Thanks for commenting. Long comments don't bother me at all. I read them fully.
The definition of a term can be fluid and unclear. Language is always back-referential and to look up is to decide on a final decision of the one who looks up a word.
Many terms have made it from the concrete to the abstract and lose their sharpness as a result. Instead of "discrimination", one could also say: hindrance of taking part.
Generally, the term discrimination is seen in a negative light; in my opinion, there is no positive understanding of the word. However, one could speak of active and passive exclusion. One that is deliberate and one that automatically excludes people through the event taking place through the design of that event. This is what I have tried to show above.
Modern events tend strongly towards "exclusivity", basically a term that has been constantly positively charged but is essentially negative.
The denigration of language, I agree, is difficult to comprehend when terms like "an exclusive event" are seen as positive. Exclusion is everywhere, at events where only paying guests are admitted, for example, and also in companies where only certain expertise is welcome. Any club that only admits paying club members, also such an example. Therefore, the only remaining space where a certain freedom of participation is given is the street, the public space. One can freely decide whether to stop and join in or to move on. Spontaneity is the key to freedom here. In modern language, this is called "barrier-free access". The street belongs to no one and to everyone at the same time.
I am afraid, people are getting crazier and crazier in this regard, in other words; more restrictive in how they want to limit access.
Yesterday I went for a walk with my husband by a mountain lake. People are very rarely out in nature because their time is tied up in cities and work. Still, if you want, you can go to the forest and get some air. But now that nature is also being turned into a reserve, so that you are only allowed to enter if rules are followed, the very thought of it is oppressive, even though people already visit the places (mountains, lakes, forests) so rarely, there was always the possibility that if you wanted to, you could. But the moment the restriction sets in, a sense of loss sets in that was not there before.
It's the same with travel. I have travelled very little in the last twenty years. But if I had wanted to, I could have. Now that travel has become restrictive, I feel a loss where there was none before.
RE: KULTUR? Was ist eigentlich Straßenkultur? Der September in Hamburg.