FullMoon wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2024 12:37 pm
In digging into what gaslighting means, what I came up with was deliberately lying to change someone’s beliefs about reality. That I am certainly not doing
I prefer to use definition as it's actually used and in this case it's correct. Higgen has given it accurately.
You're totally spreading falsehoods. Ridiculous and foolish falsehoods that are sadly believed by far too many.
You present them as though they're already established truths in contradistinction to the obvious logic conclusion to many of these social troubles. Gaslighting it is. Clearly.
Merriam Webster wrote:1 : psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator
2 : the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage
Wikipedia wrote:The origin of the term is the 1938 British thriller play Gas Light by Patrick Hamilton, which provided the source material for the 1940 British film, Gaslight. The film was then remade in 1944 in America – also as Gaslight – and it is this film which has since become the primary reference point for the term. Set among London's elite during the Victorian era, it portrays a seemingly genteel husband using lies and manipulation to isolate his heiress wife and persuade her that she is mentally unwell so that he can steal from her.The term "gaslighting" itself is neither in the screenplay nor mentioned in either the films or the play in any context. In the story, the husband secretly dims and brightens the indoor gas-powered lighting but insists his wife is imagining it, making her think she is going insane.
I consider Merriam Webster and Wiki as far better sources than you and Higgenbothan.
Yes, many liberals started using the term due to Trump’s frequent lies, but he hardly originated the gaslighting trick. Overused it, sure, in creating the mistaken alternate reality of Earth Two out of his lies. Then again his followers are gullible, have a habit of believing his lies. They are dedicated, many of them, to bigotry, government influence and ancient supersticions. It is the standard conservative schtick, believing in old ideas rather than moving on with what progressives want to do to improve the culture.
I will note that my theory that we are entering a high is just that, a theory. It will be proved right or wrong in time. It matches the S&H definition of high with a generation aging out of power, the resolution of the recent crisis conflicts and an emphasis on economic issues. In proposing a theory coming true, is it possible to lie? At any rate, it is genuinely proposed. Can the boomers age out of power again? Are Biden, Trump, Pelosi and McConnell going to retire their positions again? Can the violence of the Trump years end again? Can there be a greater emphasis on kitchen table issues?
Perhaps if another set of events in history better meets the definition I would yield. So far no. Are you proposing that S&H are wrong? Are you certain that nothing better matching a high has or will develop?