You should call that lying, but it's not really gaslighting.

I agree there is not.

You thought you could sneakily cite something from just months when it was becoming clear she was out and going to be primaried as proof and i rightly laughed at it.

I was the one who PREDICTED her falling out of favour as she defied her constituents (as well as independents and GOP who she would have GAINED votes from) and then as she is actually falling out of favour and you FINALLY see it, you try to use that to say you thought that all along. You agreed with my position all along. That we never argued across months and years when i would criticize her and you would defend saying i just did not understand the State and you thought it laughable that she could follow polls showing the citizens of her State were very much wanting the things she kept voting down. That the State was DIFFERENT. FLOL.


You gobbled up MSM talking points like lozen and you are embarrassed and i get that. But we won't resolve this here.

interesting. Are you being honest here as i do not know the timeline and it was before i was an active poster here, but i was told Toothsayer was a very active poster in this forum and kind of nemesis here who eventually forced the MOds to drive him and some others to the BFI, in a ban from the Political section. It is how the two sections got split into 'mostly right' and 'centre and left'.

Maybe before your time too. Regardless he no longer posts in 2+2 as far as i know for well over a year.

Point is for those who knew him, he was all in on Trump and blamed Obama for everything. He literally said near the end of the first year of the Pandemic that Trump had handled it perfectly and all the issues were Obama issues and not Trumps to fix.

So now that you know i ask the question to you again. if he states he is 'both moderate and accurate in his assessments and views' I cannot and should not call that gaslighting or lies, because maybe he 'just interprets the conversation differently'?


Is that what being 'nice' requires in your view?

No he was definitely gaslighting.

The difference being, it is not just a lie like saying 'i got all A's' if i got some B's, but rather Toothsayer was vested, and did a ton of work to create fake narratives for the masses in the BFI. He was feeding them what they wanted to hear usually backed up by lots of 'selective' data; O.A.F.K would call him out by exposing all the 'selective data' and showing the parts Toothsayer would leave out. And you would see him and his minions lose it. They had the narrative they wanted and did not want the reality shined in.


uke would have me be nice and just debate that guy without pointing out the fact he was gaslighting because that is not 'nice'.

Toothsayer was exiled from this forum several years ago.

That was the part you kept claiming and I looked, but as far as I can tell never happened. Please let me know why you think that. I don't remember having this great swing on Sinema and nothing I could find in my posts says anything different.

I have no idea if that guy was gaslighting or not, but the statement you attributed to him (maybe theoretically) in post 68 definitely was not.

and he has no right of response. See mod thread

Two questions for the dear reader:

1. To the best of your knowledge, have you ever been accused of "gaslighting" in this Forum?



2. If you answered "Yes" to #1:

To the best of your recollection, was the only person who ever accused you "gaslighting" Cuepee?




Thank you for participating.

Yes

Yes

P. S. it was because he misread one of my posts as meaning the opposite of what I said. After many messages, he finally admitted his original mistake, but somehow still thought I was gaslighting him.

The relationship between politics and fact has always been tenuous. This simply because popularity is a great way to pass political policy or argue political ideology, but it is a horrible way of determining facts. Whether it is outright lies, denial, half-truths, imaginative rephrasing or just good old keeping your mouth shut, there is no shortage of political tools for keeping facts out of it.

It can be tempting to use gaslighting to describe the worst elements in politics then, simply because gaslighting describes one of the all-encompassing ways to hide facts. You're actually leading a person astray to the point where he becomes unable to trust his own judgment and might even question his sanity. This is easier to do than most decent people realize.

But I don't really know if the shoe fits for most of what we see in politics. Misleading people in politics tends to be rather pragmatic in nature. Your goal is usually to make people agree with you or at least not vote against you. It's less Jonestown, more political rallies. There are similarities, but most participants in the latter are not going to kill themselves (though the Covid-19 pandemic really put that claim to the test).

But I do think some things are at the point where you could fairly claim gaslighting. "Sharpiegate" really comes to mind for me, where it was truly surreal to see then-president Trump's actions be defended with absolutely no tethering in reality. The anti-vax movement could also be fairly accused of gaslighting.

