And thus the absurdity of trying to advocate for a rule to 'not be allowed to call out gaslighting'.

I have said many times the people who want that rule are the ones who are guilty of CONSTANTLY and want to create an environemnt they can 'get away with it, without being called out'.

Case in point....


It is not 'framing of the hypothetical that is a problem'.


You are pushing the Moderator to create a rule based on you framing a situation as "Easy to address by merely citing'.

I have absolutely demonstrated it is not easy, by giving you an example of a hypothetical that would be EASIER, to do, based on what you say, as the people are all in agreement that 'he did say those things in that way'.



What i PROVE is that simply 'citing' posts to prove a persons position is NOT EASY, as per the claim of the person pushing the moderator. That uke CANNOT do it, even in an EASIER instance, so the claim it should be 'easy' is PROVEN fallacious and wrong.


I challenge anyone to prove EASILY with Laggy's post history, that claim we all agree, including him, is his general position, in a way that will clearly establish the position as conclusive and established. No one will take up that EASY task as they can see i am write, as always, but until they set their mind to trying it, they did not realize i was right, as always.

And people should go listen to Trumps recent forced deposition in the E. Jean Carroll case.


Trump is one who uses the same argument uke is pushing here. That calling out something we can all see being done, is a 'personal attack' that should not be allowed. Do not call what Trump is saying lies or gaslighting, as NICE should be the rule.


In this instance both laggy and myself can see the clear gaslighting being pushed. Why should we not be allowed to say it? Why should we not be able to call Trump lies or gaslighting?

Who does it serve, other than those who do not want to be held to account?

I just saw a little piece of the deposition on TV. Which part are you referring to? The part I saw had Trump denying that he raped the woman, denied he even had the encounter at the store at all, and that she was the liar. But at this point prior to trial I havent seen any evidence supporting one side or another.

So we have Carroll saying he raped her; Trump saying it never happened, and both calling the other side liars. Is that the part of the deposition you are calling gaslighting by Trump, or was it a different section?

Trump was constantly calling out the allegations against him vicious lies byu ruthless people or some such and these need to be stopped. Thus do not cite the actions you have all seen and hear me do in ways I do not agree them being classified as, as that is not nice. Only classify them in a way i would agree with.


When faces with people we can all draw our views upon their words or actions, we should not be prohibited in stating what we see and hear in a way we think accurate simply because the other party will disagree and find it NOT nice.

If i watch your moderating for a period of time and think you rule with bias and a lack of fairness and you regularly find ways to side with arguments in a dishonest way, i should be able to offer that as my view, even if you disagree and find it not nice to say.

That people here are arguing there should be no way to express that is just nonsense.

If instead they are trying to say we can express the same view but using different words, as certain words are not 'nice' but getting out the same exact sentiment in another way is ok, then that is just pedantic nonsense.



BTW people should watch Ron Johnson on Meet the Press today scolding Chuck Todd about calling him on BS, echoing the Rand Paul position, of the job of the News Anchor should not be to call out and argue with the guest. Just let him say what he wants, honest or not, and as a new anchor stop talking positions or sides. More nonsense. BS and lies need to be called our MORE, not less but it is the worst offenders on the Far right (Trumpists) and the worst offenders here from the far left who BOTH make the same form of argument AGAINST being able to call a lie, a lie, or gaslighting , gaslighting.

They want to be able to drop the dishonesty and just have it debated as fair 'both sides' debate, without the other being able to say 'wait, that simple is a lie so I am not going to debate that'.

I want to clarify something. i've read through all the posts again on this topic. Are you accusing uke of gaslighting because of the way he responded about your hypothetical challenge about whether or not laggy was an overzealous religious poster and "assigned" uke a role to play? I had the impression he responded about his real life posting not your make believe scenario.

He has no obligation to play in your made up game nor answer any of your questions. So let me know if you are accusing him of gaslighting in a hypothetical, which would be completely inappropriate, or if you are discussing an actual thread on topic discussion. Sometimes it is difficult to follow the point you are trying to make because your points are interspersed with so many lines of self congratulatory remarks that your actual points get obscured.

uke has pushed a position that he wants you to adopt as a moderator and that is that 'accusations about others postings when they are in conflict with one another, and one of the two parties denies the accuracy are EASY to substantiate via a quick quoting'.

