated the goals are noble but the means do too much damage.

I do not support presumptions of guilt which the mode whitelisting assumes (acceptance by exception).

I do not support the hegemonic influences such strong gating promotes (conform to be whitelisted).

I share the want for diversity and a constructive community. But I fundamentally do not believe that these means will result in those ends.

@mawr
But, I'm always willing to hear counter arguments (and I will give them real consideration), if you have them.

@Irick Those two statements are at odds with each other. One cannot make absolutist statements about a topic of discussion and simultaneously remain open minded to discussion around that topic.

You misrepresent yourself. That is likely why responses to your arguments weigh so heavily on you.

I will not discuss this topic further with you unless you are willing to seriously consider that your absolutist statements regarding whitelisting are primarily assumptive.

@mawr
Based on what, exactly, do you make this claim as to my ability?

@Irick You have convinced yourself in this context that the act of enforcing boundaries is more harmful than a complete lack of boundaries (which, I'd like to point out, is an extremely privileged assertion).

You are so convinced of this that you refute the direct and accurate accusation of being opposed to individuals asserting personal autonomy (https://mastodon.social/users/inmysocks/updates/3700527).

Seriously, just stop pretending you'll consider arguments.