4 ms·
*sowing Also, you're bringing up the textual source of the term, not its general connotation. The connotation is when an abuser, cheater, or otherwise harm cau
by notabee 5y ago
*sowing
Also, you're bringing up the textual source of the term, not its general connotation. The connotation is when an abuser, cheater, or otherwise harm causing individual decides to try to rewrite history or attack the competence of the individual bringing the grievance rather than address the grievance in good faith. There is a big difference between disagreeing on the facts of a situation and trying to invalidate someone's perception of the situation in a manipulative way to avoid blame. If your first instinct when someone says "you hurt me" is to argue why it's not your fault, you should probably talk to a therapist about that. That is how a lot of families work, and will even couch it in terms of "tough love" despite it being frankly abusive behavior. To use the word of the day, that's toxic.
- samatman 5y agoI guess you've never had someone accusing you of hurting them when you didn't? The optimal move is to disengage rather than argue, but I assure you that mandating that people "own" whatever spurious accusation is thrown their way just opens up a rich avenue for passive-aggressive abuse. Your contrasting the textual source with the general connotation is exactly the concept drift referenced by the post you're replying to.
- notabee 5y agoI have indeed been accused when I didn't agree with the objective harm caused. Thankfully, I typically didn't further escalate the situation and act like a jerk by denying their perception of the issue. Just because you don't immediately mount a fiery defense doesn't mean that you own their position, their feelings, or have to agree with them. This is emotional intelligence 101. Typically a quiet, non-escalated discussion can help both parties feel better, clear up misunderstandings, and if apologies are merited (even from the initial accuser) they can be had. But only if you don't get someone's hackles up in the first place, or deny their right to air a grievance. Again, the fact that you are already considering it a contest to be won or lost (or avoided immediately without discussion, which is a sure indicator to folks how much you don't care) probably says a lot about the lens you view the world through. Referencing the connotation means that there is a general accepted usage, which is not the hyperbolic "didn't absolutely agree with their grievance" that the original post I replied to was making. In general terms, I think it has come to include unconscious manipulation in addition to the previous, narrow definition of conscious, machiavellian attempts to dispute concrete facts.
- aidenn0 5y ago> narrow definition of conscious, machiavellian attempts to dispute concrete facts My understanding of gaslighting is that it was never about disputing concrete facts; it was about controlling the person by making them doubt their sanity. We already have a word for conscious Machiavellian attempts to dispute concrete facts: "lying."
- notabee 5y agoI don't know what you're talking about, there's no such word as "lying".