Gaslighting is Word of the Year 2022
merriam-webster.com
merriam-webster.com
I wonder if the word is by its nature particularly prone to semantic drift. If somebody’s in the state of mind where they are talking about gaslighting, they are not ready to receive the message that they are using the word wrong. Nobody wants to die on the hill of correcting the usage of this term, so there’s no natural guardrails to stabilize its meaning.
Words like wrong, disagree or even lying don’t express this sentiment. They give the person who disagreed with you a pass on what they really are: A manipulator who is attempting to assault your psyche and break you down.
I really hope we as a society get out of this mode of thinking soon. I’d love to be able to have rational discourse again in my lifetime outside of a very small circle of trusted people.
In my opinion, the best way to "get out of this mode of thinking" is for people to look at their allies and say, "Hey, can we tone it down a little?" As it is, right now, it's the ones who are not "rotten to the core" with the most ability to change things. And failing to do so means that they are, indeed, "systemically undermining good in the world".
Unfortunately, asking people to tone it down is a dangerous tactic. It may improve the world, but at a cost of decreasing your own power. That's why the nastiness not only persists, but expands.
So asking your allies to tone it down a little is a genuine risk. You have to be willing to take up the side of the people who are being harmed. Or you can accede to the harm. But you don't get to opt out of that choice -- one thing or another happens.
"hacker" - used to mean deep understanding of a system and using it in unusual or unintended way, now it means criminal
"troll" - used to mean creating specially crafted post to trigger emotional response (like a posting in star trek forum that trailer looks fake because we all know there are no shadows in space), now it means bully that wants someone to commit suicide.
"leak" used to mean data you can download, now it means someone stole the data.
They prohibited the owners/operators of the other 90%+ from providing plastic straws.
The color of the Orange Order is named after the fruit, derived from a corruption of 13th century French or Spanish (approximately "an orange" ≈ "a norange" ~> naranja, but spellings from that era aren't consistent anyway), from Arabic, ultimately from an unknown Dravidian language.
And of course: fast, inflammable, sanction, cleave, dust, bolt, oversight, peruse, table.
“literally”
I don't think that misuse of gaslighting is not in favor of "lying", but rather the "manipulation", at least from my experience of hearing this when misused.
"You mean to use 'accept' rather than 'except'" "You drank an 'espresso' not an 'expresso'" And the French Academy would no longer have a reason to exist.
> The idea of a deliberate conspiracy to mislead has made gaslighting useful in describing lies that are part of a larger plan. Unlike lying, which tends to be between individuals, and fraud, which tends to involve organizations, gaslighting applies in both personal and political contexts.
My grandmother (born around the time Ireland gained independence from the UK) used "Irish" to mean "stupid" shortly before her Alzheimer's diagnosis.
When my mother (born during WW2) also got an Alzheimer's diagnosis, she started using "glory hole" to refer to the kitchen cupboard. (I had to look it up, but it's apparently a legit though obsolete meaning).
"Democratise" is my personal bugbear. Doesn't have anything to do with voting or dispute resolution.
My dad had a problem with the words "millennium" not being used for the period starting Jan 1, 2001, and the word "gay" switching from the mid-20th-century meaning to the late-20th-century meaning.
...
/s
"Correcting" language use is just not "the cool thing to do". Think of the term "grammar nazi" - how many activities do we ever associate with Nazis? Very few, but talking to people about grammar is one of them.
But in general people really dislike when they are wrong, in any context.
For example, the portion of the population who pronounce “gif” wrong
/s
One of my favorites: "It's 'hanged', not 'hung'."
It isn't merely undermining someone's sense of sanity by disagreeing, or pointing out their logical missteps or forgetfulness. Gaslighting is the deliberate manipulation of reality and expectations so as to lead a person to themselves doubt their own sanity. Like hiding someone's car keys just before they are to leave.
Back in the '10s we had a saying going around Shoreditch tech scene, "Creepy is the new cool". Suddenly finding ads on your phone for the things you were just talking about. Having gadgets "automagically" sync your documents to other devices without your say-so. That feeling of "did I really copy that to the iThing?" was simultaneously exciting and unnerving.
There is such a thing as "the warm thrill of confusion" [1].
At a certain point that becomes gaslighting. When Amazon deleted "Nineteen Eighty Four" from Kindle, that was a seminal tech gaslighting moment.