I have challenged him on that assertion and we have went back and forth and i have posited to him something that is factually true and accurate which is:

- if indeed, EASY to simply 'summarize quote' someone to establish what you are saying about them, even as they are telling you are wrong and will dispute what you say to be accurate then and therefore it would be mush easier to 'summarize quote' someone to substantiate their position when we all agree and that poster agrees it is their position.

No one would take me up on that challenge to 'summarize quote' laggy in a way that is quick and easy and proves the claim in a way that supports uke's first assertion and he now knows that.


So here is where uke is gaslighting because he knows what i am asking of him and it is simple 'just show us how it EASY to encapsulate or substantiate someone's position with a quote or few quotes as you claim' and i offer him up the EASIER example to do it, of Laggy and yet uke replies back as if this is what he and I have in contention...

"... I don't think lagtight has ever objected to how I've characterized his religious views - lagtight please do chime in if I've mistakenly misrepresented you. For instance, I've referred to him as a young earth creationist because he told me he was a young earth creationist, and I don't believe he objects at all to me saying so. .."


So this is the pushing of a complete and false narrative of an argument NO ONE was engaging it to make it look like instead that is what i was saying, and to give him high ground to not to answer the question from me, he knows he cannot answer without exposing himself as wrong. Uke does not want to be wrong, so he won't answer and he will pretend we were talking about something else.


If it not gaslighting, tell me what you would call it?

There is no question of the discussion at hand :

- uke claims quote summarizing a position, even in a dispute to prove what one person position is EASY
- I state it is now and we get in a disagreement
- i offer a way for him to prove his assertion that should be easier than the situation he has called easy (people in dispute)
- he replies back with an answer that has NOTHING to do with anything i said or asked of him, and uses that to beg out of the conversation and not answer the question that traps him

It's not a gross misrepresentation for personal gain, so it's not gaslighting. And he has no obligation at all to even participate in your "challenge" You can no more insist he owes you an answer than he had to demand a yes or no answer from you. And giving evasive answers is probably the oldest trick in the political discussion playbook. No one is guaranteed what they feel is a satisfactory answer. But that doesnt mean it's gaslighting. It could just be he's blowing off what he considers a fake challenge.

That’s basically exactly right. I think Cuepee’s counterfactual challenge is problematic in a number of ways and so I reframed my answers in terms of a more realistic exchange I would have with lagtight that more closely approximates how I’d advocate someone interact on the forum. Most political debates are at some level debates about frames so I don’t even consider it particularly evasive.

But it certainly isn’t maliciously and intentionally trying to deceive him, it isn’t remotely this. An accusation of gaslighting here is beyond ridiculous and demonstrates how flippantly this accusation is tossed around.

Finally, I’ll note I twice offered to agree to disagree prior to this accusation of gaslighting. That would have been a more satisfactory conclusion but sadly Cuepee chose not to take it.

,it is a deliberate misrepresentation so as to not address or acknowledge an question that PROVES him wrong and 'not being proven wrong' is the MAIN REASON people gaslight in arguments.




See above. It certainly is so we can agree to disagree.


And I have never. NOT ONCE, said he has to so stop making this strawman and stick to the actual discussion please.

He made an assertion. I challenged that assertion as provably wrong and gave an example that would EASILY show it to be wrong.

He absolutely can choose to not respond, but what he CANNOT do is MISREPRESENT what i am asking him to do as something else as that is the gaslighting i am referring to.



Ahhhh this strawman again.

See above.


Yes it is. It can be a form of gaslighting too.


Agreed. And had he said 'not answering that' there would be nothing i could do but except it. But as soon as he SPUN the discussion and MISREPRESENTED it deliberately suggesting I was asking something i was not that, my friend is gaslighting.


Agreed , 'it does not mean' but it just so happens in this case it was.
It could be but he still does not get to misrepresent the argument and not be called out for gaslighting.

