It's hardly your fault.
Celebrim
Legend
@Xenonnonex
First, let's address this silliness where you accuse me of contradicting myself.
This is my original claim:
"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." - Me
Sentences tend to refer to the statements of the prior sentence. That's called "context" and we both agreed that it was important. You have picked out the bolded part, but in context what does it mean? Well, it means that in the general case who gets invited to be included is a major way that access to institutions is limited in a discriminatory fashion. Who gets invited to college. Who gets invited to sit on committees or panels. Who even gets invited to social functions. I stand by that claim and have not contradicted it.
But you responded thusly:
In context, you aren't actually responding to my claim. You have a pronoun there and it points back to your prior sentences and not to what I said, and what I claimed above is very different than what you've said here. I never said or even implied that the context of the invitation doesn't matter. Instead of addressing the general case as to whether an invitation can be discriminatory, you pick out two particular cases that aren't discriminatory and then claim I have said something about those particular cases. Yet I had said that in the particular case some reasons for limiting invitations would not be discriminatory and some would. And I have agreed with that. I have not actually said the particular cases you have constructed are major ways to discriminate against people. There is no contridiction because you've started talking about something else.
So I responded with my bafflement that you thought I had contridicted your particular claim:
"But yes, I agree that the context of the invitation matters? Isn't that my point? Absolutely! Why do you think I wouldn't agree with that? Are you sure know what I'm saying? Because I don't remember that claim."
There is no contradiction. You wish to point out that not sending someone an invitation isn't always discrimination. You're actually arguing my part for me, that the context matters.
As for the Urban Dictionary definition, fine, let's use that if you want. But you'll note that the Urban Dictionary definition is missing some elements:
“When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity.”
First, several posters have insisted that gatekeeping is always discriminatory, but the Urban Dictionary definition doesn't state that. We'd need to modify it to show the motives of the individual were always discriminatory if that is the definition we wanted to use. Secondly, notice that some posters have declared behavior to be gatekeeping even when the person is not actually in any fashion controlling access or rights to the community or identity. They have asserted that it is gatekeeping to engage in what has been vulgarly but aptly called "dick swinging contests". These contests where you try to impress someone else that you are more of a whatever than they are by no means attractive or reflect well on those that engage in them, but they do not necessarily have to do with denying access to either the community or the identity. Often they are just attempts to claim some higher stature, garner respect, or simply just brag about themselves with no desire to be exclusionary. I don't approve of them, but they would often fall outside the Urban Dictionary definition.
Let me clarify what I think is really going on here, since I think this is about the end of this conversation. I don't think the posters that say they all agree to a definition actually have a Socratic definition of "gatekeeping". I think that they have defined "gatekeeping" in terms of a narrative. They have an ugly story in mind with stereotypical participants and stereotypical motives and that story is for them the definition of "gatekeeping". And then, when anything reminds them of that story in whole or in part, they call it "gatekeeping", and then that new story becomes grafted onto the definition. The result is a definition that is slippery, evolving, and metastasizing. And when anyone wants to talk about their definition, they think that the motive is to defend the stereotypical behavior in their original story - the Zorblofing as I called it, which we all in fact agree is very bad. In fact, I believe I condemned the stereotype in stronger terms than anyone here, by calling it to a petty version of the old Jim Crow laws.
No I'm not. I'm actually arguing the opposite. I argue that there can be all sorts of motives for not extending an invitation or seeing someone off at the door.
This is astounding claim. Moments ago you argued that I was the one trying to say that the same motives prevails in every one of these issues - something I don't in fact do. But now, having agree with me that you can have many reasons for not inviting someone to participate or for kicking them out, you claim that fans only gatekeep other fans because they are racist or sexist or otherwise prejudiced against some demographic? Hogswill!
Here's what I think is going to happen. I'm not a prophet but I know how these things work. This definition from narrative with its ugly stereotypes is going to get glommed on to a bunch of other much less obvious and complex situations, and a lot of people are going to be labelled with the narrative unjustly. In the name of being sensitive, people are going to become more insensitive. In the name of being inclusive, lots of people are going to get called Nazis who are not remotely Nazis. And any time people complains people are going to point back to the narrative and pigeon hole people into some stereotype from their ugly story.
First, let's address this silliness where you accuse me of contradicting myself.
This is my original claim:
"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." - Me
Sentences tend to refer to the statements of the prior sentence. That's called "context" and we both agreed that it was important. You have picked out the bolded part, but in context what does it mean? Well, it means that in the general case who gets invited to be included is a major way that access to institutions is limited in a discriminatory fashion. Who gets invited to college. Who gets invited to sit on committees or panels. Who even gets invited to social functions. I stand by that claim and have not contradicted it.
But you responded thusly:
In context, you aren't actually responding to my claim. You have a pronoun there and it points back to your prior sentences and not to what I said, and what I claimed above is very different than what you've said here. I never said or even implied that the context of the invitation doesn't matter. Instead of addressing the general case as to whether an invitation can be discriminatory, you pick out two particular cases that aren't discriminatory and then claim I have said something about those particular cases. Yet I had said that in the particular case some reasons for limiting invitations would not be discriminatory and some would. And I have agreed with that. I have not actually said the particular cases you have constructed are major ways to discriminate against people. There is no contridiction because you've started talking about something else.