As "AI" is integrated into more services and users are robbed of agency under the auspices of "convenience", we can expect to see more people feeling "gaslighted" by tech, or by others via technology.
It is also a hallmark of narcissistic manipulators who like to cultivate dependency by undermining the agency of others, so it sits well with many present tech powers such as advertisers. Remote control amplifies this possibility. In the limit, gaslighting is a soft word for a some particular activities in psyops; demoralisation and discombobulation (which should be the all-time word of the year :)
[1] https://www.davemcnally.com/album-lyrics/the-wall/pink-floyd...
I'm not so sure syncing is a great example, either. Not like they hide it
Though adtech tracking and topics stuff sure feels like gaslighting. They say they're not listening, and I can kind of believe a stochiastic thing of "well you're actually friends on FB with the other person and they looked at this product so...." but there's a lot of times where it really feels like the only explanation is mics everywhere listening to conversations, even though I know it's not that! But is it?
Algorithms are not great at acknowledging their actions, so I think that's very much part of peoples' experience with big-tech. Examples of an update breaking things, or an account getting deleted, and a responsible person quickly admitting "yes we did that, and here's why", are rare. The usual response is to deflect or stonewall. It's practically on page one of the PR playbook.
> I'm not so sure syncing is a great example, either. Not like they hide it
I think you are seeing this from the developers' viewpoint. There's been plenty of examples where this stuff is on by default and users have been unaware of it.
> explanation is mics everywhere listening to conversations, even though I know it's not that! But is it?
It's that doubt which is the seed of soft, pervading anxiety, that does the damage.
I think we’ve evolved from that to “being gaslit is the wallpaper for most conversations.”
Seemingly any point will be contradicted by someone, no matter how untruthful or outright wrong to malicious the counterpoint. It’s as though people are live action role playing the worst of the internet in person at times.
Edit-source for the 1984 deletion: https://slate.com/technology/2009/07/how-amazon-s-remote-del...
I’d start questioning your own circles if that’s your experience of “real life”. Can’t say I’ve ever experienced anyone I consider a friend, family, or a colleague of note acting like that.
No, not really. Unless you're surrounded by bad people
Arguing for argument's sake is annoying, but echo chambers that reinforce agreement are force multipliers for inaccuracy, falsehood, and extremism. I'd rather be questioned than told I was wrong with no agency in my defense.
The worst people of the internet differ based on who you ask. For me, moral absolutists and people who spew out hot takes and twisted arguments for likes are pond scum on the rational discourse totem pole, tied with ad folk.
For others, it's whomever fails their loyalty tests by not agreeing with every view they may hold at any given time.
Malice implies intent, and a lot of people don't see what they're doing as intentionally causing another harm. I find the most annoying people usually think that their behavior is excluded because they believe that they're /helping/.
If you are unwilling to accept scientific discovery as a significant indicator of something, then no amount of scientific work will convince you, and will just feel like someone trying to disprove your entire world view, while if you are unwilling to accept ideology and dogma as significant influences, you will feel like you are taking crazy pills as a large group denies reality in front of their very eyes
Sadly finding people who will actively make the world worse if it pays enough (also on this site) is not hard. What is hard, is finding people who have the guts and the self respect to say "No" when they are asked to do creepy, destructive or evil things.
And if ethics won't work, let's introduce laws and enforce them. Free speech, sure, but what about informational self-determination?
You'll be pleased there's almost a whole chapter of "Ethics for Hackers" devoted to that problem. Analysis of about 30 different psychological rationalisations, self-deceptions and logical fallacies that help people knowingly do bad things. One problem is that people in tech are mostly smart and logical, and therefore the most vulnerable to certain mind-tricks.
It's also worth remembering that what is "ethical" is more complex than bare acts. There are many hackers quite justified doing "creepy, destructive or evil things" against enemies. I've written much on defence, "lethality engineering" and cyber-offense work.
The disgusting thing about some big-tech work is that we're doing it to our own families and children.
I feel this every time my girlfriend asks me "why did <computer thing> break in <unpredictable and unexplainable> way?" and I have to answer "I have no idea how that could possibly happen but every experience I've had fixing code tells me that there's often no rhyme or reason to anything that goes on under the hood of a computer in the modern world.