Summary

Uke - if Person 1 and Person 2 are in dispute and Person 1 says person 2 is misrepresenting what they said it is EASY to demand the Person encapsulate the position (cite) in a summary post(s)

Qp - no that is not easy

:: back and forth is engaged ::

QP - uke if that is EASY then it would be even easier to encapsulate the position of a poster who agree with the summary of him as there will be no counter party saying you are wrong in the way you consider that statement by me. I disagree.

So to prove your position uke you should be easily able to create a summary post showing our agreed to view on laggy. After all you say it is EASY to even a more challenging 'proof' encapsulation.


Uke does not just say 'no, not doing that' (his right) exposing he is not willing to substantiate his claim even though he says it si EASY and instead completely misrepresents what i asked pushing a false narrative of

uke - ' I don't think lagtight has ever objected to how I've characterized his religious views - lagtight please do chime in...


*** NO one is arguing that. uke just made that up and replied to his own fabrication to try and make it look like that was what was being asserted.

The reason that is done (here often) is to bury the original point i made he has no answer to and knows defeats his position and as such he wants to pretend the discussion is about something else.

So your complaint, it appears, is that he dodged answering your question, is that correct? He didnt misrepresent your position, he didnt mention it at all. Politicians do that all the time. Reporters can ask whatever question they want and politicians can answer anyway they want. He didnt lie about anything. He deflected your question. That's not gaslighting and it's not appropriate to accuse someone of it for just sosging a question.


You can point out that he didnt answer the question, or rephrase it. But accusing someone of gross misrepresentation with malicious intent over that would be to water down gaslighting tobe anytime someone sisnt give youbthe answer you like.

Kind of but not fully.

uke is a smart guy, and i give him that. He knows what we were discussing as we had been engaged in it.

I got him in what would be called in debate class a checkmate position. He took a position (asserted it), and by the way i framed the question to him, he could not address it without conceding he was wrong or being shown to be wrong.

He would have seen that, as he is smart. Would have thought how can i 'demonstrate this assertion I made' and saw there was no way, so he set about pretending that in fact we were talking about something else. That an entirely different question was at issue.

Been there done that many times with uke in the past, too many for it to be coincidence, plus he is smart. So it is deliberate, in the way when a politician is asked a question by a reporter they cannot answer and not look bad, they just pivot and answer a completely different question as if asked that.

Certainly you recognize that and can call it out in politics right? If you are here long enough you will easily see the same pattern here with a few key posters who tend to really push strong views quickly and without much forething ('...it is easy...') and then as i run them down and get them in the checkmate spot you will see this pattern play out time and again.



Ha i wrote the politician thing above without readinng this first and could not disagree more.

A lie is 'an attempt to deceive' and when politicians answer DIRECT questions asked in a gaslighting way, it is an attempt to make those viewers see the question in a way it was not intended.

I believe it is one of the scourges of TV news and Opinion hosts that they do not call the person out for lying or gaslighting when they answer with something unrelated. It IS dishonest. Full stop.

He does not have to give me the answer I like. But if he replies AS IF i asked him a different question or accused him of something I did not, that is dishonest.

He can absolutely say 'I am not answering your question and instead say XYZ ' but he if replies as if i asked him or accused him of something i did not, that is dishonest.

From the quotes I've seen, and a few posts I unhid to understand better, I think I have the gist of things, but maybe someone can correct me if I'm misunderstanding. Is Cuepee trying to argue that if someone isn't willing to show how they could easily prove gaslighting in a particular scenario he has created, then that will prove some kind of point about how difficult gaslighting always is to prove? Or have I gone a step too far in what he's going for here?

What I'm pretty sure I have right, and am getting a good chuckle out of, is that uke is being accused of gaslighting for not wanting to go along with said scenario. Extra amusing given how often I've seen Cuepee do a similar thing with the 'I'm not playing your game' replies.

I might be able to find time for a more meaningful response tomorrow, but let me just note that in Cuepee's two prior essays about me, he isn't actually quoting me. For the record, most of the claims about me aren't what I think.

Cuepee told us in such situations he would either offer to agree to disagree, or he would provide quotes. I don't really care which, but my position is not that which is described in Cuepee's rambling narrative that somehow deduces I'm...uh....gaslighting him?

