> This is not the message I want to see introducing such a complex topic.
I don't see the need for such gatekeeping. I think telling people over-and-over how "incredibly hard" something is will tend to discourage people from learning about that thing. I think that's bad.
Warning about complexity and gatekeeping are not the same thing.
First-year programmer says "I can't wrap my head around Python, I'll write my own language!"
A response of "You're an idiot, don't bother, people smarter than you have tried and failed" is gatekeeping, and shitty.
A response of "There is a lot about this area you do not understand, be aware that it is a lot harder than you seem to think it is" is cautionary, but not gatekeeping.
You have moved the discussion away from the original points. What started this is a sentence in the article encouraging readers to continue because the author will explain the concepts behind potentially new words. The poster I replied to complained about that sentence because it does not convey that the topic is complex.
But almost all important topics are complex, and all education has to start somewhere. My claim is that insisting we emphasize the complexity rather than assuring the understandability is gatekeeping because it discourages new entrants and promotes an aura of mystery around the subject.
I don't see the need for such gatekeeping. I think telling people over-and-over how "incredibly hard" something is will tend to discourage people from learning about that thing. I think that's bad.