I am tenacious and usually get my bug, eventually. What you're describing is a priceless moment pregnant with opportunity to learn. That exact moment you feel it's beyond all understanding often comes seconds before you expand the frame "out of the box" and see how you've been "so stupid all along".
With machines it's a moment of mastery. But when that realisation is about a person, or organisation that's betrayed you, or you've fundamentally misunderstood for some time, the emotional shock is flooring.
It's a stereotype to say that hackers prefer machines to debugging human psychology, because they are more predictable and less painful. But what's changed along with the complexity and uses of computers as socially manipulative tools is that the possibility that the thing might actually "be against you" is increasing, Malicious code does not have to be "malware" in the strict sense - it just needs to carry the values of a malevolent author.
Gaslighting would've been if they'd changed the text so that Big Brother had been the good guy all along, and when you looked at the text again you decided you must have just misremembered it.
For how well OP's comment was written, they seem to have missed the point of understanding what the word 'gaslighting' actually means.
Do not the choices of Ayn Rand and George Orwell, both of whom deal with themes of authoritarianism, from amongst all possible book titles and authors, seem a little interesting?
Almost as if someone, an insider perhaps, had wanted to remind the public that Amazon's capabilities were not those of your friendly local bookstore.
When it's your turn you have to come up with even more outlandish figments of overactive imagination, paranoia and grandiosity.
The winner gets to say something like "This goes all the way to the top", or "We're through the looking glass now people"... etc.
Weird thoughts I've been having; for social harmony it's much more important to share a perception of reality, than it is for any individual to have an accurate perception of reality. Attempting to find an objective truth that conflicts with a shared vision of reality isn't something brave or admirable, it's weird and disruptive. Polite society will cast you out.
I think this is hard wired to us. We want to be told what reality is by people or groups with clout, people who are cool and have prestige, and we're hard-wired to just believe it.
I think this is why most people outside the overton window feel inherently unpleasant. To most normal, well adjusted people, threatening to tear down the social fabric of our shared reality is just plain disgusting.
(Not to say that every (or even many!) people outside that window have an accurate perception of reality - but the veracity is almost irrelevant - what's abhorrent to us is that they're trying to destroy it in the first place. That's the real crime.)
But I think more importantly there's a distinction between the objective truth about Newton's law of gravity, and the objective truth about whether $current_war is justified, or about what exactly happened on 9/11. All three have an objective truth, but for only one of them pursuing that truth is encouraged by society
Ironic example given how many people conflate moral relativity and General Relativity.
I'm not talking about revisionism. I mean stuff that's written plain as day on Wikipedia, will be mentioned in passing by any mainstream respected historian, etc etc.
You're still a fucking weirdo if you bring it up.
Trying to picture it now..
Klaxons sound
"Actually Alan, our WWI blockade of foodstuffs going to Germany was legally a war crime and continued even after the armistice"
First, of course the blockade continued after the armistice, because that wasn't actually the end of the war. At the time, the leaders of the countries that had defeated Germany were worried that it would use it as a mere pause and continue fighting once the pressure had been relieved. Post-war exploration of German historical documents give this some credence, as it was the ongoing pressure of the blockade and the public's turning against the government that forced the German leadership to give up any hope of resuming hostilities and preserving their power structures.
So it makes sense that only once Germany had signed the Treaty of Versailles and enough guarantees were put in place that hostilities would not resume could the blockade and other measures be lifted.
As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention, and the way it was conducted was according to acceptable practice at the time. In a total war, forcing the compliance of the enemy through through deprivation of its population was considered legally and even morally acceptable, especially given the devastation occurring around the front lines.
Thankfully our approach has mostly evolved since, and the kinds of actions that were legal and acceptable in the First World War are now illegal and unacceptable, and for the most part that's respected by major powers. Today we'd consider this an atrocity, one of many in a horrific war, but we know that because we've progressed since and therefore placing things in their historical context is important.
I could give better examples that have been politely ignored though are increasingly getting more coverage, such as Britain's treatment of Kenyans during the Mai Mai uprising, where many of those involved knew they were doing wrong.
I think you're confusing the Hague Convention of 1907 with the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War in 1909. Regardless, the text of that treaty does not support your assertion.
Chapter 1, Article 1:
"A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy."[0]
Chapter 2, Article 2 deals with contraband of war - food is not on the list.[1].
