3 ms·

I think you have missed the point. GP’s argument wasn’t that the Scandinavian model is better, they were instead forcefully rejecting the idea that everyone is

I think you have missed the point. GP’s argument wasn’t that the Scandinavian model is better, they were instead forcefully rejecting the idea that everyone is as bad or worse than America. It is very common for liberals to point at Scandinavia as the ideal model, but that is not core at all to their argument. Furthermore, while you might have a point about the geographic size of the US, as an individual it’s not clear why I should care. Living under corruption sucks, regardless of the root cause. The size of ones nation doesn’t really provide a lot of psychological protection against country specific negative experiences.

zepto 6y ago
GP said: “Have you really opened your eyes to how some countries have much, much better governing systems?” You said: “GP’s argument wasn’t that the Scandinavian model is better” Are you trying to gaslight the parent?
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  The definition of “gaslight” is not “I disagree with that”. Read more carefully and then respond substantively or don’t bother to respond at all.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Gaslighting is about undermining someone’s perception of what is going on, and then using that to manipulate them. Telling the parent that the GP is not making an argument that they are plainly making, looks like an attempt at gaslighting. I did read what you said. It would be valid if the GP hadn’t written what I quoted. The parent was responding reasonably to what was written, and you seemed to be trying to persuade them that the GP had made a different argument to the one they actually did, by denying the presence of the quoted section.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      The need to turn differences in reading and opinion into a no holds barred psychological fight is genuinely toxic. You and I have read the same post differently, and your attempt to villainize me as a gasligther is not something that should be accepted in polite conversation. Knock it off. Furthermore, if you're going to accuse someone of gaslighting, then do everyone the favor of actually paraphrasing their arguments correctly. It is deeply hypocritical to run around accusing others of gaslighting while misrepresenting their arguments. > You said: “GP’s argument wasn’t that the Scandinavian model is better” What I actually said is that their main argument is that other countries are plainly run better. You can tell because that's their first sentence. Yes, they point to Scandanavian countries as an example, but their core argument is that "the US is more poorly run than other countries". Furthermore, you can tell that their core argument isn't about Scandanavia, because they spend most of their post talking about New Zealand. If their core argument was about how great Scandanavia is, then they probably wouldn't have spent their entire post talking about New Zealand, now would they?
      - zepto 6y ago
        “The need to turn differences in reading and opinion into a no holds barred psychological fight is genuinely toxic.“ I agree. That’s why I think it’s a bad idea to tell someone that something they are responding to isn’t present. Avoiding bulverism is a good step to avoid bringing things into the psychological realm. Knock it off! I get that you have a different understanding which is reasonable, but that can be expressed without telling someone they are misunderstanding. “If you're going to accuse someone of gaslighting, then do everyone the favor of actually paraphrasing their arguments correctly.” I didn’t paraphrase anyone’s arguments. I copied and pasted. Unless you have edited your comment in the meantime, what I said you said is literally a copy and paste from your comment. I also didn’t accuse you - I asked if you were doing it, because that’s what it looked like. I see a lot of casual gaslighting of this kind in public discussions. The GP clearly is arguing that Scandinavian counties are run better. They are also arguing that NZ is run better than most of the US, and that the US is more poorly run than other countries. You read the GP’s comment through the concept of a ‘core’ argument, which excludes some parts of what the GP said as simply examples. I think the parent reasonably doesn’t use that concept, and sees more than one argument being made.

zepto 6y ago

GP said: “Have you really opened your eyes to how some countries have much, much better governing systems?” You said: “GP’s argument wasn’t that the Scandinavian model is better” Are you trying to gaslight the parent?

ashtonkem 6y ago
The definition of “gaslight” is not “I disagree with that”. Read more carefully and then respond substantively or don’t bother to respond at all.
- zepto 6y ago
  Gaslighting is about undermining someone’s perception of what is going on, and then using that to manipulate them. Telling the parent that the GP is not making an argument that they are plainly making, looks like an attempt at gaslighting. I did read what you said. It would be valid if the GP hadn’t written what I quoted. The parent was responding reasonably to what was written, and you seemed to be trying to persuade them that the GP had made a different argument to the one they actually did, by denying the presence of the quoted section.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    The need to turn differences in reading and opinion into a no holds barred psychological fight is genuinely toxic. You and I have read the same post differently, and your attempt to villainize me as a gasligther is not something that should be accepted in polite conversation. Knock it off. Furthermore, if you're going to accuse someone of gaslighting, then do everyone the favor of actually paraphrasing their arguments correctly. It is deeply hypocritical to run around accusing others of gaslighting while misrepresenting their arguments. > You said: “GP’s argument wasn’t that the Scandinavian model is better” What I actually said is that their main argument is that other countries are plainly run better. You can tell because that's their first sentence. Yes, they point to Scandanavian countries as an example, but their core argument is that "the US is more poorly run than other countries". Furthermore, you can tell that their core argument isn't about Scandanavia, because they spend most of their post talking about New Zealand. If their core argument was about how great Scandanavia is, then they probably wouldn't have spent their entire post talking about New Zealand, now would they?
    - zepto 6y ago
      “The need to turn differences in reading and opinion into a no holds barred psychological fight is genuinely toxic.“ I agree. That’s why I think it’s a bad idea to tell someone that something they are responding to isn’t present. Avoiding bulverism is a good step to avoid bringing things into the psychological realm. Knock it off! I get that you have a different understanding which is reasonable, but that can be expressed without telling someone they are misunderstanding. “If you're going to accuse someone of gaslighting, then do everyone the favor of actually paraphrasing their arguments correctly.” I didn’t paraphrase anyone’s arguments. I copied and pasted. Unless you have edited your comment in the meantime, what I said you said is literally a copy and paste from your comment. I also didn’t accuse you - I asked if you were doing it, because that’s what it looked like. I see a lot of casual gaslighting of this kind in public discussions. The GP clearly is arguing that Scandinavian counties are run better. They are also arguing that NZ is run better than most of the US, and that the US is more poorly run than other countries. You read the GP’s comment through the concept of a ‘core’ argument, which excludes some parts of what the GP said as simply examples. I think the parent reasonably doesn’t use that concept, and sees more than one argument being made.