Gatekeepin' it real: On the natural condition of fandom

[Gradine]

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.

Do you really have to ask?

 

[Celebrim]

So does the definition of something matter or not matter, I'm very confused.

I'm confused too. Why do you ask that question?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Do you really have to ask?

I would like to hear it from them, so they can't weasel their way out of it when (not if) this discussion comes up again.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I'm confused too. Why do you ask that question?

Because this entire time, as far as I can tell, you have been arguing about the definition of gatekeeping and your point waffled from "definitions matter because we need to know what we are discussing" to "definitions don't matter because they can be applied to anything".

What I'm wondering is, why has that happened?

 

[Celebrim]

Because this entire time, as far as I can tell, you have been arguing about the definition of gatekeeping and your point waffled from "definitions matter because we need to know what we are discussing" to "definitions don't matter because they can be applied to anything".

Ok. So explain to me how you got that out of what I said? Because I never "definitions don't matter because they can be applied to anything".

Let me just take a wild guess at where you have misunderstood, and that's that I said that adjectives can be used to modify different things.

So for example a ball can be red and so can a box. But boxes and balls aren't inherently red: there are examples that are not.

Likewise, there is gatekeeping which is "discriminatory" and there are invitations that are "discriminatory", but neither is inherently discriminatory. There are examples that are not.

Is that your misunderstanding?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Ok. So explain to me how you got that out of what I said? Because I never "definitions don't matter because they can be applied to anything".

Let me just take a wild guess at where you have misunderstood, and that's that I said that adjectives can be used to modify different things.

So for example a ball can be red and so can a box. But boxes and balls aren't inherently red: there are examples that are not.

Likewise, there is gatekeeping which is "discriminatory" and there are invitations that are "discriminatory", but neither is inherently discriminatory. There are examples that are not.

Is that your misunderstanding?

My misunderstanding is that what gakekeeping isn't discriminatory.

Before you say something about theater ushers or some other kind of pendantic distraction, that is not what is being discussed and you should know that, but it seems like you don't.

 

[Xenonnonex]

This is yet another case of the sentence not at all being related to what was just said, and thus I have no real idea what you mean. What are "the two"?

You chose to ignore my post where the meanings were clear.
In case you missed it I was asking if you could see the difference between not extending an invitation to someone who may be disinterested in something and gatekeeping as we have been using the word on these forums.

No, because none of that makes any sense. Like why has invitation got appended with "to something they do not like"? I have no idea what point you are trying to make here, or why those two things are supposed to contrast.

What I will say, and this probably won't mean anything to you either, is that the idea of "purposefully discriminatory" can be attached to almost anything. Invitations can be purposefully discriminatory. Limiting who is invited to participate is a major way to discriminate against people. Limiting who you invite isn't always discriminatory or done for unjust reasons, any more than gatekeeping is always discriminatory or done for unjust reasons, but there is no reason why it can't be and plenty of examples will come to mind if you put your mind to it.

Not inviting someone is a way of saying that someone doesn't belong just because I say so. It's just you don't necessarily have to confront them and say it to there face, but gatekeeping is about controlling access (or it least, if you actually have a non-slippery definition of it is). So it's the access that is critical in the idea, and not extending an invitation is one way of gatekeeping. In fact, it can be very literal in that case, as you have a person at the door going, "May I see your invitation?"

Because the context of the invitation also matters. Would not extending an invitation to a friend who you know has no interest in the event be considered gatekeeping? Is it majorally discriminating against this friend?

Limiting invitations could also be dependant on size on location on whether or not people are complimentary with each other. It is not as you claim a major way to discriminate against people. Not in the sense gatekeeping as has been used in these discussions always is.

The exclusion of someone who is checked at the door is completely different from gatekeeping of fans by other fans. The exclusion of someone who is checked at the door can be imposed on by outside rules beyond the scope of individuals. Whereas gatekeeping of fans is always by individuals who impose their own imposition on others.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Assuming I have the facts, yes. But much of my point is that this "common sense" definition of "gatekeeping" is so vague and changeable, that it purposefully and deliberately conflates what isn't necessarily malicious exclusion with discrimination.

Even when time and again people have been saying they have been using the meaning of gatekeeping as is discussed on these boards? As it relates to fandom culture?

 

[Hussar]

Assuming I have the facts, yes. But much of my point is that this "common sense" definition of "gatekeeping" is so vague and changeable, that it purposefully and deliberately conflates what isn't necessarily malicious exclusion with discrimination.

Only if someone is being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Celebrim]

My misunderstanding is that what gakekeeping isn't discriminatory.

Before you say something about theater ushers or some other kind of pendantic distraction, that is not what is being discussed and you should know that, but it seems like you don't.

1) You've just defined all gatekeeping as discriminatory. You'll notice a few posts back, I was being harassed with the claim that I was trying to say all gatekeeping was discriminatory. So you see how little agreement there actually is about "what is being discussed".
2) "My misunderstanding is that what gakekeeping isn't discriminatory." isn't a really response to anything I said in the post you replied to. It could be you were in a hurry to respond, but it doesn't read well, and I'm not fully sure what it means. It would be nice though if there was some acknowledgment of things I actually said.
3) In a large part, this returns us back to where I began the argument so many posts ago, so I feel like I'm going to end up going in a circle after this. But one of my central points is that by taking nuetral term like "gatekeeping" and then insisting that as you use the term you mean that all gatekeeping is discriminatory, then you're deliberately conflating two things that aren't alike so that all acts of gatekeeping can be called discriminatory even when they are not. So it might be worthwhile to go back and read me from the beginning. Not all acts of gatekeeping are motivated by a desire to keep out particular demographics, as Morris called it.
4) You've got a tautology going. All "gatekeeping" is discriminatory. How do you know? Because gatekeeping is discriminatory?