The UK signed this, as well as the 1856 "Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law" - which itself was explicitly referred to as being extended in the 1907 Hague Convention. Again I quote:
"2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war; 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy’s flag;"[2]
[0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-33...
[2] https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecti...
You are selectively and misleadingly quoting it, and confusing the concepts of contraband, which can be pursued on the high seas, with blockades which much be in a defined area and apply equally to neutral vessels.
This is stated very clearly in the opening articles, so I don't know how you missed it.
Chapter 1, Article 5 of the London Declaration: [0]
"A blockade must be applied impartially to the ships of all nations."
Chapter 1, Article 7: [1]
"In circumstances of distress, acknowledged by an officer of the blockading force, a neutral vessel may enter a place under blockade and subsequently leave it, provided that she has neither discharged nor shipped any cargo there."
Chapter 1, Article 14: [2]
"The liability of a neutral vessel to capture for breach of blockade is contingent on her knowledge, actual or presumptive, of the blockade."
Chapter 1, Article 15: [3]
"Failing proof to the contrary, knowledge of the blockade is presumed if the vessel left a neutral port subsequently to the notification of the blockade to the Power to which such port belongs, provided that such notification was made in sufficient time."
Chapter 1, Article 17: [4]
"Neutral vessels may not be captured for breach of blockade except within the area of operations of the warships detailed to render the blockade effective."
I could go on. The only limitation on blockades with regard to neutral states is that they may not apply to neutral ports or coasts. [5]
Contraband, by contrast, is something that may be seized on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents, outside of a specific blockade zone:
Chapter II, Article 37: [6]
"A vessel carrying goods liable to capture as absolute or conditional contraband may be captured on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents throughout the whole of her voyage, even if she is to touch at a port of call before reaching the hostile destination."
So, as I said, you've taken a complex and nuanced topic, completely misunderstood it, and are loudly proclaiming that your take on it which advances a specific political point is the correct one. That pushback you're getting isn't people unwilling to accept reality, it's people trying to help you understand what the circumstances really were.
[0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[2] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[3] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[4] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[5] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
[6] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
Your blank refusal to see this despite having the treaties in front of you - and despite many people during WWI noting it at the time - proves my point. It's more important to you to cling onto the myth that WWI was a battle between good and evil, than admit a democracy deliberately starved the civilian population of a monarchy even after they had laid down their arms.
Though the usual response to this is to point to German WWI war crimes, as if they then cancel out - so I suppose it's an improvement.
You don’t have to take my word for it, you could go and find an academic who specialises in this field and ask them. You’ll get the same answer.
Honestly, you’re arguing out of ignorance here on a topic you don’t understand. On top of that you’re attempting to assign to me simplistic motives, that I don’t hold, just because it would make your preconceptions fit better.
In more than one situation I just got "well, the historians are wrong".
We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative.
We should also be honest that there are many people heavily invested in making sure biblical narratives are not viewed as history, and not always for the purpose of true historicity.
You said yourself there are only "like 2" (I forgive and appreciate the vagueness) stories in the bible (not going into translations, revisions, etc.) that can be dragged into reality. I would need to know which ones you refer to in order to counterpoint, but I'm fairly certain there's quite a bit more than like 2 stories that can be corroborated by secular means. Though I guess we'd end up quibbling over what you meant by "stories" or something if we got that far.
My point is that there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, strongly desire to stifle any consideration of "the bible" (and I lowercase that on purpose) as Truth. I'm alright with that, but I wanna chat about it, too.
That said, anyone got a link to a good forum or some such where I can do such chatting?
Try pushing objective truth anywhere were it disagrees with the mainstream reality, and see how far you go...
Heck, would be as smooth a ride as pushing "hey, blacks are people too, they should get all rights" in 1850 South, or "hey, this religion origin story is just fiction" in most places in history.
No it’s not (at least not in the US). Look at how many different religions there are with major followings based on books filled with completely farcical stories treated as truth.
Neo liberals exist in a completely different reality from AOC fans when it comes to the economy, and that’s just a split within the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is fractured between boot licking Trump and claiming he is the worst President ever.
Pick any one of these groups and have them criticize how one of the others ignores “truth”. Then have them do it to their own group and you’ll quickly see how little they actually care about “objective truth”. It’s really depressing.
