Sometimes you see the term "gatekeeper" thrown around in the current political discourse, especially from the anti-SJW side. What does this word mean in this context?
A "gatekeeper" is someone, or some entity (such as a media corporation), that feels the need, and thinks of itself as being in a position where it's their moral duty, to "guard" the general public from information, especially political opinions, that it deems "harmful", information that it feels could sway people's views and opinions the wrong way. It feels the need to filter, block, hide and censor this information, and only allow selected information that it approves, to go through. Optimally, the wider public doesn't even become aware that the censored information even exists (so they can't get even curious about what that information might be). In the best case scenario (from their perspective), even its mere existence has been hidden.
If the existence of the "harmful" information cannot be hidden and denied, the next step to take is to try to scare the general public from ever seeing or paying attention to it. That "harmful" information is vilified and demonized, and anybody who even gets their hands on it is considered a horrible person. So you better stay far away from this harmful information; you wouldn't want to be a horrible person, now would you?
The "gatekeepers" feel it's their moral duty to block, ban, censor and whenever possible destroy this "harmful" information.
These "gatekeepers" consider themselves morally and intellectually superior to the general population. The general population cannot be trusted with this "harmful" information, these "harmful" opinions. Most of them cannot distinguish right from wrong, and can be easily dissuaded into the wrong "harmful" opinions and instigated into holding the "wrong" views. They cannot be allowed to get this information and make decisions about it on their own. They must be guarded against it.
This sort of censorious "gatekeeping" is one of the fundamental staples of totalitarian regimes, who will censor, block and destroy any literature and other forms of media with dissenting and "harmful" opinions, stopping the public from getting their hands on it, or even knowing of its existence.
This is in drastic contrast with free democratic constitutional societies, where freedom of information and dissemination of information is a fundamental inalienable constitutional right that cannot be restricted. Freedom is the key word here. In this particular case, freedom to express and to receive any opinions, unimpeded and without punishment.
"Gatekeeping" is, thus, fundamentally incompatible with free democratic constitutional societies, and against one of their core principles. It is, however, one of the fundamental staples of totalitarian regimes.
Ironically, in the modern western world, the gatekeepers are calling other people "fascists", when they themselves engage in censorious fascist censorship and gatekeeping.
A "gatekeeper" is someone, or some entity (such as a media corporation), that feels the need, and thinks of itself as being in a position where it's their moral duty, to "guard" the general public from information, especially political opinions, that it deems "harmful", information that it feels could sway people's views and opinions the wrong way. It feels the need to filter, block, hide and censor this information, and only allow selected information that it approves, to go through. Optimally, the wider public doesn't even become aware that the censored information even exists (so they can't get even curious about what that information might be). In the best case scenario (from their perspective), even its mere existence has been hidden.
If the existence of the "harmful" information cannot be hidden and denied, the next step to take is to try to scare the general public from ever seeing or paying attention to it. That "harmful" information is vilified and demonized, and anybody who even gets their hands on it is considered a horrible person. So you better stay far away from this harmful information; you wouldn't want to be a horrible person, now would you?
The "gatekeepers" feel it's their moral duty to block, ban, censor and whenever possible destroy this "harmful" information.
These "gatekeepers" consider themselves morally and intellectually superior to the general population. The general population cannot be trusted with this "harmful" information, these "harmful" opinions. Most of them cannot distinguish right from wrong, and can be easily dissuaded into the wrong "harmful" opinions and instigated into holding the "wrong" views. They cannot be allowed to get this information and make decisions about it on their own. They must be guarded against it.
This sort of censorious "gatekeeping" is one of the fundamental staples of totalitarian regimes, who will censor, block and destroy any literature and other forms of media with dissenting and "harmful" opinions, stopping the public from getting their hands on it, or even knowing of its existence.
This is in drastic contrast with free democratic constitutional societies, where freedom of information and dissemination of information is a fundamental inalienable constitutional right that cannot be restricted. Freedom is the key word here. In this particular case, freedom to express and to receive any opinions, unimpeded and without punishment.
"Gatekeeping" is, thus, fundamentally incompatible with free democratic constitutional societies, and against one of their core principles. It is, however, one of the fundamental staples of totalitarian regimes.
Ironically, in the modern western world, the gatekeepers are calling other people "fascists", when they themselves engage in censorious fascist censorship and gatekeeping.
Comments
Post a Comment