Gatekeepin' it real: On the natural condition of fandom

[Son of the Serpent]

It’s definitely not human nature, and it’s not unique to D&D or even gaming generally. Gatekeeping is a product of the cultivation of identity, which fandom is a form of. When one’s identity is built around being a fan of something, one is inclined to establish the merit of that identity, which is done (among other things) by setting standards by which to judge one’s status as a fan. It’s not an inborn instinct, it’s a learned behavior, resulting from a culture obsessed with merit.

It definitely is human nature to do this to am extent. Actually its been observed in many MANY animal species. Crows for instance. Big time. They will pluck feathers from those who defy the gate keeping and will even permanately maim or shun repeat offenders somewhat commonly.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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.

It is interesting that the defined meaning of gatekeeping on Urban Dictionary is quite direct to its intended usage.
"When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity" as applied to fandoms appears to be the type of gatekeeping that is being discussed on these forums. Multiple people have expressed this is the definition they have been using as applies to fandoms.
You can of course try to muddy the discourse however you like.

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.

It is a world of difference to say look at the context and to actively deny you ever made the claim in the first place.
Note I had no issue with you saying that invitations or the lack thereof can sometimes be discriminatory but again it is not as you first claim and then actively try to disclaim a major way to discriminate against people. That just makes it seem you do not actually believe what you are saying.
And it is not gatekeeping in a similar sense to what is lying at the crux of the issue of fandom gatekeeping.

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

People take it upon themselves to determine whether someone has right of access to their group or are able to identify as part of that group. Contrast this with societal or institutional discrimination. One is institutionized and the other is capable of being prevented from the outset. People can choose not to be little shites but some won't.

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.

You are conflating issues and trying to argue the same motives prevails in every one of these issues. Actually not extending an invitation or seeing someone off at the door does not necessarily come from a place of discrimination. There may be multiple reasons for the why in those cases but gatekeeping someone out of a fandom always comes from a place of discrimination.

But is all limitation of access to a group discriminatory?

It is discriminatory in the context of who gets to be part of fandoms.
Who decides who gets to be part of fandoms? The individuals who like what they like. Definitely not gatekeepers who try to say someone does not belong because they are not "real fans".

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.

This really sounds like you are arguing with yourself.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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

Look at the thread title you are in. It should help.

 

[Zardnaar]

Thread reminds me. Gotta hire 1d100 extra hirelings to man my gate. There's 3d10 orcs incoming with treasure type S and battlesystem modifiers.....

 

[Hussar]

/snip
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?

Since when is gatekeeping, in the context being used here, a neutral term? You asked for a definition of how we are using the term. I offered the Urban Dictionary definition, because that's the one that fits best. But, apparently, that definition, despite EXACTLY describing the process that everyone in this thread other than you understands the term to mean, isn't good enough?

But, again, since when is gatekeeping a neutral term?

Gack, why am I doing this? Getting sucked in and letting a perfectly good discussion get totally derailed by someone with a very specific political agenda. @Celebrim, feel free to have the last word on this, I will not be responding to your posts after this.

 

[Eltab]

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

By what authority do you claim you can decide how other people must use words?

You might be gatekeeping the English language, and the discussion here.

 

[generic]

Look at the thread title you are in. It should help.

Alright then, I think I'm done here. Enjoy your day, Xenonnonex. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to articulate my argument in a way that made sense to you.

 

[generic]

Since when is gatekeeping, in the context being used here, a neutral term? You asked for a definition of how we are using the term. I offered the Urban Dictionary definition, because that's the one that fits best. But, apparently, that definition, despite EXACTLY describing the process that everyone in this thread other than you understands the term to mean, isn't good enough?

But, again, since when is gatekeeping a neutral term?

Gack, why am I doing this? Getting sucked in and letting a perfectly good discussion get totally derailed by someone with a very specific political agenda. @Celebrim, feel free to have the last word on this, I will not be responding to your posts after this.

Actually, even though I have agreed with certain elements of @Celebrim's argument, here, I agree with you Hussar. My main point was that it's not bad to spend a little time engaging in semantics, because, the point is not that gatekeeping means something other than gating an activity from someone else, but that, it has been used in the context of meaning "not considering something as" (or, heck, just not accepting that something is) not, OTOH, discriminating against people but instead having pretty basic standards as to who might be considered a "fan".

Can it become ugly, and has @Celebrim brought it a little too far for my taste? Yes, yes to both. However, there is no inherent obtuseness or obfuscatory intent which underlies asking to define our terms. Celebrim is the one, ater all, who originally said that we should have a simple definition of gatekeeping to work from, in response to others expanding the definition in a way that Celebrim, from what I gather from his posts, must have found distasteful and inaccurate.

If we all agreed to just say "gatekeeping is gatekeeping", it just adds clarity. It's nice to be precise.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Alright then, I think I'm done here. Enjoy your day, Xenonnonex. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to articulate my argument in a way that made sense to you.

I merely ask you to look at the thread you are in. It should help elucidate the definition of gatekeeping of fandom culture that a lot of people have been using.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Context of meaning "not considering something as" (or, heck, just not accepting that something is) not, OTOH, discriminating against people but instead having pretty basic standards as to who might be considered a "fan".

Are you trying to say fans must meet certain standards to be considered fans? I want you to be clear.