In a thread a few weeks ago, one poster complained about “gaslighting” in the transgender debate issue, while another poster denied that there was gaslighting going on. (Not mentioning names, since this isn’t a Pit call-out thread).
In an ideal world, everyone would be operating off of the exact same facts, logic, and also interpret reality the same way. But people of course do not. So what I wanted to ask was, where exactly does the boundary lie between “gaslighting” someone, and legit differences in debating viewpoints?
If Flat-Earthers or Moon-landing-hoaxers or anti-vaxxers continuously pushed their obviously false viewpoints onto society, relentlessly, we would rightfully consider that gaslighting. But on an issue like transgenderism, for instance - (where you have one side that firmly believes that there are men and women and you can’t “truly” become the other gender, and then you have one side that believes that you can indeed switch over and that there are more than two genders,) who is truly gaslighting the other?
Is it “gaslighting” if you push for your own side relentlessly and repeatedly? If your beliefs or assumptions are being undermined by others, when is it you being gaslit, and when is it just your wrong beliefs being rightfully challenged?
(Not a thread only about transgenderism, but all sorts of other issues as well. Is someone who believes the Earth is billions of years old being gaslit by people who continuously tell him/her that the Earth is only 6,000? Is an atheist being gaslit by people who tell him God exists? Is a Trump voter who thinks Trump is fantastic being gaslit by people who tell him Trump is the worst president ever? etc.)
I think you need to define gaslighting if you want this to be a good discussion.
I use “gaslighting” to describe the phenomenon whereby Person A points out something that is very obvious to them and Person B responds with a rabid denial of that very obvious thing, even when that obvious thing is sitting right in the room with them. The goal is to make Person A question their sanity so they hesitate before speaking up in the future.
Person A: Can you stop farting, please?
Person B: I’m not <farting noise> farting. I don’t know what you are <farting noise> talking about. <farting noise> Maybe you’re <farting noise> hearing things again. You know how sensitive to <farting noise> noises and smells you are.
Person A: Stop trying to gaslight me, you farting jerk.
I used “gaslighting” in the aforementioned thread because for much of the thread I was scolded after confessing to having negative feelings about a suspected edgelord calling himself a woman and then a poster who had been a part of that condemnation denied there would be a problem with someone having negative feelings about a suspected edgelord calling himself a woman. It felt “gaslighty” because it seemed like that poster was pretending my experience in that thread didn’t exist and that I was thus crazy.
But we realized there had been a big miscommunication between us and we kissed and made up.
No, you would not rightfully consider that gaslighting, because relentlessness is not a defining or even an important feature of gaslighting. Go read an article about it and come back when you’re ready to construct a thesis based on correct assumptions.
I think there are people that gaslight, but they aren’t exactly lying. They just have a fluid relationship with reality, and decide the truth is whatever they decide it is. So they decide they didn’t say that, or that they didn’t do that, or whatever. It’s infuriating and it can make you doubt yourself because they don’t seem to be lying. They just convince themselves the truth is what they want it to be.
I agree that this is the key point. Gaslighting is an attempt to manipulate somebody’s beliefs by giving them information the gaslighter knows is false.
My parents are experts in this kind of gaslighting. I’ll bring up something shitty they did to us kids back in the day (something that can always be corroborated by someone else), and they will always deny it happened the way I said it did. “We slapped you guys, but we never made anyone’s nose bleed. That’s ridiculous!”. “Sure, we whupped you, but never with a broom handle. You’re always making up crazy stories!”
If my siblings didn’t back me up every time, I probably would be fooled into thinking I’m crazy.
Gaslighting is more like “you didn’t experience what you think you experienced.” It’s come up in the vein of “you weren’t raped/assaulted because you actually consented to whatever happened” or “you weren’t subjected to racist/bigoted behavior Even though you think you saw it because you don’t know what was truly in the heart of the person who did that.”
Although gaslighting involves falsehoods and attempts to manipulate other people’s beliefs, I don’t think this post quite gets at the true essence of gaslighting. If I claim there’s a unicorn in my bedroom, then post a fake or manipulated photo of a unicorn in my bedroom, that’s giving others information I know is false–“lying” or “hoaxing”–but it isn’t necessarily “gaslighting”. Gaslighting is if I play a prank and sneak a horse into your bedroom, then stand there and look you right in the eye and say “Horse? What horse? There’s never been a horse in your bedroom”. Possibly while the horse is still standing there whinnying and nuzzling my hand for another piece of apple. (I would also say that merely saying “Whoa, someone snuck a horse into your BEDROOM? Wow, man, that’s crazy! Uh, but that totally wasn’t me who did that!” is also not really “gaslighting”.)
It’s not just making you believe something untrue, it’s making you think you’re the crazy one.
I think it is important to look at it from the victim’s side, though - otherwise this is a bit like saying, “Verbal abuse is insulting someone in a way that the insulter knows is wrong.” From the perspective of the abuser, he/she may think they’re not being abusive, they’re dishing out what the recipient needs to hear. And from the victim’s standpoint, they may consider hurtful words hurtful regardless of whether the insulter considers their words right or wrong.
This is false. The abuser knows they are lying. They are not trying to reason the target into believing their lies. They are trying to rob the target of any sense of truth so that any statement seems as believable as the next.
In a normal debate we can point back historically and say “ah, you said thus, and I responded thus.” The gaslighter covers not only his rhetorical tracks but our own, trying to pretend that we reasoned ourselves into this place in some other way than we did.
Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. You’re to forget anything you heard to the contrary, and you’ll comply because we’ve changed our story so much that you’re not confident what’s authoritative.