Just that the sharing of a perception is more important than the accuracy of it.
I think the mistake here is that we (as in everyone broadly) have a perception problem. We don't actually know what other people are thinking, we can only judge by the face they present to the world. So there is a public presentation and then private thoughts behind that. This results in a prisoner's dilemma situation where the safest option is to defect to the side of whoever the perceived authority is since that is the only obvious signal. That defection is not a change of heart though, it's just going along to get along. Once a better option presents itself that aligns with the internal beliefs that are still held firmly, the individual will switch.
From the outside this looks like a strongly imposed shared narrative is being effective at uniting people but what's actually happening is that you're simply cowing everyone into keeping their head down while resentment and discontent simmer under the surface. Just look at what's happening in China right now or Iran, seemingly out of no where you have protests and civil unrest. It's the same for any tightly controlled society, things appear ok until suddenly they aren't. Widespread disagreement and argument are actually signs of a healthy society where people feel free to speak their minds.
It's a very self-serving. We tell ourselves pretty lies and avoid inconvenient truths constantly. Because doing otherwise has huge costs in terms of personal comfort, convenience, wealth, security and social standing. This becomes a group dynamic when we join social circles that maintain the same pretty lies and avoid the same inconvenient truths. And of course for this to work it has to be an unwritten, almost subconscious rule: Never express a thought or question a choice that will disturb the material and moral comfort of yourself or your social groups.
Here's a way to observe/test this (two parts): The next time you have moral doubt (e.g. Why do I feel uncomfortable that all of the people serving us are brown people?), listen to your conscience rather than silencing it. (If you never have moral doubts I'd say it's because you've become very good at silencing it.) The more you listen, the more you follow through with honesty and integrity, the more you'll find that you'll have to give up something comfortable or nice in your lifestyle.
Part two: Express moral questions about something your group does that, when examined honestly, actually goes against the groups purported values. Be prepared to lose friends.
I don't buy this. It isn't something that comes from a small group of people "with status" but is a collective tradition. The idea that a small group of people "with status" can just willy nilly describe what's "real" and what isn't is a fundamentally undemocratic way of seeing society
The idea that some people have a right to manufacture "reality" out of thin air comes from the same set of lies that propped up the Catholic church. Compare this the idea that each person has a unique relationship with God and doesn't need a priestly class to "mediate" the relationship
If the "social harmony" can't handle the light of day, then it is the one that will need to adjust
There are multiple crises beating down at our door that threaten to change the status quo forever for everyone (inside the US and outside). I suppose they are disgusting, but they ARE coming.
You call it reality, I call it the systems that define our society. Factual claims only serve to justify those systems. Someone who believes that homosexuality is inherently sinful and sinful behavior stains the character and thus leads to other sinful behaviors, will not become a gay rights activist if you can find a study to debunk their factual claims about how homosexuality is detrimental in this or that scenario.
In other words, I think what you call "perception of reality" is really just another way to say a word that has long fallen out of use in polite conversation because the end of history was supposed to have overcome it: ideology.
It would be nice if that was as far as it drifted. I've seen it used as a synonym for "disagreeing [with me]" and "mistaken".
/s
> But in recent years, we have seen the meaning of gaslighting refer also to something simpler and broader: “the act or practice of grossly misleading someone, especially for a personal advantage.”
The dictionary now lists that broader meaning in part 2 of its definition of the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaslighting
It used to refer to subtle psychological manipulation over a long time to achieve a brainwashing effect.
For the TikTok generation, “gaslighting” is just a synonym for “misleading”.
It's such a large and ever evolving set of patterns, that everyone is seeing them everywhere and in everything.
The options to change/break the patterns isn't evolving at the same rate.
Neither side of the political aisle has a monopoly on lies and bad faith attacks, far from it. Some political movement are more guilty of it than others, but no political movement is fully innnocent, and no political movement can be defined uniquely in terms of these.
Also, "gaslighting" in its original meaning is far more specific than "lies and bad faith," it's a shame that that meaning is being diluted.
These statements are a combination of false equivalence and no true scottsman.
Nobody said 1 political party/etc is "fully innocent". What is useful & cogent is pointing out how much more 1 party is using gaslighting et al, systematically & unapologetically, than the other party.
And just how effective those tactics are, to the detriment of the social commons, and social contract.
