I didn't say it couldn't. A single article cannot gaslight you, in the original psychological sense of the phenomenon. Even a collection of articles cannot gas

I didn't say it couldn't. A single article cannot gaslight you, in the original psychological sense of the phenomenon. Even a collection of articles cannot gaslight you. The medium is not relevant. The relationship, the bond with the gaslighter is. The desire to try and set things right with that person, and keep the relationship. Gaslighting is a process of interpersonal dynamics, not any single act. A discussion around usage of the term definitely is not, regardless of whether if you disagree with "what everyone else says". It is simply an argument, or a matter of personal opinion. None of it contains even traces of the accusation that your sense of reality is disturbed. An actor that lies to you, or a coordinated group that lies to you, and you believing the lie, does not constitute "gaslighting" in the original sense either. A gaslighter plants little seeds that make you doubt your overall perception, doubt if what you experience is real. Examples of typical effects of gaslighting are psychotic episodes, questioning whether you live in a simulation, anxieties around whether you are a split personality and just don't remember "your other personas", paranoia, etc. Yes, obviously language is a living thing. I am not claiming you cannot have whatever other definition of the term. The article talks about the original phenomenon and its use in psychology, and how it differs from modern use. Nobody says you cannot have your own understanding of what the color "orange" means to you. If your definition of "orange" also includes "red" and "blue", you do lose the ability to communicate and discriminate between orange, red, and blue things.