| Thank you for your listening, I appreciate that. 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. |