• frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Thankfully it’s the year 2024 so if you literally spent 5 seconds doing a search you would find a real definition

    Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that hinges on creating self-doubt. “I think of gaslighting as trying to associate someone with the label ‘crazy,’” says Paige Sweet, Ph.D., an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Michigan who studies gaslighting in relationships and in the workplace. “It’s making someone seem or feel unstable, irrational and not credible, making them feel like what they’re seeing or experiencing isn’t real, that they’re making it up, that no one else will believe them.”

    Cats cannot do this.

    I don’t want to be the person that brings a real definition into a fun thread, but your complete lack of logical, sane thought on the subject drove me to it. This is your fault.

    • Raab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Did you even read your quote? A subjective stance from an assistant professor of sociology who studies gaslighting IN RELATIONSHIPS AND THE WORKPLACE. That’s a severe lack of a “real definition” my guy. Go watch the 1944 film Gaslight from which the term was coined.

      • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        Webster

        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

        Can you spot the difference? I cannot. And cats still can’t do this.

        Also, it was coined in a play before that.

        Again, it’s 2024, this is easy shit.

        • Raab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Manipulation of the perception of reality is where my argument comes from. Your rude ass tone and pretentiousness are unwelcome. Have a good one boss.

          • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Do you seriously not get I was messing with you? I literally exhibited the behavior described as gaslighting in the same message where I pasted the definition. I tried to be as obvious as possible and apparently even that wasn’t enough.

            Or are you just butthurt about the parts where you didn’t bother to search?

          • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Sorry you were wrong and it hurt your feelings, but you’re clearly the rude one in this thread. Not sure what the color of their ass has to do with any of this though…

            • Raab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              20 hours ago

              I kept it light and friendly, you came in quoting subjective opinions and are trying to tell me based on that, I am objectively wrong. How fitting for the topic of discussion.

              • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 hours ago

                No, you’re objectively wrong based on the evidence put forth by both parties, maybe bring some of your own if you want to make a convincing argument.

                • Raab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  20 hours ago

                  Lol buddy, you’re lost. It was an open ended thought that it could be perceived as gaslighting, by definition, of manipulating humans perception of reality that they must take care of the cats, simply because the cat presented itself that way. Get the 10 ft pole out of your booty cheeks, and lighten up. I’ve presented my argument and take on the subject, and that’s where I’ll let it lie, as you are incapable of lighthearted discussion.

                  • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    20 hours ago

                    What do you mean? I made a very lighthearted joke about your poor punctuation, you probably just didn’t get it

      • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Yeah, because words used in modern context are always best defined by their most archaic usage 🙄🙄🙄

        • Raab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          To that point, words used in modern context are also up for interpretation and free thought. :)

          • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            20 hours ago

            All words are up for interpretation, that’s what language is. You just haven’t made a real argument for how you’re deciding to interpret “gaslighting.”

              • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                20 hours ago

                In the above thread, I see one person making an argument based on research they did, citing academic definitions and I see one person making an argument based on feelings and then abandoning it for ad hominem attacks as soon as they figured out they were incorrect. Guess which one you are?

                • Raab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  20 hours ago

                  Ohhh you are referencing the opinion of the assistant professor who studies based on a targeted audience? You got me there!

                  • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    20 hours ago

                    See, if you put as much work into building your own argument as you do into trying to dismantle the other person’s, you might actually make a point. Wouldn’t want that though, better continue to tear people down and revel in your own ignorance 🤷‍♂️ Happy Hanukkah!