Celebrim
Legend
Or you know -> Context matters.
Yes. Absolutely. So about that...
What about the definition of gatekeeping as it relates to fandom culture?
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.
Bro. Please. You have been misremembering your own points quite a lot.
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.
But you can agree that it is not the gatekeepers that are doing the gatekeeping but forces beyond their control. Whereas the gatekeeping of fandoms is entirely within the imposition of actual people. This is the fundamental difference.
I don't really understand where you are driving with that.
And no one has been arguing that systematic discrimination or institution discrimination is not wrong.
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.
Gatekeepers as has been discussed are taking it upon themselves and not reliant on societal structures to decide who gets access or rights to communities or identities.
But is all limitation of access to a group discriminatory? I don't care really whether they are taking it upon themselves or not. I care whether they are discriminating. There can be lots of reasons why a person gets access and acceptance within a community, or doesn't get them, that have nothing to do with discrimination. 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.
Last edited: