NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7896497" data-attributes="member: 4937">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 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?"</blockquote>

Verification