| 4 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jonas Chevalier: I completely agree with that | 14:27:35 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | however, I do also recognize that not all exclusion is implicit, and that it is very easy to end up with a lot of implicit exclusion - the path towards "least exclusion" is not "define no social norms" | 14:28:22 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * however, I do also recognize that not all exclusion is explicit, and that it is very easy to end up with a lot of implicit exclusion - the path towards "least exclusion" is not "define no social norms" | 14:28:28 |
 Jonas Chevalier | please tell me something you are unsure about | 14:28:39 |
| Jonas Chevalier | what are open questions you have? | 14:28:52 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | how do you mean? | 14:29:01 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I want to start this again, but from a place where we're open that we don't have all the answers | 14:29:58 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I certainly don't have all the answers | 14:30:33 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | neither do I; I already mentioned one such case actually, people who cannot be empathic (eg. because of some sort of mental health condition) | 14:30:59 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that is a complicated thing where there is no clear good answer, because on the one hand you cannot allow one person to disrupt an entire community, but on the other hand it is likely a chronic condition and so on a societal scale they would get excluded from everywhere | 14:31:41 |
