4 ms·

You need to read up on the definition of gaslighting. That is a nasty accusation and inaccurate.

AnonCoward42 4y ago
Telling people that the reality is not what they see and they imagine things, is - so to speak - the definition of gaslighting. Gaslighting might be hyperbole and surely I made it a bit more pointed, however I see how his post can be seen as gaslighting.
- operatingthetan 4y ago
  Gaslighting by definition requires ill intent or manipulation and you are conveniently ignoring that. In your version pretty much any internet disagreement is gaslighting.
  - AnonCoward42 4y ago
    > Gaslighting by definition requires ill intent or manipulation and you are conveniently ignoring that. You cannot determine or know ill intent, so it's not really helpful as a property. > In your version pretty much any internet disagreement is gaslighting. Disagreement alone does not suffice. You need to tell the other person that what they see is not real and/or that they imagine things. But as I said, it's a bit exaggerated, however it's not so farfetched either.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - operatingthetan 4y ago
      >You cannot determine or know ill intent, so it's not really helpful as a property. You're clearly still trying to change the definition and are still ignoring that gaslighting itself requires negative manipulation. From wikipedia, these actions are easy to identify: >Obfuscation: deliberately muddying or overcomplicating an issue. >Withholding: pretending not to understand the victim. >Countering: vehemently calling into question a victim's memory despite the victim having remembered things correctly. >Blocking and diverting: diverting a conversation from the subject matter to questioning the victim's thoughts and controlling the conversation. >Trivializing: making the victim believe his or her thoughts or needs are unimportant. >Forgetting and denial: pretending to forget things that have really occurred. The abuser may deny or delay things like promises that are important to the victim. Although anyone can deny or delay, the gaslighter does it regularly in the absence of real external limitations. The gaslighter may make up or create artificial barriers to allow themselves to deny or delay that which is important to the victim. Telling someone who asked for feedback, in earnest that you think their perceptions are wrong is not in any way gaslighting.
Tao3300 4y ago
There's no controlling spouse using these tactics to make their partner doubt their own sanity. Okay. Gaslighting probably isn't an exact answer, but it's dismissive enough to be close. Hand-waving it as "rosy retrospection". Telling OP to measure things they actually do seem to be measuring. There could be a name for this exact sort of "You're not really paying attention to everything you're obviously really paying attention to" dismissiveness, and if the churn of language lands on "gaslighting, definition c", I don't have much argument against it.
Tao3300 4y ago
Damn. I wish there was general unflag. GP wasn't far off the mark and there was a conversation worth having :(

Telling people that the reality is not what they see and they imagine things, is - so to speak - the definition of gaslighting. Gaslighting might be hyperbole and surely I made it a bit more pointed, however I see how his post can be seen as gaslighting.

operatingthetan 4y ago
Gaslighting by definition requires ill intent or manipulation and you are conveniently ignoring that. In your version pretty much any internet disagreement is gaslighting.
- AnonCoward42 4y ago
  > Gaslighting by definition requires ill intent or manipulation and you are conveniently ignoring that. You cannot determine or know ill intent, so it's not really helpful as a property. > In your version pretty much any internet disagreement is gaslighting. Disagreement alone does not suffice. You need to tell the other person that what they see is not real and/or that they imagine things. But as I said, it's a bit exaggerated, however it's not so farfetched either.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - operatingthetan 4y ago
    >You cannot determine or know ill intent, so it's not really helpful as a property. You're clearly still trying to change the definition and are still ignoring that gaslighting itself requires negative manipulation. From wikipedia, these actions are easy to identify: >Obfuscation: deliberately muddying or overcomplicating an issue. >Withholding: pretending not to understand the victim. >Countering: vehemently calling into question a victim's memory despite the victim having remembered things correctly. >Blocking and diverting: diverting a conversation from the subject matter to questioning the victim's thoughts and controlling the conversation. >Trivializing: making the victim believe his or her thoughts or needs are unimportant. >Forgetting and denial: pretending to forget things that have really occurred. The abuser may deny or delay things like promises that are important to the victim. Although anyone can deny or delay, the gaslighter does it regularly in the absence of real external limitations. The gaslighter may make up or create artificial barriers to allow themselves to deny or delay that which is important to the victim. Telling someone who asked for feedback, in earnest that you think their perceptions are wrong is not in any way gaslighting.

Tao3300 4y ago

There's no controlling spouse using these tactics to make their partner doubt their own sanity. Okay. Gaslighting probably isn't an exact answer, but it's dismissive enough to be close. Hand-waving it as "rosy retrospection". Telling OP to measure things they actually do seem to be measuring. There could be a name for this exact sort of "You're not really paying attention to everything you're obviously really paying attention to" dismissiveness, and if the churn of language lands on "gaslighting, definition c", I don't have much argument against it.

Tao3300 4y ago

Damn. I wish there was general unflag. GP wasn't far off the mark and there was a conversation worth having :(