So I responded with my bafflement that you thought I had contridicted your particular claim:
"But yes, I agree that the context of the invitation matters? Isn't that my point? Absolutely! Why do you think I wouldn't agree with that? Are you sure know what I'm saying? Because I don't remember that claim."
There is no contradiction. You wish to point out that not sending someone an invitation isn't always discrimination. You're actually arguing my part for me, that the context matters.
As for the Urban Dictionary definition, fine, let's use that if you want. But you'll note that the Urban Dictionary definition is missing some elements:
“When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity.”
First, several posters have insisted that gatekeeping is always discriminatory, but the Urban Dictionary definition doesn't state that. We'd need to modify it to show the motives of the individual were always discriminatory if that is the definition we wanted to use. Secondly, notice that some posters have declared behavior to be gatekeeping even when the person is not actually in any fashion controlling access or rights to the community or identity. They have asserted that it is gatekeeping to engage in what has been vulgarly but aptly called "dick swinging contests". These contests where you try to impress someone else that you are more of a whatever than they are by no means attractive or reflect well on those that engage in them, but they do not necessarily have to do with denying access to either the community or the identity. Often they are just attempts to claim some higher stature, garner respect, or simply just brag about themselves with no desire to be exclusionary. I don't approve of them, but they would often fall outside the Urban Dictionary definition.
Let me clarify what I think is really going on here, since I think this is about the end of this conversation. I don't think the posters that say they all agree to a definition actually have a Socratic definition of "gatekeeping". I think that they have defined "gatekeeping" in terms of a narrative. They have an ugly story in mind with stereotypical participants and stereotypical motives and that story is for them the definition of "gatekeeping". And then, when anything reminds them of that story in whole or in part, they call it "gatekeeping", and then that new story becomes grafted onto the definition. The result is a definition that is slippery, evolving, and metastasizing. And when anyone wants to talk about their definition, they think that the motive is to defend the stereotypical behavior in their original story - the Zorblofing as I called it, which we all in fact agree is very bad. In fact, I believe I condemned the stereotype in stronger terms than anyone here, by calling it to a petty version of the old Jim Crow laws.
No I'm not. I'm actually arguing the opposite. I argue that there can be all sorts of motives for not extending an invitation or seeing someone off at the door.
This is astounding claim. Moments ago you argued that I was the one trying to say that the same motives prevails in every one of these issues - something I don't in fact do. But now, having agree with me that you can have many reasons for not inviting someone to participate or for kicking them out, you claim that fans only gatekeep other fans because they are racist or sexist or otherwise prejudiced against some demographic? Hogswill!
Here's what I think is going to happen. I'm not a prophet but I know how these things work. This definition from narrative with its ugly stereotypes is going to get glommed on to a bunch of other much less obvious and complex situations, and a lot of people are going to be labelled with the narrative unjustly. In the name of being sensitive, people are going to become more insensitive. In the name of being inclusive, lots of people are going to get called Nazis who are not remotely Nazis. And any time people complains people are going to point back to the narrative and pigeon hole people into some stereotype from their ugly story.
Last edited:
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
You don't need twitter for it to be exclusionary. I liked the analogy upthread. People who watch Star Wars, but don't play Star Wars are fans. The same goes for D&D. It's not up to you or anyone else to say otherwise, nor is it even your business. An "around here" doesn't need to be added.
Xenonnonex
Hero
I will address your points in the morning.
If you think that then there are far far greater issues here than simply quibbling at meaning.
Here we have arrived at perhaps the heart of your contention. You feel gatekeepers have been unfairly victimized, they have been unfairly stereotyped, that they have been unfairly treated in an attempt to advance a certain narrative.
If you think that then there are far far greater issues here than simply quibbling at meaning.
Really. Did you really have to make that statement.
Gradine
🚫🧊🚫
Ding ding ding! This here is the correct response to his derailing nonsense. I've also learned that, as an added bonus, threads like these are a lot shorter with him ignored.
Son of the Serpent
Pupil
Just hire a single alcolyth to be you gate. Im sure it will find the orcs tasty and easy to fool. Its something ive done in the past. They are top notch gatekeepers that double as the gate itself. And they can move around and change what planes they are a bridge between pretty easily. Essentially they have interplanar anatomy. So they can also move your gate.
Son of the Serpent
Pupil
Look how cute and pretty they are! Natural gate keepers.
Son of the Serpent
Pupil
So what you're saying is that there arent any exceptional examples wherein gatekeeping is recommendable? Hmmm...ironic blindness.
Celebrim
Legend
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.
It wasn't a statement that I had to make, but I felt it was a statement that I ought to make.
Xenonnonex
Hero
Please give some exceptional examples where gatekeeping in fandoms is recommendable.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (222) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
