[ixptlkcv] Two inclusive

There are two definitions of "inclusive" in the context of events and communities:

1. Inclusive of historically oppressed groups.  Noninclusiveness towards the oppressors is not only acceptable but celebrated as the cornerstone of the inclusiveness policy.  If you are admitted, not excluded, then you can expect to find an environment full of people you do not hate, and people who do not hate you.  This definition of inclusiveness was inspired by an inclusive event which celebrated banning homophobic people, or making them feel unwelcome.

2. Inclusive of both oppressed and oppressing groups.  The cornerstones of this definition of inclusiveness are mechanisms for conflict mitigation and conflict minimization.  At an event with this kind of inclusiveness, you can expect to find an environment full of people you do hate, and people who hate you, but some mechanisms to prevent the hate from causing harm.  This definition of inclusiveness was inspired by Burning Man and the Barkinator.

These two definitions of inclusiveness are very different, almost antonyms, so there ought to be separate terms to distinguish between them.  For now, Definition 1 and Definition 2.

Obviously, there is a political battle going on on who can claim the generic term.

Despite the definitions almost being antonyms, there is an area of overlap.  A community could have positive or negative incentives encouraging (some) people to change their behavior.  Such incentives could be considered a mechanism for making people feel unwelcome (as in definition 1), or as a mechanism for conflict mitigation or minimization (as in definition 2).  Probably what matters is whether the behavior in question is a reflection of identity.