4 ms·

You didn't just say that you didn't like it. You claimed that it's not literature. Or in other words, you first paragraph is fine as an appraisal, your second p

You didn't just say that you didn't like it. You claimed that it's not literature. Or in other words, you first paragraph is fine as an appraisal, your second paragraph is gatekeeping.

slibhb 6y ago
No I didn't. I suggested that Eat Pray Love is not literature on the basis that it makes people feel good. My point was that "whether something makes you feel good" has no bearing on whether that thing counts as poetry/literature/art. I tried to make that point in response to the linked article. If it's "gatekeeping" for me to claim that "X isn't literature" then I guess I'm a "gatekeeper".
- cortesoft 6y ago
  > If it's "gatekeeping" for me to claim that "X isn't literature" Yes, that is pretty much the definition of gatekeeping.
Igelau 6y ago
You keep saying that word. Is there some postpostmodern meaning of "gatekeeping" that I'm not looped in on? We just hurl it around now and hope that bystanders mistake the people we disagree with for oppressors? (The downvotes indicate the arrow hit the mark. No lie, I sincerely appreciate the confirmation.)
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  It seems like just a more dramatic way of calling something a no true scotsman fallacy. To be actually gatekeeping you'd have to have the power to discourage or prevent people from entering a field, and be wielding that power inappropriately. It's one of a few words that seems to be going through inflation at the moment, like gaslighting.
  - ajkjk 6y ago
    Not quite. The modern usage of 'gatekeeping' just means that you're posturing like you want to keep people from entering the field, not that you can actually do it. The definition on r/gatekeeping (which is as good of a canonical source as any) is "When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity."
    - beaconstudios 6y ago
      Yeah I get that some communities have that definition, but that's inflation on the meaning of the word, ie using a term with an emotional punch for a much more minor infraction. Disagreeing over the definition of "art" is about as old as art itself, its not gatekeeping in any sense unless the person you are disagreeing with is an art historian and is excluding works that don't fit their definition, or something like that.
      - ajkjk 6y ago
        You're not going to get very far arguing, "well, the word doesn't meant that to _me_".
        beaconstudios 6y ago
        I know, I'm saying it doesn't mean that historically. It's a fairly recent redefinition that you're describing. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gatekeeper https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gatekeep... > someone who has the power to decide who gets particular resources and opportunities, and who does not: > The professors act as gatekeepers who determine which students are admitted into the competetive engineering program.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  The modern meaning of "gatekeeping" is when you call anything that people buy shit, and you give a reason. The only appropriate long-form emotion is breathless enthusiasm. Dislike must be exclusively expressed in tweet-length insults calling the fans of a thing names. Saying why anything is better than anything else is violence. Withholding your approval for a reason makes you basically a cop. If you give a reason why you hate something everyone else likes, you're basically saying everyone is stupid but you. That makes you a "bully." Imagine being accused of somehow oppressing one of the most successful (and dead) people in a field for venturing that their mass appeal might be due to their mass appeal. Imagine that in a thread about a poet writing for a greeting card company. ----- edit: this is why downvotes for real disagreement will always be good. If someone makes a bad argument for why something is bad, you should usually downvote them for the quality of their argument and move on. Exceptions are if someone states a falsehood as a fact, maybe leave a note and a reference to correct the falsehood so it doesn't continue to circulate. Or if you find yourself having to argue extensively to disagree, you are involved in a productive discussion and you shouldn't downvote anything that leads to productive discussion. But never argue against argumentation, reason against reason, or argue that the act of distinguishing between things at all makes one a bad person. Just downvote and move on.

You didn't just say that you didn't like it. You claimed that it's not literature. Or in other words, you first paragraph is fine as an appraisal, your second paragraph is gatekeeping.

slibhb 6y ago

No I didn't. I suggested that Eat Pray Love is not literature on the basis that it makes people feel good. My point was that "whether something makes you feel good" has no bearing on whether that thing counts as poetry/literature/art. I tried to make that point in response to the linked article. If it's "gatekeeping" for me to claim that "X isn't literature" then I guess I'm a "gatekeeper".

cortesoft 6y ago
> If it's "gatekeeping" for me to claim that "X isn't literature" Yes, that is pretty much the definition of gatekeeping.

Igelau 6y ago

You keep saying that word. Is there some postpostmodern meaning of "gatekeeping" that I'm not looped in on? We just hurl it around now and hope that bystanders mistake the people we disagree with for oppressors? (The downvotes indicate the arrow hit the mark. No lie, I sincerely appreciate the confirmation.)

beaconstudios 6y ago
It seems like just a more dramatic way of calling something a no true scotsman fallacy. To be actually gatekeeping you'd have to have the power to discourage or prevent people from entering a field, and be wielding that power inappropriately. It's one of a few words that seems to be going through inflation at the moment, like gaslighting.
- ajkjk 6y ago
  Not quite. The modern usage of 'gatekeeping' just means that you're posturing like you want to keep people from entering the field, not that you can actually do it. The definition on r/gatekeeping (which is as good of a canonical source as any) is "When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity."
  - beaconstudios 6y ago
    Yeah I get that some communities have that definition, but that's inflation on the meaning of the word, ie using a term with an emotional punch for a much more minor infraction. Disagreeing over the definition of "art" is about as old as art itself, its not gatekeeping in any sense unless the person you are disagreeing with is an art historian and is excluding works that don't fit their definition, or something like that.
    - ajkjk 6y ago
      You're not going to get very far arguing, "well, the word doesn't meant that to _me_".
      - beaconstudios 6y ago
        I know, I'm saying it doesn't mean that historically. It's a fairly recent redefinition that you're describing. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gatekeeper https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gatekeep... > someone who has the power to decide who gets particular resources and opportunities, and who does not: > The professors act as gatekeepers who determine which students are admitted into the competetive engineering program.
pessimizer 6y ago
The modern meaning of "gatekeeping" is when you call anything that people buy shit, and you give a reason. The only appropriate long-form emotion is breathless enthusiasm. Dislike must be exclusively expressed in tweet-length insults calling the fans of a thing names. Saying why anything is better than anything else is violence. Withholding your approval for a reason makes you basically a cop. If you give a reason why you hate something everyone else likes, you're basically saying everyone is stupid but you. That makes you a "bully." Imagine being accused of somehow oppressing one of the most successful (and dead) people in a field for venturing that their mass appeal might be due to their mass appeal. Imagine that in a thread about a poet writing for a greeting card company. ----- edit: this is why downvotes for real disagreement will always be good. If someone makes a bad argument for why something is bad, you should usually downvote them for the quality of their argument and move on. Exceptions are if someone states a falsehood as a fact, maybe leave a note and a reference to correct the falsehood so it doesn't continue to circulate. Or if you find yourself having to argue extensively to disagree, you are involved in a productive discussion and you shouldn't downvote anything that leads to productive discussion. But never argue against argumentation, reason against reason, or argue that the act of distinguishing between things at all makes one a bad person. Just downvote and move on.