Gatekeepin' it real: On the natural condition of fandom

[Celebrim]

Please give some exceptional examples where gatekeeping in fandoms is recommendable.

Are there no cases where you think someone should be removed from the community or denounced by it?

 

[Gradine]

There is a significant difference between removing/blocking bad actors in order to protect the community's more vulnerable members; and gatekeeping, in the context in which we using it, which exclusively is used to protect a community from undesirable others.

Explicit rules banning bad behaviors protects the community's people. Implicit rules targeting people who are different protects the community's purity. One of these is good and a desirable goal, one of these is not.

There, now can we please move on from this frankly idiotic derail now?

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Please give some exceptional examples where gatekeeping in fandoms is recommendable.

Did i say the word fandom?

Nope.

Sure though.

I'll use this definition, the first one on urban dictionary:
"When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity."

Lets say no card carrying member of NAMBLA should ever be a trusted dm. Ever. Ever ever ever. Not even when stygia thaws over.

Now, you may say that was an extreme example. But needed to be shown just how far off you were thinking this would be hard. Of course there are infinite reasons. I gave you an extreme one to show you how simple such an example is so that you would realize that there would be multitudinous examples.

Because im not bothering to list a "couple". Take this example and just apply it to everything similar. Should get you a few thousand reasons befote you run out of ways to thibk of novel related scenarios.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Are there no cases where you think someone should be removed from the community or denounced by it?

i gave one because i knew @Xenonnonex would be cocky enough to not think it through and realize there are infinite examples and thus would bet on me not coming up with one. I had a particularly heinous example prepared.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Oh this is perfect, especially in the context of what you just quoted.

No, that's not the heart of my contention. I said nothing about "gatekeepers have been unfairly victimized" or that "they have been unfairly stereotyped" or that "they have been unfairly treated" in the passage you quoted. You have to understand, I don't have a model in my head for who these "gatekeepers" are. I have no box labelled "gatekeepers" that I'm trying to stuff people in. For things like your narrative that you use to construct your image of "gatekeepers", I agree that the things the person was doing were wrong, but it doesn't become the template I use to try to fit other people in.

But in the passage you quoted, what I actually said was that people with a narrative definition would try to force everything to fit into their definition. I wasn't asserting anything about past behavior or specific incidents (none of which I'm qualified to speak of). If you would read what I said, what I was asserting was a prediction of future behavior. And in trying to answer me, you just proved me right.

Your assertion that people advance the gatekeeping narrative through having ugly stories in mind with stereotypical actors and stereotypical motives and then subscribing what it means to be a gatekeeper from this constructed narrative is so far removed from reality as to the point of being ludicrous.
By your language and your denouncement of these stereotypes you are making it clear that you feel gatekeepers are being unfairly stereotyped and unfairly treated and yes unfairly victimized.
It just makes your position as one unhinged from actual reality and actual events in the real world.

It wasn't a statement that I had to make, but I felt it was a statement that I ought to make.

What purpose did it serve other than arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

[Son of the Serpent]

There is a significant difference between removing/blocking bad actors in order to protect the community's more vulnerable members; and gatekeeping, in the context in which we using it, which exclusively is used to protect a community from undesirable others.

Explicit rules banning bad behaviors protects the community's people. Implicit rules targeting people who are different protects the community's purity. One of these is good and a desirable goal, one of these is not.

There, now can we please move on from this frankly idiotic derail now?

No there isnt. They are intimately related.

And you are only moving goal posts now not making any point.

And you are only calling it idiotic because of how badly your side makes its points.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

"Fandom" and "The Fan Community" are not the same. Even if every other fan refuses to interact with you for whatever reason, they have no right to say that you're not a fan.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Are there no cases where you think someone should be removed from the community or denounced by it?

You do understand the difference between removing bad actors and telling someone they do not belong somewhere just because?

 

[Son of the Serpent]

There is a significant difference between removing/blocking bad actors in order to protect the community's more vulnerable members; and gatekeeping, in the context in which we using it, which exclusively is used to protect a community from undesirable others.

Explicit rules banning bad behaviors protects the community's people. Implicit rules targeting people who are different protects the community's purity. One of these is good and a desirable goal, one of these is not.

There, now can we please move on from this frankly idiotic derail now?

There are "others" that its necessary to ban because they are a group with too high a tendancy for really damaging behavior. Pure and simple.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

You do understand the difference between removing bad actors and telling someone they do not belong somewhere just because?

You are just moving goal posts.