We do, look at how many critique posts there are about toxic neckbeard groups, for example about hardcore technical topics where beginners are ridiculed and excluded (i.e., gatekeeping). Or about gym buff communities, where beginners are ignored or made fun of.
Wouldn’t you call those communities toxic?
any group I’m a part of that doesn’t have rules around who can participate.
Rules about who can participate are absolutely fine, necessary even. Generally those rules are based on what you do, not who you are, though.
well documented that this particular group has had their voices overpowered by the group they’re excluding.
I believe that forcing to identify yourself in some way and heavy moderation would be enough (moderation based on what you do) for an online community. But anyway, I don’t have a problem with those rules in general. However, in your original comment you compared a community keeping you out to your own restraint into participating in a community you feel you have nothing to contribute to.
To go back to my example, there is a huge difference between not participating in a technical post that goes over your head and just reading other people’s opinion vs being banned for having demonstrated to be at a lower level of understanding (gatekeeping).
or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”
To address this tiny veiled provocation, I don’t like to participate in communities that gatekeep people, whether I am in the ingroup or not. In fact, I heavily dislike purists in fields I deal with (e.g., selfhosting, tech in general), which is the most common form of gate keeping, and I definitely don’t participate in their communities.
That wasn’t thinly veiled, it was just a provocation.
I wasn’t referring to technical communities and it’s strange you would assume that. There’s a difference between not participating and being told not to participate. One requires self-moderation, and not everyone is great at it.
There are toxic groups of all kinds. The existence of exclusive, toxic groups doesn’t make exclusivity toxic. Weird you’re comparing a women’s only instance to communities who are cruel to outsiders/beginners. There are lots of communities based around race, gender, illness and disability that exist to support people who don’t feel comfortable talking certain topics outside those groups, usually because of a lack of shared lived experience.
If you don’t understand why groups of people of an identity, who face similar challenges because of that identity, would want to curate their space, I don’t know what other comparison to make.
I wasn’t referring to technical communities and it’s strange you would assume that.
I didn’t assume it. I made an example using those. You said “I have no relevant knowledge or experience”, and technical communities are a perfect example of communities in which someone might not have “relevant knowledge or experience”.
There’s a difference between not participating and being told not to participate. One requires self-moderation, and not everyone is great at it.
Yes, that is my whole point. However you answered to someone that said:
Being set to public is for a community that everyone in the public can participate in, while being set to private is for a community that only some people can participate in.
with (paraphrasing) “there are plenty of communities I can see that I don’t participate in”, which confuses me now in light of your acknowledgement that it’s completely different choosing not to engage and being told not to engage (via rules).
The existence of exclusive, toxic groups doesn’t make exclusivity toxic.
Which is also not what I said. I said that “harsh form of gatekeeping” is considered toxic.
Weird you’re comparing a women’s only instance to communities who are cruel to outsiders/beginners.
I am not. I made you examples of toxic forms of harsh gatekeeping since you said:
Do we? And is that form of gatekeeping harsh, or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”
The rest of your comment is completely off topic, since this whole comment chain was holding on the whole idea of “make the thing private instead”. I don’t have any problem, in fact I perfectly agree and support, with the creation of private, exclusive spaces. I have no problem with a women shelter not allowing me in, but if a hotel does that, I probably won’t take it as well.
P.s.
Maybe hold off on the assumptions, because you made a lot of them in your comment about my positions.
We do, look at how many critique posts there are about toxic neckbeard groups, for example about hardcore technical topics where beginners are ridiculed and excluded (i.e., gatekeeping). Or about gym buff communities, where beginners are ignored or made fun of.
Wouldn’t you call those communities toxic?
Rules about who can participate are absolutely fine, necessary even. Generally those rules are based on what you do, not who you are, though.
I believe that forcing to identify yourself in some way and heavy moderation would be enough (moderation based on what you do) for an online community. But anyway, I don’t have a problem with those rules in general. However, in your original comment you compared a community keeping you out to your own restraint into participating in a community you feel you have nothing to contribute to. To go back to my example, there is a huge difference between not participating in a technical post that goes over your head and just reading other people’s opinion vs being banned for having demonstrated to be at a lower level of understanding (gatekeeping).
To address this tiny veiled provocation, I don’t like to participate in communities that gatekeep people, whether I am in the ingroup or not. In fact, I heavily dislike purists in fields I deal with (e.g., selfhosting, tech in general), which is the most common form of gate keeping, and I definitely don’t participate in their communities.
That wasn’t thinly veiled, it was just a provocation.
I wasn’t referring to technical communities and it’s strange you would assume that. There’s a difference between not participating and being told not to participate. One requires self-moderation, and not everyone is great at it.
There are toxic groups of all kinds. The existence of exclusive, toxic groups doesn’t make exclusivity toxic. Weird you’re comparing a women’s only instance to communities who are cruel to outsiders/beginners. There are lots of communities based around race, gender, illness and disability that exist to support people who don’t feel comfortable talking certain topics outside those groups, usually because of a lack of shared lived experience.
If you don’t understand why groups of people of an identity, who face similar challenges because of that identity, would want to curate their space, I don’t know what other comparison to make.
I didn’t assume it. I made an example using those. You said “I have no relevant knowledge or experience”, and technical communities are a perfect example of communities in which someone might not have “relevant knowledge or experience”.
Yes, that is my whole point. However you answered to someone that said:
with (paraphrasing) “there are plenty of communities I can see that I don’t participate in”, which confuses me now in light of your acknowledgement that it’s completely different choosing not to engage and being told not to engage (via rules).
Which is also not what I said. I said that “harsh form of gatekeeping” is considered toxic.
I am not. I made you examples of toxic forms of harsh gatekeeping since you said:
The rest of your comment is completely off topic, since this whole comment chain was holding on the whole idea of “make the thing private instead”. I don’t have any problem, in fact I perfectly agree and support, with the creation of private, exclusive spaces. I have no problem with a women shelter not allowing me in, but if a hotel does that, I probably won’t take it as well.
P.s. Maybe hold off on the assumptions, because you made a lot of them in your comment about my positions.