Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7896534" data-attributes="member: 4937">1) You've just defined all gatekeeping as discriminatory. You'll notice a few posts back, I was being harassed with the claim that I was trying to say all gatekeeping was discriminatory. So you see how little agreement there actually is about &quot;what is being discussed&quot;.2) &quot;My misunderstanding is that what gakekeeping isn't discriminatory.&quot; isn't a really response to anything I said in the post you replied to. It could be you were in a hurry to respond, but it doesn't read well, and I'm not fully sure what it means. It would be nice though if there was some acknowledgment of things I actually said.3) In a large part, this returns us back to where I began the argument so many posts ago, so I feel like I'm going to end up going in a circle after this. But one of my central points is that by taking nuetral term like &quot;gatekeeping&quot; and then insisting that as you use the term you mean that all gatekeeping is discriminatory, then you're deliberately conflating two things that aren't alike so that all acts of gatekeeping can be called discriminatory even when they are not. So it might be worthwhile to go back and read me from the beginning. Not all acts of gatekeeping are motivated by a desire to keep out particular demographics, as Morris called it.4) You've got a tautology going. All &quot;gatekeeping&quot; is discriminatory. How do you know? Because gatekeeping is discriminatory?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7896534, member: 4937"] 1) You've just defined all gatekeeping as discriminatory. You'll notice a few posts back, I was being harassed with the claim that I was trying to say all gatekeeping was discriminatory. So you see how little agreement there actually is about "what is being discussed". 2) "My misunderstanding is that what gakekeeping isn't discriminatory." isn't a really response to anything I said in the post you replied to. It could be you were in a hurry to respond, but it doesn't read well, and I'm not fully sure what it means. It would be nice though if there was some acknowledgment of things I actually said. 3) In a large part, this returns us back to where I began the argument so many posts ago, so I feel like I'm going to end up going in a circle after this. But one of my central points is that by taking nuetral term like "gatekeeping" and then insisting that as you use the term you mean that all gatekeeping is discriminatory, then you're deliberately conflating two things that aren't alike so that all acts of gatekeeping can be called discriminatory even when they are not. So it might be worthwhile to go back and read me from the beginning. Not all acts of gatekeeping are motivated by a desire to keep out particular demographics, as Morris called it. 4) You've got a tautology going. All "gatekeeping" is discriminatory. How do you know? Because gatekeeping is discriminatory? [/QUOTE]

Verification