I mean I know what is generally meant when the term gatekeeping is used but it seems like those that throw the term around consider something as simple as asking what comics they like to be gatekeeping. Is it as simple as that?
I remember when they announced the writers for the Star Wars High Republic series and besides the fact their twitter posts were full of "white man bad" nonsense she mentioned how empowering it was to see a female Jedi on screen. Of course she got mad when people pointed out there were female jedi in the prequels. Her defenders were calling everyone gatekeepers.
Also, there was the lady who is producing the new She-Hulk movie. She got mad because someone asked her if she is familiar with the character because the guy was concerned since so many of her tweets were about how evil white male nerds are and how horrible western canon is. She mentioned something about gatekeeping but I would think it is entirely reasonable to expect someone who is given a comic book related project to know the source material. I am currently on season 2 of Babylon 5 but if they ever did a reboot or sequel and asked me to write for it, you can believe I'll spend at least two months cramming on all the B5 lore I can find.
Sorry for the long post, but I would like your input. It seems to me that those that throw around the term "gatekeeper" are people who are mad because someone may have asked them something pertaining to the hobby.
But what do I know. Entering a hobby/fandom and then complaining about how it doesn't cater to you and insulting people makes perfect sense I guess.
It means "stop preventing my subversion". They'd be let in if they wanted something else. When someone complains about gatekeeping, it means, quite simply that they want to change what's gated.
Unfortunately, the gatekeepers were largely convinced to open the gates in the name of "virtue", and everything was changed.
Gatekeeping can be closely entwined with "cancel culture" basically that a gatekeeper determines who is allowed to participate in a group or not.
When it comes to a hobby like games, comics, books, etc. You can base that on how much they actually care about it. Not in that how much they already know, but how genuinely interested they are in learning more.
When it comes to competitive things like sports you can base it on how seriously they want to compete. It's not about how good they are, but the willingness to get better. If somebody doesn't care about improvement and everybody else does, they won't have a good time.
The way that progressive leftists gatekeep is based on political correctness. So if you have the wrong opinions of something unrelated to the hobby, then you should be removed.
Any attempt to maintain the coherence of a space/group will be framed as "gatekeeping" by those who wish to change the space/group.
I wish you weren't telling the truth because that is such twisted logic. But then again look at the last couple of years of corporations hiring people that don't know jack about the product and then crapping on the majority of their fanbase.
It's perfectly sound logic. A person seeking to subvert a space or an organization will endeavor to overcome any obstacles preventing that subversion, and he or she - being a subversive - will not hesitate to lie in order to achieve his or her goal.
Kinda like how criminals lie about not being criminals.
That's a succinct way of describing it. I was thinking about this myself a while back, and "maintaining coherence" was basically what I determined was the most important function of gatekeeping, but I hadn't been able to describe it in so few words.
People do not like you protecting your hobby from morons.
Keeping out undesirables.
Generally, it's women whining about people enjoying the hobby as you've seen.
It's women who get annoyed when people make surface level small talk about a hobby which they "like", a big one is just naming an all-league level player to a female sports fan and seeing their face go blank.
It's a gaslight. When the left talks about gatekeeping, what they really meant is "we know we don't have control over it, but we'll do whatever it takes to completely subvert it."
In short, they loathe gatekeeping because they're not the ones who have the keys to the inside and those who are guarding it.
I responded to this initially on the other forum, but I'll repost my comment here:
What they mean by "gate-keeping" is self-evident. And on the face, you might be bewildered because it is a senseless accusation that shouldn't carry any weight. You assume there must be some 'code' or hidden meaning behind the term because of its obvious mundanity and pointlessness, but there isn't. They mean exactly what they are saying, and the 'hidden' element is that they are themselves just shallow and weak enough to think they're insulting you with something that frivolous. That's their whole big move. Accuse you of breathing.
Now, there's obviously more to it, but the crux of the issue is this over-sensitization to all conflict that has promoted this kind of basic commentary into the realm of 'abuse' and 'attack.'
You've properly identified that they are using 'gate-keeping' as an insulation against their own exertion of effort and standards of behavior. Just like 'racism,' 'sexism,' and even 'pedophilia' they mean to capture a connotation of something dire and apply it to something mundane:
Ask woman a question = sexist
Ask a black man a question = racist
Watch anime = pedo
Have any standards = gate-keeping
The flaw in all of these is that fundamentally of conflation using the barest of common traits (a woman is involved, two races are involved, anime character looks young to someone) while evoking the worst possible scenario with the accusatory word absent context as a form of pre-winning the conflict through the old political trick: "What matters is not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge."
You might notice that one of these is not like the others though. Gate-keeping is perfectly normal, natural, and has a fundamental place in all professions, interests, and practices. Even in its most dire connotation the worst you have is a private club you aren't a member of, and probably shouldn't be. It is YOU who are at fault for being envious of a place in which you do not belong. But they take this common 'evil' and stretch it to mean that all borders are bad, all standards are pointless, and all group-identity should be abolished because it is 'exclusionary.'
