Gatekeepin' it real: On the natural condition of fandom

[Celebrim]

...one that is specific and endemic to "fan" culture, which in this day and age is essentially synonymous with "nerd" culture.

I reject that as categorically and completely false. It is the reoccurrence of old nasty stereotypes perpetrated by the dominate culture against a subculture without the social cache or voice to counter those stereotypes. There is nothing specific to nerd or fan groups being exclusionary any more than any other group, and there is nothing particularly endemic about nerd groups being less excepting or more discriminatory than the population as a whole. It is a baseless slander used to victimize a group that to this day still does not have and is only slowly getting positive representation in the media.

It is disgusting to sit here on EnWorld of all places while these stereotypes are reaffirmed. No, real comic book store owners don't always look and think like "comic book guy", nor is obesity or social dysfunctionality a trait "specific and endemic to... nerd culture." And sure the nerd culture has at times contained many neuro-atypical types, but that is only because it stood out as a safe place where they could go without the normal levels of stigmatization and scorn that they recieved everywhere else. But it is equally not true that either all nerds are neuro-atypical, nor is it true that all neuro-atypical people lack basic social skills, and all the rest of the stereotype.

This self-flagellation needs to stop. The nerd culture and the technical culture are at least as welcoming presently and historically, and in most cases much more welcoming than the culture as a whole. We need to stop pretending that things like "Hidden Figures" told a remotely true story, as if the "nerds" were the unwelcoming, discriminatory, and derogatory culture.

This whole crap about how the nerds are worse than everyone else just needs to stop.

Any attempt to steer the conversation away from this topic, and towards, say, semantics, is a distraction from the issue, and there are certain posters here who are too intelligent to not be doing that deliberately.

Semantics matter.

 

[generic]

Pretty much this.

It's funny how the evolution of trolling has occured. Once upon a time, we'd just see multiple sock puppet accounts coming in to drive by thread crap and start the thread down the path to flaming glory. Now it's all about controlling the dictionary and wide eyed innocently proclaiming, "Well, I'm just trying to achieve clarity" when no one else seems to have the slightest problem understanding the point.

And, so, just like any other discussion about bad actors in the hobby, it will inevitably be derailed into oblivion by semantic trolling.

On occasion, semantics are necessary to discussion, but, often, the practicality of a discussion must be maintained by reducing semantics. Or, in other words: "don't say complicated stuff about stuff meaning/being other stuff unless it's necessary.

Here, it is necessary.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Semantics matter.

Language also evolves.

 

[Celebrim]

Language also evolves.

Sure. And sometimes it is assassinated.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Sure. And sometimes it is assassinated.

As is getting overly lost in semantics.

 

[Celebrim]

As is getting overly lost in semantics.

First of all, that isn't a sentence that logically connects to or responds to what I just said. It's more of a "I know you are, what am I" sort of sentence.

And second of all, as @Aebir-Toril, has correctly pointed out here, I'm not actually the one engaging in complicated semantic arguments here. I'm perfectly happy to give gatekeeping the simple plain unslippery unadorned meaning that is in the dictionary. It is almost everyone else that engages in page long treatises to try to define "gatekeeping", to try to make a specialized meaning of it, to try to make it a term of art, and who yet uses it in slightly different ways to mean slightly different things when it is convenient to do so.

 

[Xenonnonex]

First of all, that isn't a sentence that logically connects to or responds to what I just said. It's more of a "I know you are, what am I" sort of sentence.

And second of all, as @Aebir-Toril, has correctly pointed out here, I'm not actually the one engaging in complicated semantic arguments here. I'm perfectly happy to give gatekeeping the simple plain unslippery unadorned meaning that is in the dictionary. It is almost everyone else that engages in page long treatises to try to define "gatekeeping", to try to make a specialized meaning of it, to try to make it a term of art, and who yet uses it in slightly different ways to mean slightly different ways when it is convenient to do so.

The biggest difference between the two which you are ignoring is one is purposefully discriminatory and the other is not.
If you want to invite someone to something they do not like would you still invite them?
Contrast this to saying someone does not belong because you say so.
Can you see the difference?

 

[generic]

The biggest difference between the two which you are ignoring is one is purposefully discriminatory and the other is not.
If you want to invite someone to something they do not like would you still invite them?
Contrast this to saying someone does not belong because you say so.
Can you see the difference?

How does any of this relate to the obvious definition of gatekeeping? And, how does 'inviting someone to something' relate in any way to the terms that we have been discussing?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I would say that I agree. But I think the example shows that there are probably reasons why that player isn't receiving acceptance, validation, and affirmation that are valid and not discriminatory in the sense the word is usually used. I for one would not want to play magic using a bunch of cheaply made homemade cards that didn't have art or rules text (or trustworthy rules text). It would greatly diminish my enjoyment of the game. I suspect most people feel the same way, or we would all be running around with 3x5 note cards playing MtG without spending thousands of dollars on it.

Further, while I can sympathize with this player, because I ultimately dropped MtG as a hobby I couldn't really afford and I never was "in" the game as much as I wanted to be, and I can understand how he feels, I think there is also an element in the hypothetical players desperation that isn't healthy and likely comes from a place of envy. He's trying to force his way into a community. He's not really respecting it.



Yet another definition! This is awesome. So, "not inviting someone" is a big part of literal gatekeeping. It's a major way that people are excluded. You just leave them out of events, and it would I think be an example of the most serious sort of exclusionary behavior. If the basis of it was discriminatory, then I think that we'd all agree it was gatekeeping at its worst. "I'm sorry but, like, you weren't invited."

And yet, while you are willing to concede that that might sometimes be a quite reasonable thing, you introduce a completely new idea. We have literally been talking about gatekeeping as an act of exclusion or attempted exclusion for nearly 150 posts now, and now you introduce a new broader idea - gatekeeping as things that "actively diminish or negate someone's enjoyment of a thing." This is an immensely broad idea, and it's so broad that it could probably apply to really any sort of behavior. Sure, it applies to things that make anyone feel unwelcome, and to things that make people feel uncomfortable, and people playing Paladins and Gnomes. You might as well at this point just say that "gatekeeping" is a synonym for "bad", because its already so abstract in your newest definition that anyone that takes offense over anything could argue that they were the victim of "gatekeeping".

You have to be deliberately misinterpreting what is being discussed here, considering is has been explained to you at least three times now.

The only question is why.

 

[Xenonnonex]

How does any of this relate to the obvious definition of gatekeeping? And, how does 'inviting someone to something' relate in any way to the terms that we have been discussing?

According to Celebrim not inviting someone is a big part of literal gatekeeping because it is exclusionary. So really you should really be taking it up with Celebrim.

This is an example of being lost in semantics.