Gatekeepin' it real: On the natural condition of fandom

[Celebrim]

I'd like to introduce you to language--it evolves and grows as people use it. You may take umbrage at the fact that a word is being used in a different meaning than before, and that's cool. However, that is not going to stop language from changing.

So you are saying, "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”?

Usually, when language evolves it is natural and resembles growth. This isn't growth. It's violence against thought.

 

[Azzy]

So you are saying, "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”?

Usually, when language evolves it is natural and resembles growth. This isn't growth. It's violence against thought.

That's cool, daddy-o, I feel you.

You don't get to decide what is growth. It comes from people using the language.

 

[Morrus]

Well, yes. That's somewhat the point.



If you go through all my posts, you'll find that the main thrust of my comments and the main thing I have a problem with is developing "more specific colloquial meaning" and applying it to terms which previously in common usage had very different meanings. In fact, in almost every one of these threads, the redefinition of terms is the main thing that I find offensive. I consider attacks on the integrity of language to be attacks on the ability of people to reason. If you take a term which was in common usage, and you redefine it so that it means something the opposite of what it once meant or at least something very different than what it once meant, then you are introducing confusion into the discussion that most people will have a very hard time dealing with because most people don't notice when the meaning of words shifts between two thoughts. It's very easy to speak nonsense that doesn't sound like nonsense, when you have a word with two opposing meanings.

So, for my part, if someone had said, "Zorblorfing is bad." And I said, "What is zorblorfing?", and they had said, "The exclusion of a demographic as part of the group by virtue of its perceived 'expertise' or 'right to belong' - in this specific case, being "you don't belong in this group because you watch D&D and [I assume] don't play it", then I would have happily agree, "Oh yes, Zorblorfing is definitely bad. It has parallels for example in Jim Crow laws where voters from minority groups were suppressed using highly rigged and unfairly administered voter registration literacy tests." And we'd have agreement.

But when you instead of inventing a new term to cover something that doesn't have a convenient label, reappropriate something with a specific meaning to cover a new meaning, you introduce a high degree of confusion. And my suspicion and in some cases accusation is that this confusion is intended and deliberate.

Clearly, your priorities differ somewhat from those of most of us. The thread isn’t about your desire for linguistic purity, though. If you’d like to start a thread about that, feel free to do so, but let’s not drown out the actual topic at hand with that.

 

[Celebrim]

If you’d like to start a thread about that, feel free to do so...

So you started a thread about another thread, and then lowkey13 started this thread about that thread, and then I'm going to start a thread about this thread?

A meta-meta-meta-thread?

...but let’s not drown out the actual topic at hand with that.

This the topic at hand. The question of "What do you mean by gatekeeping?" is what prompted lowkey13's thread that we are posting in. It's why he opened up this thread with a lengthy attempt at a definition. And the shifting way that "gatekeeping" can be used not only within the thread or by different posters, but even within the same post (such as lowkey13's definition itself) is precisely why there is so much disagreement between the posters. The fact that even you don't realize when you are shifting between two different definitions, the "Zorblorfing" one agreed on in an earlier post and other less sensational ones, is not only why we have something to talk about, but why you were irritated enough to post about the original topic in the first place.

 

[Morrus]

So you started a thread about another thread, and then lowkey13 started this thread about that thread, and then I'm going to start a thread about this thread?

A meta-meta-meta-thread?



This the topic at hand. The question of "What do you mean by gatekeeping?" is what prompted lowkey13's thread that we are posting in. It's why he opened up this thread with a lengthy attempt at a definition. And the shifting way that "gatekeeping" can be used not only within the thread or by different posters, but even within the same post (such as lowkey13's definition itself) is precisely why there is so much disagreement between the posters. The fact that even you don't realize when you are shifting between two different definitions, the "Zorblorfing" one agreed on in an earlier post and other less sensational ones, is not only why we have something to talk about, but why you were irritated enough to post about the original topic in the first place.

Oh god....

 

[Celebrim]

Oh god....

My thoughts exactly, but with a very different meaning.

 

[Gradine]

Clearly, your priorities differ somewhat from those of most of us. The thread isn’t about your desire for linguistic purity, though. If you’d like to start a thread about that, feel free to do so, but let’s not drown out the actual topic at hand with that.

It's almost like that's the point...

 

[billd91]

It's almost like that's the point...

Almost?

 

[Wiseblood]

It's almost like that's the point...

It’s not at all the point. Making a moral judgement that gatekeeping is bad is ludicrous. Unless you institute the new definition which is really just a euphemism for some discrimination.

Then using actual gatekeeping to exclude those who have sinned by gatekeeping in the sinful way. (Which is usually just alluded to or alleged by ascribing unstated motivations to others.)

It’s sanctimonious and confusing.

 

[generic]

Opinions in general aren't the problem. I mean, I hate pineapple on my pizza. It's when people come here to tell you that you are wrong for liking it on yours that the problem opinions begin.

Not liking Pineapple on Pizza is not an opinion. It's common decency.