Finally, there is a nefarious and intentional insidiousness at play as well. They want access to your group, not because it is attractive, but because you have it. They want to use that access to destroy what you have, mark it as their territory, and force you to leave. It is a power-play. They're happiest when they are collecting scalps. Trophies to share with their friends who also rage against the machine that is patriarchy, maleness, whiteness, western-ness. You are their political enemy, and your possessions, your toys, your hobbies, they will delight in destroying while you watch, helpless because you weren't able to 'gate-keep' them out. They laugh at your pitiable failure to protect what you loved. They laugh because your sadness is their mission accomplished.
Thank you for the breakdown. Very insightful
Read this first: https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths
False Gatekeeping is sociopath crying help and asking mops to protect them from geeks who figured out that the sociopath is trying to hijack the sub-culture. Actual Gatekeeping is geeks keeping sociopaths out of the sub-culture from hijacking it for personal gain.
Thanks for the article. Very interesting
As social-justice types use it, it describes behaviour that prevents large groups of people entering a subculture and redefining that subculture without regard for the subculture's original adherents.
Because social justice types engage in double-think like they breathe, it's also the behaviour they themselves engage in when they assert that it's time for white people to shut up, for instance.
You'll note that the non-SJW gatekeeping is about the person - it's possible to learn enough to not be subject to non-SJW gatekeeping - whereas the SJW version is based on inherent characteristics and never lets you out of the box. That's by design, I think.
The short answer is "gatekeeping" is anything that inconveniences them trying to take someone else's stuff.
It's surprisingly close to the origin of the term, they want the guards gone and the freedom to pillage and take over things they didn't earn.
I have a side example. Recently a book about videogames based on Batman came out. It started with games released for the PS3. The talk was passionate on the subject and how much the fans loved the games.
I mentioned to someone how much the NES Batman was a favorite. They had no idea what I was talking about, and thought I was being an old coot for bringing it up.
It was aimed at new fans, but purported to be more than that.
This was an attempt to gate keep the fans, by keeping out specific groups that loved games for it. The accusation of gatekeeping is part of the gatekeeping. Every person using this technique aims their statements as if they have been a part of it the entire time, except someone keeps them back. They then try to get that other group out so then the accuser can become the defacto leader.
I really couldn't tell you much about the book because I realized it wasn't for me.
it just means "shut up and do as you're told", same as all the other buzzwords.
I've recently started following the professional Trackmania scene. The game itself is one of those "simple but not easy" games like I grew up with but with better graphics, and the community is pure meritocratic "get gud" like old school gaming communities were. A welcome oasis for someone who last regularly gamed in the PS2 era.
If you start playing and proclaim that the game needs to be changed because the tracks are too hard or the game is too fast, they'll tell you to fuck right off because it being hard is the point. But if a pro who's spent thousands of hours perfecting the game says "I can see why you penalize hitting a wall to discourage players from deliberately hitting it to slow down entering a corner, but doing this has a lot of negative side effects in other aspects of the game" then they're listened to because they've put their time in.
There's a very basic notion in a lot of modern right-wing circles of "skin in the game", where people who have paid their dues and only people who have paid their dues are allowed an opinion. It used to be popular in a lot of nerd circles too back in the day: gaming obviously but also programming and IT. Also true in the trades: I like to weld but no welder should take anything I say about welding seriously because I don't do it often enough to have opinions worth listening to.
Something as simple as getting a sound card or video card that didn't come with your computer when you bought it to work used to be a rite of passage. I remember tweaking a driver .ini file to force it to work with my graphics card because somehow I figured out it would work even if it wasn't officially supported. Those days are over but it'd probably be beneficial if they weren't.
"People that love their hobby won't let me in so I can destroy it! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!"
It’s a dog whistle word. The irony being only the dog can hear the whistle.
It's just women whining that you actually realized why they take these positions.
They just want to destroy what you love and laugh about it.
Many others have given long, in-depth responses, so I'll make mine brief:
Gatekeeping is insisting that the surgeon doing your operation has a med school degree.
Three point guide:
Did someone do something that made another person look like they don't know as much as they think they do?
Was one person "privileged" in some way, whether is be due to race, sex, sexual identity, immigration status, or religion?
Was the person who made the other look ignorant the "privileged" one?
If you answered yes to all three, it's gatekeeping. If you answered yes to the first two and no to the third, it was an empowered moment where truth was spoken to power.
Everything should be for everyone, hence the constant moaning about inclusion. By having any standards whatsoever, you're gatekeeping
And you know it's dishonest. Anyone ever have some awkward/smelly/annoying kid/neighbour/relative ask to play with you that you told to take a hike? Said kid then goes to complain to an adult, who then forces you to play with this kid. Kid proceeds to bitch and moan about the game you're playing and demands changes to suit him better. 30 minutes later, says you and your friend group are lame and fucks off
There you have it. Regressives are people who never left that mindset. Doing their damndest toi make everything grey and dreary - boring. Then they'll move on because holy shit, I can't believe these nerds give a shit about this boring ass trash