"It's fine for you to not care about people" doesn't come across very well!
Well, considering something like this:
If they're being disruptive, they're being disruptive. And I don't much care about the why, either way they know where the door is.
I'd say that I'm not too terribly far off.
@evileeyore is being pretty clear here that he/she does not care why the player is having issues, just that the player can take those issues, pack up and leave. End of discussion.
Characterizing it as caring more about the game than the people isn't all that unfair, methinks. If you're unwilling to compromise your game when you learn that one of your players really isn't going to enjoy whatever element you refuse to compromise about, then you are prioritizing your game ahead of that person's feelings. Which, is absolutely your right to do. But, let's not pretend that it's something that it's not.
You are reading in value judgements that I am not making. In fact I've repeatedly stated that I have zero issue with someone doing this. You are under NO compulsion to game with anyone. Absolutely none. If removing that element will ruin the game for you, then, sure, don't game together. Cool.
The problem I see is that the narrative that's being put forth is the "problem player" is trying to destroy the game. OTOH, most of the time it might be something as simple as just not running that particular adventure or even that particular scene. All having the list does is open up the conversation without having to have the conversation in the middle of the game where it gets that much harder to resolve.