Gatekeepin' it real: On the natural condition of fandom

[FlyingChihuahua]

Not all acts of gatekeeping are motivated by a desire to keep out particular demographics, as Morris called it.

Which, again, is not at all what is being discussed, but considering you have had this explained to you at least five times now, you either have some form of damn near crippling memory issues and/or learning disabilities, or you are literally the most obtuse person in existence.

Neither of those people are good conversation partners, with apologies to people with memory issues/learning disabilities.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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 about "what is being discussed".

Wherever did you get this idea?

 

[Gradine]

 

[Azzy]

Sure. And sometimes it is assassinated.

Oh, please. Just because you don't like the way that language evolves doesn't negate its legitimacy. Also, if you want "purity" in a language (never gonna happen), you picked the worst language for it.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Oh, please. Just because you don't like the way that language evolves doesn't negate its legitimacy. Also, if you want "purity" in a language (never gonna happen), you picked the worst language for it.

Language is a social construct, and as we are all aware, a vast majority of social constructs are bullcrap held together with scotch tape, spit, and happy thoughts.

 

[Celebrim]

You chose to ignore my post where the meanings were clear.

I apologize that I seemed to do so, but to be honest, your meanings still don't seem to be clear. I don't know what you are trying to prove here. What is your thesis?

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.

So just for the start, it is my claim that there has not been a coherent and consistent definition of the word "gatekeeping" being used on the forums, and that is it overly vague. I could try to provide a definition for you, as how I think you are using it now, but if I did and you tried to apply it to the various things being called gatekeeping, you'd see it wouldn't really fit. For example, sometimes people use gatekeeping as if it was related to access, but then sometimes they use it in ways unrelated to access. So in your head you may have coherent definition,but I'm not sure that is the same as the one everyone else is using, and in several places the same person has used the term in multiple differing ways.

But yes, I can see an difference in an invitation being withheld because you know that the person may not be interested in something, and gatekeeping. And I can see a difference in that and discriminatory gatekeeping... most of the time, at least. I think inherent in your question is the idea that the person is assessing the person's interests fairly, and not say withholding an invitation to someone because "girls don't like math, and wouldn't be interested". Which again gets down to all these unstated assumptions that you aren't really thinking about.

What I don't get is why you think this is in any way lethal to my point?

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?

Maybe? Maybe not? But yes, I agree that the context of the invitation matters? Isn't that my point?

Limiting invitations could also be dependant on size on location on whether or not people are complimentary with each other.

Absolutely! Why do you think I wouldn't agree with that?

It is not as you claim a major way to discriminate against people.

Are you sure you know what I'm saying? Because I don't remember that claim.

Not in the sense gatekeeping as has been used in these discussions always is.

Again, there isn't actually the consistency you seem to think that there is.

The exclusion of someone who is checked at the door is completely different from gatekeeping of fans by other fans.

Is it? Or is that conclusion only situational and contextual?

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.

So systematic discrimination or institutional discrimination doesn't involve gatekeeping? Isn't the context of whether the gatekeeping of fans by individuals is discrimatory what is important, and not who is doing it or how it is done or how the authority is assumed?

 

[Celebrim]

Wherever did you get this idea?

Twice by Hussar, if you missed it. I can quote him if you like, or you can back up and read the part of the thread you weren't paying attention to.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh, please. Just because you don't like the way that language evolves doesn't negate its legitimacy. Also, if you want "purity" in a language (never gonna happen), you picked the worst language for it.

So I think the problem here is you don't really know what my argument with respect to altering the definitions of a word actually is. That's partly my fault because I've been hesitant to open up another topic for argument, especially an explosive one.

English is in my not so humble opinion a great language because it is so living and vibrant. It's a pure a cheap harlot, as the old saying goes. I prefer to think of it as being as pure as fertilizer. English is the sort of language that goes into the back alleys, knocks other languages over the head, and rifles through their pocket for loose vocabulary. I love the English language, and it does make me protective of it, but not in the way you are thinking.