Excellent post.

However, I don't see how the "anti-vax movement" was gaslighting. I personally know of several anti-vaxxers who have actually done their own research on vaccines and are sincere in their anti-vax beliefs. I get that they may be "sincerely wrong", but they certainly aren't part of any organized cabal intentionally disseminating false information about vaccines. Perhaps you could cite groups or individuals in the anti-vax movement who are clearly guilty of gaslighting. Thanks.

fox news/opinion shows ran dozens of segments on why you shouldn't vaccinate while ALL of their staff were fully vaccinated and boosted..

I could be wrong (as usual), but I thought FoxNews opposed folks being forced to get vaccinated in order to work somewhere. Which is totally consistent with them choosing to be vaccinated themselves.

Very good post.


I have spoken about how the Trump era, especially has exasperated this area of speech, I would broadly call gaslighting. I know people here would argue about the breath and width of that category but in my view it has expanded massively.


George Santos is an example, in most instances of a liar. Gaslighting, in my view, more broadly is an attempt to substitute a different narrative (often a lie) for the actual narrative in a way that can cloud, deceive or divert others from finding the truth.


Fanatics of sports do that when in heated battle. Suddenly they convince themselves and others who are liked minded that the opponent has no value in any area of the discussion. They are bad, worthless, useless. Michael Jordan was just 'lucky', and not good, based on XYZ they convince themselves is enough to deny his very real accomplishments.

We have no way to PROVE that person has gaslit themselves but we KNOW they have.

The follow on scourge to gaslighting, such as the above, also comes from the degradation of political speech. That is this push that because you cannot PROVE the person is gaslighting themselves ('you cannot say for sure they do not believe Michael Jordan was not a bum') this expectation has formed you engage with that position as if JUST ANOTHER OPINION.

So rather than say to that person 'you are gaslighting yourself and being ridiculous in saying Jordan has never accomplished anything', the NICE brigade jumps in says 'you cannot prove that' , thus you must not accuse him of that. And instead I we are expected to debate pure nonsense or do not address it.

This dynamic is what empowered all the worst elements over the Trump years as they went on tv shows with non stop Alternative Facts, Fake Narratives, and Gaslighting to provide shade to Trumps worst offenses. Just because we cannot PROVE they are engaging in gaslighting does not mean we do not SEE it and cannot IDENTIFY it and call it out. But out of a push for niceness, talk TV devolved immensely and to the detriment of society over all and the same push is on for this forum to follow in EXACTLY that same path.
\

That just shows that Fox is an unreliable news source whose goal is to pander, not to inform.

Gaslighting should refer (only) to someone who is trying to get someone else to question their own memory or sanity. You cannot "gaslight" yourself. You can be in denial of the truth.

Everyone should watch the movie, and then hopefully they would understand better what the term actually means. Very good movie as well!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslight_(1944_film)

Re the above, I would probably get strong consensus here that the coming House Investigations into all things Biden and Democrat are deliberate gaslighting exercises intended to feed fake alternative, both sides narratives to a base eager to have such.

Just because Trumpers would argue 'you cannot prove their intent and they mean to create false narratives. It is possible they believe everything they push' does not mean we, in society should treat it as such. We should feel free to call it out as dishonest, and gaslighting where applicable while ignoring the protestations from Trumpers that it is 'not nice' and 'not provable' and thus 'should not be said'.

All very well said.

Gaslighting has always been a popular tactic in politics. (Long before the invention of the gaslight. )

By any published definition of gaslighting,you cannot gaslight yourself. It is a manipulation of one person by another, for the gain of the gaslighter. And presenting an alternative narrative isnt gaslighting. And instead of "accusing him" of anything, presenting the accomplishments of Jordan is the counterpoint. That keeps the discussion on the topic, not the poster. And if the person is unconvinced, because whether Jordan was useless or not is his personal opinion, then you recognize that you will not agree. Esp in matters like sports and politics, people will decide what is important to them and what isnt. If a person believes Jordan was lucky, that doesn't mean he is gaslighting. It doesn't mean he is lying. He just holds a minority opinion.

