Gatekeepin' it real: On the natural condition of fandom

[Celebrim]

Or you know -> Context matters.

Yes. Absolutely. So about that...

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

Which one? I've been offered about five, including the Urban Dictionary one. None of them quite fit all the different ways that people have been using "gatekeeping". This is what you'd expect when you take a neutral term with an understood meaning that is clear from the words that make it up (gate + keeping) and you try to turn it into a complex term of art that implies words like "discriminatory" and "derogatory" without actually having those words in the term. Definitions shouldn't require essays, and if they do, you probably should just invent a term that no one else has used before so as to avoid being misunderstood. Like, zorblofing or something.

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

No I'm not. Look at the context again. I was trying to explain that invitations can sometimes be discriminatory and sometimes not, just as gatekeeping can sometimes be discriminatory and sometimes not.

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.

I don't really understand where you are driving with that.

And no one has been arguing that systematic discrimination or institution discrimination is not wrong.

I don't think I said that they did. I just said that discrimination is still discrimination whether it is from an individual or an institution. It's the discriminatory act and motive that makes it discrimination, and not secondary characteristics that can appear in either discriminatory acts or non-discriminatory acts. Thus, it doesn't matter whether for example gatekeeping occurred through not sending an invitation, or deciding that the person didn't look right when they were at the door. What we care about is whether the motive is discriminatory.

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.

But is all limitation of access to a group discriminatory? I don't care really whether they are taking it upon themselves or not. I care whether they are discriminating. There can be lots of reasons why a person gets access and acceptance within a community, or doesn't get them, that have nothing to do with discrimination. When you start conflating all gatekeeping with discrimination though, you're quickly going to lose that distinction. There is a tautology being set up here as a way to shut down discourse, so that "you were gatekeeping me" is the same as saying "you were discriminating against me". And it's not. For examples, go back to the start.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

christ this is not worth it at all.

You're just going to keep obfuscating and obfuscating and claiming that everyone else is obfuscating and telling people that "definitions matter!" while completely ignoring the current definitions of something because apparently language doesn't evolve and it's all those damn elitists saying that it does and brainwashing you sheeple and god I am the only smart person in a world of idiots why does everyone disagree with me because I am clearly right.

Even the whole "onlookers could be swayed!" argument doesn't hold water to me here because anyone who could possible be persuaded by this pedantic nonsense topped with a nice spice conspiracy theories is not someone I want to share a planet with, let alone a conversation.

Yes, that is a form of gatekeeping, but it is not Gatekeeping as it is being discussed here.

 

[Eltab]

This conversation is turning into a reminder that when multiple people will not jointly be bound by a common definition of the meaning of words - for instance, using Webster's Dictionary (because none of the participants can modify it mid-discussion) - that those words lose the ability to communicate ideas from one person to another.

Who was it in "Alice in Wonderland" that said "words mean what I want them to mean"?

 

[Celebrim]

Who was it in "Alice in Wonderland" that said "words mean what I want them to mean"?

Humpty Dumpty, and yes I'd thought of that, but I was trying not to throw out something that people would take as a slur and report me over.

But, the actual quote:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Which just goes to show that this isn't a new argument.

 

[Azzy]

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.

Are you also sad that you're not speaking Proto-Indo-European as well? Because I have no sympathy if you can't adapt.

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.

Are you going to start QAnon, too. Because I don't think highly of conspiracy theorists.

 

[Celebrim]

Are you also sad that you're not speaking Proto-Indo-European as well? Because I have no sympathy if you can't adapt.

Doesn't seem to be a response to anything I said. I think I made it clear that the ability of the language to adapt is a great thing.

Are you going to start QAnon, too. Because I don't think highly of conspiracy theorists.

Never heard of it. Had to Google it. Generally make the assessment that people who have heard about such things are extremists on one side or the other. Do I even want to know what circles you run in that talk about things like that? Probably do not. Don't think highly of conspiracy theorists either, because humanity doesn't really work that way. Don't believe that what I am describing requires anything like a conspiracy theory with a plan, organization, secrets, and leadership; it just requires an ideology and a community. Could point to examples of words where this has actually happened, but each word would itself trigger another explosive argument. Sticking to "gatekeeping" is enough.

 

[generic]

Go(sh) damn it! Can we not all agree on a standard definition of gatekeeping?

My point is this: let's just agree on, say, the definition of gatekeeping given on the first site that comes up when you search ''gatekeeping''.

 

[generic]

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.

Yawn Gatekeeping means gatekeeping, but we need to agree on a definition. That's the entirety of my "complex, semantic argument".

 

[tommybahama]

You're not using the term the same way as everybody else. "Gatekeeping" in this context has developed a more specific colloquial meaning in recent years, mainly developed in social media, Twitter in particular.

Less than 10% of the population uses Twitter and I bet half of them are Russian bots. So you are in a small minority that is using a slang definition of "gatekeeping." That is exclusionary and by your own definition, "gatekeeping."

If you had simply said, "People who watch D&D but don't play D&D are still considered fans of D&D around here" then nobody would have a problem.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

And more patriarchy

[Edit: sorry @Esker . only after i posted this did i realized i accidentally replied to the wrong name and not the one i had intended.]
Not to derail things but i wanna correct something. We arent actually more similar to bonobos than to normal chimps. Thats mostly sensationalism meant to garner attention. Preeetty dubious. We are overall mote similar to normal chimps.

Which as it turns out is a good thing. Bonobos only arent genocided by normal vhimos because they are isolated by a river and they exist only on a single latge island bounded by said river. Chimps dont swim and so the bonobos arent killed off by normal chimps that war. Bonobos can score high on some animal-specialized cognitive tests but its due to "ability to attain" related scewing of scores. They are actually mentally deficient. We are much more like normal chimps in just about every way except for tye fact that bonobos have communication capabilities that are marginally closer to ours than normal chimps' are.

Further look up the small handful of strongly matriarchal modern tribes of humans. They are all living in huts or little better and many dont actually have a reliable source of fire because of multiple reasons.

We're hardwired to work best as a patriarchy.

Of course that doesnt mean we cant have civil rights. We are smarter than chimps. But yeah...we are unhealthy when matriarchal.

Ok. Dont let this distract from the topic. The inaccuracy just rubbed me the wrong way.