Me: Totally ban the use of the words "gaslight" and "gaslighting". Banning those words will be -EV for literally only one poster in this Forum, but will be massively +EV for everyone else.

Regis: Is that your final answer?

Me: Yes!

I got this. Let me answer.


What you need to know is this discussion about LGTBQ issues is not one i think fair, nor one I think we should be engaging in right now.

The push to continually talk about this, when it is not appropriate, is not one that I think should be done, nor will i participate in it.


/gaslighting

Bobo i hope you can see what I did there and how it is an attempt to gaslighting the readers.

I don't see this as serious commentary by a serious person.

Lets say you get that achieved and then i just switch and say each and every time instead "...this is the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for (your) own advantage"...

Are you ok with that or do you then want that banned too?

In any debate class you will learn in the 101 class that there are many devices an opponent can use to try and tactically and often dishonestly get the perception that they are making a winning point. Strawmen, various Logical Fallacies, Gaslighting are all such examples.


Are people here saying none of those terms should be used to identify what a poster is doing, if the other person disagrees? That if a Trumpist refuses to accept they have been strawmanning an issue, gaslighting the public and have employed numerous logical fallacies NO ONE should call them out unless that person will agree?

Is that what we are saying on this forum? If not, why not? Why can i simply then switch to just saying over and over, as appropriate the other words?

it is not that gaslighting itself is any more particularly egregious than the other words. The issue here is people want a safe space where they cannot be cited for doing things they are going to maintain they did not do. "...That is a logical fallacy. Appeal to authority...", "no its not, and since i do not agree you should have never said 'reported'..."

What about simply telling someone 'that simply is not true. I do not agree' instead, if cited for gaslighting, strawmen or logical fallacies, etc?


If someone says to me, you are gaslighting on that point, and I do not think i am, I will say 'that is not true'. If they assert again, I will say 'you are not going to change my view so we can agree to disagree and move on'. And if we have a forum rule that says we cannot just keep going back and forth over the same 'asked and answered' question or you risk getting an infraction (one or both) it ends there or perhaps the two take it to the containment thread if they are so motivated and that is allowed.

This push to have the moderation 'protect me from each and any accusation of me using common debate devices' and remove these words or infract anyone who dares to do so, is just the silliest of sillies, in an effort to be 'nice (I guess?), as it certainly is not rooted in any principle of functional dialogue to say one person cannot call out another when they see committing strawman, gaslighting or using logical fallacies, etc.

That would be an emphatic YES--BAN THAT TOO!!!

I don't see this as serious commentary from a serious person.

QP - You do realize that this is not a debate in the sense that a topic is chosen and sides are assigned to teams to defend - right? It's a discussion board where people can choose to engage as they feel they want to. If in your mind when people choose not to play your silly games that means you win and they lose, well, congratulations.

Ok.

So what you want banned is any ability for any poster to say to another 'that summary is grossly misleading' or any variation of such statements.


As a class i would say you are trying to ban all 'conflicting statements' that are used to point out, inaccuracy, or untruths, or deliberate misrepresentations if one person debating another feels the person has done that.

is that what you are pushing for?

Would you extend to having it banned to say 'that is a strawman', 'that is logical fallacy', etc, if the other person vehemently disagrees?


uke, is this what you are pushing for too as it seems laggy is more in line (or trying to be) in asking for what you are?

Of course.

That does not mean that on topics we discuss and conflict and where each person then engages in trying to make and substantiate their point as the correct one, while at the same time showing the other view as incorrect one that what they are not doing is engaging in debate.


They are absolutely ENGAGING in debate.

This idea that debate class teachings, and best practices for MAKING YOUR ARGUMENT, do not apply to informal discussion is just nonsense. The debate class methodology is just the BEST way, to make and substantiate points, based on a best practices model inside or outside the class.


The only reason certain people want to keep saying 'debate class processes have no application in real life' is almost certainly as they have neither taken a class nor do they understand the best practices so they would feel disadvantages so they are trying to create a false narratives that 'all those things that work in debate class, ...those things that substantiate points... they just don't work here and no one should do them', so they then are on equal footing.

So I understand the "Appeal to ignore best practice debate rules' but it is a silly one.

Who sets the terms of the debate?