Or they might be just a sign of playfulness. They can present a barrier for those who don’t know, but I doubt it’s intentional, so I wouldn’t call it gatekeeping.
Also, it’s just a playful first half of the title. The other half explains the important stuf in a traditional way, so noone gets harmed, right?
This is true. As an old non-techie woman on Lemmy, I miss a lot of them.
However, “Who gon check me, boo?” was comprehensible (and funny) to me even though I have no reference for it. Combined with the rest of the title, especially adding the profile images, her point is abundantly clear. I don’t need to know where it came from to chuckle at it.
Edit: looking it up, it’s very apt! Although I’m still not going to start watching any Real Housewives.
Her reference here is certainly more of a turn of phrase but the fact that shes defending pop culture references as communication while accusing of gatekeeping is what’s more hypocritical. Especially since her reply isn’t the title of an actual article.
A quick Google shows it’s not only not just a turn of phrase but it’s an apt pop (RHOA) reference to men refusing women their appropriate agency. Her title is facetious, but here’s a real one:
I think they’re referring to the implicit exclusion, since it amounts to an “inside joke” which lends to cliquish social dynamics. Gatekeeping proper usually connotes more intentional and targeted action, but I think that’s what they mean. Personally I try to be more selective than I once was, when using references in groups, for that very reason.
For those interested, there’s an episode of Star Trek the plot of which revolves around an extreme example of this style of high context communication.
Not everyone watches or even can watch the same media. It assumes a lot of commonality between the writer and the reader. Is some Indian researcher going to know about some joke from The Office?
Getting the joke is not necessary for understanding the article and even the title has the explanatory other half, right? The joke is just a bonus, not gatekeeping.
If you dont understand the refrence you probably wont be able to tell if it’s necessary for understanding the rest though. Sure youll understand the second line on its own but that doesn’t necessarily mean the part you dont understand isn’t important. For all the out of the loop reader knows, that’s info is pertinent to the title too, how could they even evaluate if it is or isn’t if they don’t understand it. Less than half of English speakers had English as a first language, its still built up on needless pretense for the sake of what?
References not everyone gets are a form of gatekeeping too just saying.
Or they might be just a sign of playfulness. They can present a barrier for those who don’t know, but I doubt it’s intentional, so I wouldn’t call it gatekeeping.
Also, it’s just a playful first half of the title. The other half explains the important stuf in a traditional way, so noone gets harmed, right?
This is true. As an old non-techie woman on Lemmy, I miss a lot of them.
However, “Who gon check me, boo?” was comprehensible (and funny) to me even though I have no reference for it. Combined with the rest of the title, especially adding the profile images, her point is abundantly clear. I don’t need to know where it came from to chuckle at it.
Edit: looking it up, it’s very apt! Although I’m still not going to start watching any Real Housewives.
Her reference here is certainly more of a turn of phrase but the fact that shes defending pop culture references as communication while accusing of gatekeeping is what’s more hypocritical. Especially since her reply isn’t the title of an actual article.
A quick Google shows it’s not only not just a turn of phrase but it’s an apt pop (RHOA) reference to men refusing women their appropriate agency. Her title is facetious, but here’s a real one:
https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2020/07/who-gone-check-me-boo-the-backlash-to-women-and-power.html
In what way?
I think they’re referring to the implicit exclusion, since it amounts to an “inside joke” which lends to cliquish social dynamics. Gatekeeping proper usually connotes more intentional and targeted action, but I think that’s what they mean. Personally I try to be more selective than I once was, when using references in groups, for that very reason.
Shaka, when the walls fell…
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!
Zinda. His face black, his eyes red.
OMG the perfect reference!
For those interested, there’s an episode of Star Trek the plot of which revolves around an extreme example of this style of high context communication.
Not everyone watches or even can watch the same media. It assumes a lot of commonality between the writer and the reader. Is some Indian researcher going to know about some joke from The Office?
Getting the joke is not necessary for understanding the article and even the title has the explanatory other half, right? The joke is just a bonus, not gatekeeping.
If you dont understand the refrence you probably wont be able to tell if it’s necessary for understanding the rest though. Sure youll understand the second line on its own but that doesn’t necessarily mean the part you dont understand isn’t important. For all the out of the loop reader knows, that’s info is pertinent to the title too, how could they even evaluate if it is or isn’t if they don’t understand it. Less than half of English speakers had English as a first language, its still built up on needless pretense for the sake of what?