Isn't that the implication when someone throws accusation at one side and then act like commenters shouldn't be allowed to point out the other side does the exact same thing?!
It's not as bad on NH compared to reddit, but it is still the same stupid pattern everytime politics or war is discussed :
- Group A: "anyone voting for X is evil because X did [bad thing], vote for Y instead"
- Group B: "Y also does the exact same thing, voting for them would do nothing to stop [bad thing]"
- Group A: accusation of whataboutism
I always find it interesting when people insist on a specific date for something's peak popularity, but they never say where they get that info from.
This meme was so 2013, or that was so 2004. Like why do you care so much about this one specific topic that you memorized the specific year that it's popularity was at it's peak?
The term "gaslighting" has never been more popular than now, so it still hasn't reached any kind of peak but it is definitely "endemic" at this point so it feels like "yesterday's news" if you caught it back in 2016.
But it's not like you can replace a lexicographer with a transparent mathematical algorithm. There's plenty of room for judgement calls, and very little room for correction, since dictionaries have a self-reinforcing effect. People certainly use dictionaries prescriptively, so there's always some (petty) power at stake in getting to say what the right meaning is.
I feel like I see it a lot. Some typical phrases used as evidence for the ideal they represent: "Representatives protect the interests of their constituents". "Judges base their decisions on facts and the rule of law". "Newspapers cover those topics which are deemed to be interesting to their readers". "A balanced portfolio invests in diverse stocks and bonds to reduce volatility".
They implicitly define them by choosing which definitions are to be trusted and which are “wrong”.
To be clear, the job of a dictionary is to look at which words are being created, which words are becoming obsolete, how the usage of words is changing, and document all that. Nobody (or at least virtually nobody) opens up the new edition of the dictionary and looks for new words to work into conversation; the feedback from dictionaries back into actual English is minimal to null.
Incidentally, the reason that the food critic is more influential on the bread than the lexicographer on the language is that people, in quite large numbers, read restaurant reviews as entertainment, but not dictionary entries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description
Dictionaries do the latter. No need to come up with snarky analogies.
Describing something in such a way that it furthers an agenda is not objective, nor is it good sociolinguistics, but that's what the dictionary in question has been accused of doing.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33785834
If your agenda tracks with how language use changes in wide swaths of the population, sure, a dictionary "furthers the agenda" but it does so by accurately reflecting language use, not what you want language use to be.
I could argue that the second definition of "Darwinism"[1] furthers an agenda, but that's inane. This is how the word is used and it's the concept I take offense with, not the word itself. The dictionary just represents the reality of that being how the word is used.
It sounds like you oppose the notion that "gender" or "gender identity" is, to put it simply, a thing. And you ascribe "an agenda" to those who agree that it is a thing while implying that not acknowledging that many people explicitly or implicitly (i.e. by behaving as if it is a thing without outright saying so, e.g. by respecting preferred pronouns or continuing to refer to someone as a woman or man after finding out they're trans and thus likely don't fit the reproductive definition of those words) agree that it is a thing is absent of an agenda.
Actually I'm sure that's not what you're trying to argue because that is clearly ridiculous. Since you explicitly reference an "agenda", I would like you to spell out to me what you think that agenda is and whose it is. Because if you simply meant "bias", it should be obvious that an unbiased dictionary is impossible because it by definition has to represent social biases as there is no objective source of truth when it comes to descriptive linguistics.
You can disagree with people, and you can say that you don’t agree with their description of reality, but neither of those things are gaslighting.
Think for example of someone who is in a cult or deep into a religious belief; or think about those who believe in conspiracy theories of all kinds. They're basically called insane every day even in the media. Would you call that gaslighting?
Still, I think it's worth involving personal morals when arguing for or against when a term like this can be used, because if we don't we can't really use subjective terms to describe anything.
Consider for example that other charged terms involving an "abuser" and a "victim" would be open for the same argument, but arguing that this means that no moral opinion can be made in any of these cases would (in my opinion) not be intellectually honest but simply nihilistic.
I don't think that it's very productive to say that any term open for subjectivity in this manner should either be hardened into an objective criteria or discarded, because morality has never and never will be something that can be proven scientifically, it has to come from subjective values.
I'm not sure that "abuser" and "victim" are that subjective. I can imagine a lot of situations in which the roles of abuser and victim are pretty objective.