So rather that shift the discussion to an accusation of the poster (you're gaslighting) keep it on the discussion. You can't just declare your opinion, no matter how well supported you feel it is, as the "right" answer. Opinions dont work that way. Plus, a person can chose to prioritize some facts over others. Maybe someone thinks that NBA rings are the measure of accomplishment. There are 9 players who won more rings than Jordam. Bill Russell was 1 short of having double the number of rings as Jordan. Or maybe one thinks Jordan pushed off the defender on that famous winning buzzer beater in one of those big games. So he was super lucky it wasnt called because they would have lost the game if it were called.

Most people may not look at it that way, but it doesnt make the other person wrong or dishonest. There is nothing to "call him out" about. There are people who feel that the single most important thing a president does is appoint supreme Court Justices. Trump appointed 3. So if that person liked the picks, to them Trump may forever be the greatest president in history. All the other stuff, the lies, the insurrection, etc pales in their mind to the SCOTUS picks. You can cite facts all day and not change their opinion. But it still doesnt make them wrong.

You say this, in this instance, as you agree with my targets being labeled as 'gaslighters' as you have your own personal disdain, dislike or mistrust of politicians that exceeds even my own.


And YET, when it comes to areas you do not agree with such labeling you call for it to be banned.

So once again the meaningful distinction is 'i'm ok with it being used as long as i agree. I want it banned when i do not agree'.

Not meaning to call you out specifically as that is how many people feel and will seek to implement rules on others, while also not really be critical of self and realizing that is what they want.

[QUOTE] Disagree as the 'published definition' RARELY TO NEVER is the driver behind casual conversation, where expansive definitions (or rules by association) almost always rule.

Again going too literal does not serve conversation. Instead try to understand how the concept as applied loosely (self delusion) does in fact apply and apply well. Sport fanatics self delude regularly with regards to their hero's and enemies in sport.

To understand read the below and try and discern the common thread all are referring to:

- 3 Steps To Stop Self-Gaslighting and Start Trusting Your Truth

- What’s ‘Self-Gaslighting’ and How Do I Unlearn It?

- 5 Signs You’re Gaslighting Yourself

- Are You Gaslighting Yourself?

- Are You Self-Gaslighting? Here's How To Spot The Destructive Behavior

Click-bait headlines as proof of something?


I mean, it's the internet. You can find anything.

Not so sure. I would think people quite often deny the evidence of their own eyes and dupe themselves that reality is an illusion because what they have seen is incompatible with some fixed idea of theirs.

Fictious example.

I cannot stand Michael Jordan. I am a huge Boston Celtics fan and think Larry Bird is the greatest of all time and cannot stand that people compare Jordan to him or say he is better. My disgust is genuine. My hate is genuine.

As such i have developed this ability to reject and deny anything positive ever said about Jordan. He is always lucky or surrounded by people who 'carry him' when good happens. He is never good or skilled.

I have crafted this narrative and in no instance can anyone else, especially a Jordan fan get me to agree.

I have self manipulated to my own gain as it allows me to cling to a desired deception and all the elements i need to cling to keep the illusion i have created alive. The gaslighter who gains is me.


I have known several sports extreme fanatics like this and we see many super Trumpfans self gaslight like this to maintain an illusion they want to believe that he does no wrong.

They show them in these street interviews how when shown facts that are clear and counter what they believe, they just deny, spin and pivot to a new delusion to maintain the self delusion and continue to gaslight themselves.


I have broken these two into their own posts to describe in long form as the way you state it seems to imply you are stating a view that cannot be countered and your delivering a truth, and that is simply not the case. We can certainly agree to disagree but my view is not wrong here, even if you disagree.

the common thread of what they are describing is in the articles and quite clear.

It is not just self delusion but a desired self delusion due generally to a targeted outcome.

So Trump might gaslight you to his benefit by telling you stuff he needs you to believe.

You might otherwise gaslight yourself as you really love Trump and are fanatically about him, and as such you tell yourself what you need to believe and just accept it.