So in this thread, I've been happy to use the word "discrimination" and variants of it. It's a great case of a word that has evolved, quite recently, in the English vocabulary. Not that long ago, "discrimination" was a positive quality. Over time it began to be used more and more specifically to refer to unjust prejudices on the basis of race or other qualities. It makes me a little sad that I can't use the word in it's older sense and be easily understood, but English has a bunch of words to express ideas and I can work around it. That's language evolving as part of a natural process.

But there are other ways that a language can change, and that's by deliberate attack on it using terms of art to render a word less meaningful. There are a ton of words in the English language that now mean both one thing, and it's opposite. And this hasn't happened by accident. It's been a deliberate attack by certain philosophers and academics who want to render thinking more difficult in order to advance agendas. It is literally the behavior warned about in the novel 1984 where a language is being deliberately constructed to confuse thought. And it's actually happening. And in certain quarters, you can get people to admit that that is what they are doing - all for the best of reasons of course. That I very much oppose.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I apologize that I seemed to do so, but to be honest, your meanings still don't seem to be clear. I don't know what you are trying to prove here. What is your thesis?

No worries!

So just for the start, it is my claim that there has not been a coherent and consistent definition of the word "gatekeeping" being used on the forums, and that is it overly vague. I could try to provide a definition for you, as how I think you are using it now, but if I did and you tried to apply it to the various things being called gatekeeping, you'd see it wouldn't really fit. For example, sometimes people use gatekeeping as if it was related to access, but then sometimes they use it in ways unrelated to access. So in your head you may have coherent definition,but I'm not sure that is the same as the one everyone else is using, and in several places the same person has used the term in multiple differing ways.

What about the definition of gatekeeping as it relates to fandom culture?

Are you sure you know what I'm saying? Because I don't remember that claim.

Bro. Please. You have been misremembering your own points quite a lot.

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.

Is it? Or is that conclusion only situational and contextual?

So systematic discrimination or institutional discrimination doesn't involve gatekeeping? Isn't the context of whether the gatekeeping of fans by individuals is discrimatory what is important, and not who is doing it or how it is done or how the authority is assumed?

But you can agree that it is not the gatekeepers that are doing the gatekeeping but forces beyond their control. Whereas the gatekeeping of fandoms is entirely within the imposition of actual people.
This is the fundamental difference.

And no one has been arguing that systematic discrimination or institution discrimination is not wrong.
Gatekeepers as has been discussed are taking it upon themselves and not reliant on societal structures to decide who gets access or rights to communities or identities.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

So I think the problem here is you don't really know what my argument with respect to altering the definitions of a word actually is. That's partly my fault because I've been hesitant to open up another topic for argument, especially an explosive one.

English is in my not so humble opinion a great language because it is so living and vibrant. It's a pure a cheap harlot, as the old saying goes. I prefer to think of it as being as pure as fertilizer. English is the sort of language that goes into the back alleys, knocks other languages over the head, and rifles through their pocket for loose vocabulary. I love the English language, and it does make me protective of it, but not in the way you are thinking.

So in this thread, I've been happy to use the word "discrimination" and variants of it. It's a great case of a word that has evolved, quite recently, in the English vocabulary. Not that long ago, "discrimination" was a positive quality. Over time it began to be used more and more specifically to refer to unjust prejudices on the basis of race or other qualities. It makes me a little sad that I can't use the word in it's older sense and be easily understood, but English has a bunch of words to express ideas and I can work around it. That's language evolving as part of a natural process.

But there are other ways that a language can change, and that's by deliberate attack on it using terms of art to render a word less meaningful. There are a ton of words in the English language that now mean both one thing, and it's opposite. And this hasn't happened by accident. It's been a deliberate attack by certain philosophers and academics who want to render thinking more difficult in order to advance agendas. It is literally the behavior warned about in the novel 1984 where a language is being deliberately constructed to confuse thought. And it's actually happening. And in certain quarters, you can get people to admit that that is what they are doing - all for the best of reasons of course. That I very much oppose.

So you're like the people who get swatztika tattoos, and when people call you out on it, you say it's an ancient symbol used throughout the world, while also being well aware of it's current uses and meanings, and choosing to use it anyway.

Also, what in god's name is that last paragraph? Is everything a conspiracy and not simply things moving in a way that you don't like and you are just incapable of accepting that?