Gatekeepin' it real: On the natural condition of fandom

[FlyingChihuahua]

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.

It's not "semantics" it's "describing how language works"

The fact that the definition I'm saying it's not is connected to behavior of jackwagons is completely unrelated. Trust me.

 

[Xenonnonex]

It's not "semantics" it's "describing how language works"

The fact that the definition I'm saying it's not is connected to behavior of jackwagons is completely unrelated. Trust me.

My point is he using an overly literal meaning of gatekeeping to say any form of exclusion is gatekeeping.

Which Abeir Toril has pointed out is not related to the definition of gatekeeping as we have been discussing on these forums.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

My point is he using an overly literal meaning of gatekeeping to say any form of exclusion is gatekeeping.

I realize, and to expand on that point, I believe he is doing so for a reason related to the colloquial definition of gatekeeping.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I realize, and to expand on that point, I believe he is doing so for a reason related to the colloquial definition of gatekeeping.

Which Abeir Toril has pointed out is not related to the definition of gatekeeping as we have been discussing on these forums.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Which Abeir Toril has pointed out is not related to the definition of gatekeeping as we have been discussing on these forums.

and so it should be discarded entirely, got it.

When discussing words, you should use only the dictionary definition of words, not how it's used by people who actually use the word.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Semantics matter.

They only matter to those who want to derail the conversation

 

[Xenonnonex]

and so it should be discarded entirely, got it.

When discussing words, you should use only the dictionary definition of words, not how it's used by people who actually use the word.

What are you even going about. I am asking if he can see the difference between what is purposefully discriminatory and what is not even necessarily malicious exclusion.

 

[Celebrim]

The biggest difference between the two which you are ignoring is one is purposefully discriminatory and the other is not.

This is yet another case of the sentence not at all being related to what was just said, and thus I have no real idea what you mean. What are "the two"?

If you want to invite someone to something they do not like would you still invite them?
Contrast this to saying someone does not belong because you say so.
Can you see the difference?

No, because none of that makes any sense. Like why has invitation got appended with "to something they do not like"? I have no idea what point you are trying to make here, or why those two things are supposed to contrast.

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.

Not inviting someone isn't a way of saying that someone doesn't belong just because I say so. It's just you don't necessarily have to confront them and say it to their face, but gatekeeping is about controlling access (or at least, if you actually have a non-slippery definition of it is). So it's the access that is critical in the idea, and not extending an invitation is one way of gatekeeping. In fact, it can be very literal in that case, as you have a person at the door going, "May I see your invitation?"

 

[Celebrim]

What are you even going about. I am asking if he can see the difference between what is purposefully discriminatory and what is not even necessarily malicious exclusion.

Assuming I have the facts, yes. But much of my point is that this "common sense" definition of "gatekeeping" is so vague and changeable, that it purposefully and deliberately conflates what isn't necessarily malicious exclusion with discrimination.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

This is yet another case of the sentence not at all being related to what was just said, and thus I have no real idea what you mean. What are "the two"?



No, because none of that makes any sense. Like why has invitation got appended with "to something they do not like"? I have no idea what point you are trying to make here, or why those two things are supposed to contrast.

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.

Not inviting someone is a way of saying that someone doesn't belong just because I say so. It's just you don't necessarily have to confront them and say it to there face, but gatekeeping is about controlling access (or it least, if you actually have a non-slippery definition of it is). So it's the access that is critical in the idea, and not extending an invitation is one way of gatekeeping. In fact, it can be very literal in that case, as you have a person at the door going, "May I see your invitation?"

So does the definition of something matter or not matter, I'm very confused.

Which may be the point, allowing you to do what ever it is you want to do that relates with a definition of gatekeeping.