JacktheRabbit
Explorer
aaa
Last edited:
I may regret getting into this thread, but there's something I always think about whenever the subject of "gatekeeping" against "fake geek girls" comes up. I'll try to put this as delicately and neutrally as possible.And, well, the undesirable trait here, quite clearly is a wrong pair of chromosomes.
No, that is utterly not the case. The fact that you can actually be banned for it means that you do not have the right. The very fact that you can be rightly punished for violating the rules of the board prove that's the case. If you had the right, Morrus couldn't ban you. It would be up to the rest of us to social ostracize you or call you out for your dickish statements.
But he can set the rules on content because it's his board.
Well, it's nice to see DocMoriartty quote me and then immediately put me on ignore so I can't see what he quoted me for. Can't say I'm all that surprised with that level of integrity, based on earlier posts...
I may regret getting into this thread, but there's something I always think about whenever the subject of "gatekeeping" against "fake geek girls" comes up. I'll try to put this as delicately and neutrally as possible.
It is my experience that the impulse to "gatekeep" is not applied universally to every being with two X chromosomes.
It is my impression, although this is anecdotal and I could be wrong, that the impulse is typically applied to those who have two X chromosomes and are physically attractive. Possibly because those who harbor the impulse to gatekeep feel threatened by such beings.
Which kind of further suggests that not getting this treatment is its own sort of insult.
I'd love to be wrong. If others have different explanations, I'm interested in hearing them.
No, that is utterly not the case. The fact that you can actually be banned for it means that you do not have the right. The very fact that you can be rightly punished for violating the rules of the board prove that's the case. If you had the right, Morrus couldn't ban you. It would be up to the rest of us to social ostracize you or call you out for your dickish statements.
But he can set the rules on content because it's his board.
Since everyone seems to be acting in a vacuum I would like someone to provide evidence that a majority of the people who questioned or "goalposted" the new WOTC hire did so because they were sexists bent on keeping women out of the RPG community.
That is the "fact" posted by Mearls and defended by a large number of people here on the forum. So provide the evidence. Statements are being made so please back them up. If that is the case then absolutely run every single racist, every single sexist, every single homophone, every single hater of any sort who has a problem with a certain type of person sitting down at a gaming table with them right out of the hobby. They are not needed nor desired.
The problem is I do not believe that evidence exists, or if it does it points at a VERY VERY small number of people, certainly not a large enough group of people to justify a tweet written that implies that anyone that had questions regarding the hire were doing so purely from a sexist agenda.
I don’t agree with your interpretation at all. As already lointed out, he is not comparing mechanics vs lore. He’s sayibg that these things can typically be used by gatekeepers to keep “outsiders” from the game.
Then he says that it seems like lots of people that gatekeep in this way also seem to want to keep women from the game. He’s not commenting on Kate’s preferred playstyle at all..