The problem with a term like gaslighting is that allows anyone who is in a strong disagreement with anyone else to 1) claim a victim role and paint their opponents as abusers; 2) by doing so, protect their own belief from being questioned. It becomes a tool of a "closed belief system" where attempts to question the belief are taken as proofs of its correctness, which is in general a hallmark of cults.
If limited to the perspective of debate, gaslighting is just a variation of an ad hominem attack, which is easily recognized and not subjective at all.
Telling somebody they are wrong is never gaslighting, but suggesting they can't be right due to some personal flaw often is.
You may think you are right in this, but it is still gaslighting.
An alternative approach would be to just point out the facts and use arguments, and counter their falsehoods, which implicitly recognizes their ability for sound reasoning. That is not gaslighting, but merely debate.
I doubt there is ever a really good reason to gaslight someone.
"gaslighting" is defined as a form of manipulation that an abuser uses to sow self-doubt in a victim. But telling someone that they're dead wrong- while it might not the most effective way of convincing- is not necessarily a form of manipulation, nor the person on the receiving end must be considered a victim.
If you're trying to convince someone to leave a cult, or to abandon conspiratorial thinking, or to reject the propaganda that they've heard all their life, or to stop blaming their parents or partners for everything that's wrong in their lives.. you might face a point in which you have to tell that person that they're wrong and their biases are corrupting their vision of reality. The attempt however is not manipulative nor the person on the other end is a victim- quite the contrary.
Well put and this is exactly my point
> ... you might face a point in which you have to tell that person that they're wrong and their biases are corrupting their vision of reality.
I think you make a mistake here by conflating two different things. This is what I reacted to:
> they're basically called insane every day even in the media. Would you call that gaslighting?
There's a big difference between telling someone they are wrong and telling them they are insane. Or making them doubt about their capacity for judgement by convincing them their biases are corrupting their vision of reality, thus losing confidence in not only their views, but their ability for independent thinking, and yielding to your relentless argumentation.
The first one is not gaslighting but the second one does kinda fit your definition. It needs an intent to change something in their behavior (manipulation), which I assume exists here. In reality, gaslighting is often sufficiently subtle to disempower otherwise intelligent people.
The fact that you think you are doing something noble and true by attempting to get someone out of a cult does not alter the equation. It can even end up being abusive. For example, fundamentalist christians trying to 'heal' people from their homosexuality. They think they are dispelling the corruptive influence of sin, and the people who enter therapy are often convinced of this as well. But, in fact, these christians are widely recognized as abusive and the people they target as victims.
There is one case where we agree: telling somebody they are wrong is not gaslighting, ever. For example, Bob claims Lizard people blew up the Nord Stream pipeline. Alice says Bob that he is wrong about that. There is a truth-claim from Bob, and Alice refutes that truth claim. This is not manipulation or gaslighting or anything like that. Similarly, if Trump claims that climate change does not exist, that is not gaslighting - he is simply, wrongly but simply, trying to refute something. This is all fine.
However, things start to get messy when Alice says to Bob: you have always been vulnerable to conspiracy thinking. This is where Alice is making a new truth claim herself that is not about Bobs particular views, but about his capacity to hold any view at all. It doesn't refute Bobs truth-claim about the Lizard people, at least not directly. In fact it doesn't even address this at all. Instead, it aims to persuade Bob of 2 things:
1. I am vulnerable to conspiracy thinking.
2. Therefore I should not trust my own judgement in case of the involvement of Lizard people in the Nord Stream pipeline.
Ok. However, it also sows more doubt in Bobs mind:
3. If I can't be trusted to think about Lizard people, how can I be confident in any other matters? Should I even vote? Maybe I am crazy.
Now, maybe Alice says she was just trying to do Bob a favor and rid him of delusional views about Lizard people, but does that matter? The effect is the same: Bob is starting to doubt himself. Has he been gaslit by Alice?
Suppose we later find out that this was her intention after all, and this is just one step in her attempt at gaining control over Bob. Is it now gaslighting? Of course it is, but I would argue it was already so in the first place.
Manipulating others is pretty much the activity most highly rewarded by our economy. It's deeply immoral but someone with no morals clearly does have very good reason to engage in gaslighting or other forms of manipulation.
So it's a good thing if there's a growing awareness on the part of victims.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.