Just found this, and I think it's a discussion worth having.
To attribute the growth of even "radqueer adjacent" blogs being accepted into the MOGAI community, solely to less bloggers having a DNI list is an oversimplification.
It may even be backward logic, where the decrease of DNI lists is due to the increase in "radqueer influence", not the increase in radqueer/adjacent presence because of the decrease of DNI lists. Because I sure know that radqueers DO NOT respect DNIs, often making fun of them.
I think there's an argument for the newer presence speaking for a community-wide nuance that is being gained. There are a lot of radqueers who are/were lured into the community due to wanting to be the most inclusive they can be, playing on things like moral OCD, similar mental experiences, people who feel excluded from the MOGAI community due to intersectional marginalisation, et cetera.
Something that has particularly harmed Me in the lack of people having available boundaries is when I was newly joining the MOGAI community from leaving the radqueer community, not knowing coining etiquette, and I recoined an anti-radqueer transID flag. I was mistaken for using the word "revamp", as that insinuated Mine was "better", but I think that generally, that was terribly communicated, through the harassment of stans and the silence of the original coiner, resulting in complete neutrality (and that's My most charitable way of referring to this) of said harassment.
If you expect boundaries to be followed, you need to have those boundaries made clear in the first place. I get upset about seeing reposts of My coins BECAUSE of the fact I have it stated on every single coin, to ask first, when these reposters did NOT ask.
I think there's an argument for the newer presence being inclusive of people like Me, who WERE radqueer. These radqueer adjacent blogs may just be in recovery, too. Nuance is a very pro-recovery thing, and having a less strict DNI can be inclusive of this.
Though there is good reason why your argument should exist, too, because the inclusion of recovering people means you have to allow non-recovering radqueers, since not all recovering radqueers even assess that they're in recovery immediately. Not all of them feel that they can. It's hard to tell between them!
It's hard to be the most inclusive you can AND draw a line, sometimes. That isn't a "fear of confrontation". That's a moral concern, that "excluding the worst won't include the recovering", or similar thought lines. This concern can make it simpler, less stressful, to just drop all stances from your online presence, to focus on the fun parts of the internet, opposed to the discourse. Offline has already got enough of that!
My conclusion: it's complicated. Bigotry needs to be called out, while leaving room for good faith people who have been bigoted, to learn better ways. Replace "bigotry" and "bigoted" with radqueer, harmful, what have you.
