Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7896549" data-attributes="member: 4937">I apologize that I seemed to do so, but to be honest, your meanings still don't seem to be clear. I don't know what you are trying to prove here. What is your thesis?So just for the start, it is my claim that there has not been a coherent and consistent definition of the word &quot;gatekeeping&quot; being used on the forums, and that is it overly vague.&nbsp; I could try to provide a definition for you, as how I think you are using it now, but if I did and you tried to apply it to the various things being called gatekeeping, you'd see it wouldn't really fit.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, sometimes people use gatekeeping as if it was related to access, but then sometimes they use it in ways unrelated to access.&nbsp; So in your head you may have coherent definition,but I'm not sure that is the same as the one everyone else is using, and in several places the same person has used the term in multiple differing ways.But yes, I can see an difference in an invitation being withheld because you know that the person may not be interested in something, and gatekeeping.&nbsp; And I can see a difference in that and discriminatory gatekeeping... most of the time, at least.&nbsp; I think inherent in your question is the idea that the person is assessing the person's interests fairly, and not say withholding an invitation to someone because &quot;girls don't like math, and wouldn't be interested&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Which again gets down to all these unstated&nbsp; assumptions that you aren't really thinking about.What I don't get is why you think this is in any way lethal to my point?Maybe?&nbsp; Maybe not?&nbsp; But yes, I agree that the context of the invitation matters?&nbsp; Isn't that my point?Absolutely! Why do you think I wouldn't agree with that?Are you sure you know what I'm saying? Because I don't remember that claim.Again, there isn't actually the consistency you seem to think that there is.&nbsp; Is it? Or is that conclusion only situational and contextual?So systematic discrimination or institutional discrimination doesn't involve gatekeeping?&nbsp; Isn't the context of whether the gatekeeping of fans by individuals is discrimatory what is important, and not who is doing it or how it is done or how the authority is assumed?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7896549, member: 4937"] I apologize that I seemed to do so, but to be honest, your meanings still don't seem to be clear. I don't know what you are trying to prove here. What is your thesis? So just for the start, it is my claim that there has not been a coherent and consistent definition of the word "gatekeeping" being used on the forums, and that is it overly vague. I could try to provide a definition for you, as how I think you are using it now, but if I did and you tried to apply it to the various things being called gatekeeping, you'd see it wouldn't really fit. For example, sometimes people use gatekeeping as if it was related to access, but then sometimes they use it in ways unrelated to access. So in your head you may have coherent definition,but I'm not sure that is the same as the one everyone else is using, and in several places the same person has used the term in multiple differing ways. But yes, I can see an difference in an invitation being withheld because you know that the person may not be interested in something, and gatekeeping. And I can see a difference in that and discriminatory gatekeeping... most of the time, at least. I think inherent in your question is the idea that the person is assessing the person's interests fairly, and not say withholding an invitation to someone because "girls don't like math, and wouldn't be interested". Which again gets down to all these unstated assumptions that you aren't really thinking about. What I don't get is why you think this is in any way lethal to my point? Maybe? Maybe not? 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 you know what I'm saying? Because I don't remember that claim. Again, there isn't actually the consistency you seem to think that there is. Is it? Or is that conclusion only situational and contextual? So systematic discrimination or institutional discrimination doesn't involve gatekeeping? Isn't the context of whether the gatekeeping of fans by individuals is discrimatory what is important, and not who is doing it or how it is done or how the authority is assumed? [/QUOTE]

Verification