[dkiok21k]

Please...

"Gaslighting" is an important term for someone messing with your perception, so you begin to fundamentally doubt your own feelings and experiences. It only works in contexts where there is an important relationship, e.g. a boss, or a partner, and over time. Not every simple lie is "gaslighting".

Same for "toxicity". An asshole is not toxic. A forum full of nazis is not toxic. An important element for real "toxicity" is something _attractive_, something that pulls you in, and keeps pulling you back in even when you are hurt.

If people continue to abuse these terms, they are watering down important terms for something that is really, really harmful. I'm not saying being lied to is not violence, or that an asshole is not an asshole. But there is no comparison to REAL gaslighting and REAL toxicity.

[spicybright]

To add, these kind of tantrums are really irritating. I get people are passionate about what they do, but ultimately we're all just picking technologies based on what we think is best. Just like any other industry.

People will have their opinions, they might be wrong, and things evolve over time.

No one is trying to work against you and sabotage your projects. It's up to you to use your expertise to figure out what's actually the best way to do something, even if it's not the popular opinion.

And, this might be a bit of a cheap shot, but people that write rage blog posts with bolded words are generally a pain to work with professionally.

[nonplus]

The author called out a person of authority (many read their blog posts, and value that persons opinion) that is using the same rhetoric a decade apart for different platforms. Making promises about what the tech can provide, even though the first technology failed to provide it.

This is exactly what gaslighting is, a trusted person changing your perception.

I'm not sure if you already read all the above in the article, and know it/are willfully setting it aside to create a fake argument against their statements, or you just disagree with their statements, or you don't think the author is genuine.

Did you just want to have a discussion about those terms and made the conversational leap?

[Lockal]

> This is exactly what gaslighting is, a trusted person changing your perception

Well, not always. A gaslighting, especially when you are the target of it, will look as something completely inexplicable and without a central point.

Do you remember who you first heard about the wonderful AngularJS from? Personally, I don't. But information about it was pouring in everywhere. At some point, several companies where I worked started massively adopting Angular. In the end it was a complete disaster. A huge amount of code was written, all that code went to the trash because it was unmaintainable and unextensible (although the advertising posters promised otherwise).

Do you remember who you first heard about the wonderful React from? Did somebody told you that there is some magic thing called ShadowDOM and it solves all the problems, even better then Blockchain and ChatGPT does? But many years later it was revealed that actually it does not. Now we all are just slaves of old myths massively produced by Google/Microsoft/Facebook back in the days. That's what gaslighting is all about.

[nonplus]

For sure, I guess I was not attempting to define the bounds of gaslighting (I should have just said I disagreed that it was not gaslighting), and your cases are quite valid examples to call out.

Re AngularJS: Nope, I don't remember who. I feel that the reason I heard about AngularJS so much was because Google saturated the market with meetups, events and funding. It was an intentional choice to brute force market/mindshare.

[hwayne]

When did Laurie Voss advocate for Angular? I checked his blog and his Twitter and there is nothing pushing Angular in either.

[nonplus]

Oh yeah, like you said I don't see that individual being called out as having an article for angularJS stating the same things. So that part of what I was saying is not accurate/the specific author did not try to pin that on Laurie as I said.

Thanks for setting me straight on that!

[pwinnski]

An industry expert telling you that X is the solution to everything, and then years later saying that Y is the solution to everything, without any acknowledgement whatsoever of their previous statement on the subject, is messing with perception on par with adjusting gas lamps and then denying it. The relationship exists, whether you recognize it or not.

Even if it weren't in many cases the exact same pundits offering the nearly-identical praise while disappearing their previous plaudits down a memory hole, it would still qualify as gaslighting because collectively, an entire industry of experts has decided to act as if history began the moment they started to type, and that the collective previous claims of the group don't exist any more.

If you watched the movie and didn't see how the situation could possibly apply beyond a husband/wife relationship, then I suppose you watch movies differently than I do. If you instead picked up on popular usage of the term without watching the movie, then I suppose might not understand the actual meaning of the term. But if you're defending terms you clearly don't fully understand yourself, please, leave the terms to defend themselves.

[williamsmj]

“Even if it weren't in many cases the exact same pundits offering the nearly-identical praise while disappearing their previous plaudits down a memory hole…”

Laurie Voss, one of the focusses of the article, is not one of these people.

So can you give an example of one of the “many people” who did this?

If not then your post reduces to a claim that two people who have never met and may disagree in good faith are gaslighting a third person if they work in the same industry. Which seems like a stretch.

[gordian-mind]

I don’t agree to your exclusive use of gaslighting for personal relationships, I think it’s fine to use it in any context that makes sense.

Same for toxicity, where I actually do not even agree to your definition: toxicity refers to something toxic, you are the one adding the “codependency” aspect but it works well without it. There’s no such thing as “real toxicity” btw. Or should a biologist forbid you to use the term because it originally refers to poisonous creatures and not relationships?

Anyway, would you please consider not trying to gate-keep the use of words?

[dkiok21k]

Don't you see how it is important to differentiate between these two things? Do you have a suggestion on how to make it clear what you mean if you mix two very different meanings into one?

I did not say it can only be used for personal relationships. I said it only _works_ in such relationships. Because that is a fact, once we narrow it down to its original definition.

Of course you are free to use whatever words for whatever you want. But it means someone who wants to be able to clearly communicate loses their ability to do so. I am asking people to reconsider, and be precise. If you call that "gate-keeping", we can start a whole new conversation about what "gate-keeping" actually _means_. Because if we do not agree on definitions of words, we simply can not communicate with each other.

[gordian-mind]

It’s pretty clear in this context what the author meant. My suggestion would then be not to pretend otherwise. And, in general, pay attention to the context to understand what meaning of a word is being used.

“I did not say it can only be used for personal relationships. I said it only _works_ in such relationships.”

I didn’t say I was right, I said you were wrong, and this is a fact. …

IMO this use is not unclear or imprecise. And you were previously arguing that it was important because “they are watering down important terms“, but now you say it’s about communicating more efficiently. You are inconsistent.

[dkiok21k]

"it means someone who wants to be able to clearly communicate loses their ability to do so" is a result of "watering down important terms". Where is the inconsistency?

[mock-possum]

I think it's being used in the sense of 'the industry' discouraging dissent about the universal applicability of JS application frameworks and SPAs, by trying to convince developers that their experiences with SSR and MPAs are not real, or not relevant. That yes, plain old html and css and vanilla javascript feel like they USED to be good enough, but they're not good enough anymore - for anything. That's the gaslighting bit - when you're instructed to doubt or de-value your own experiences and feelings. It's done on purpose, with intent to control.

Which, along with the author's "you were sold something" angle - seems perfectly appropriate. He's saying you were lied to on purpose, you were told to doubt your own experience. That's gaslighting in this context.

[PaulHoule]

And what’s a Stan? Why does everybody sound like an Incel all of a sudden? Why does the most prescient part of Orwell’s 1984 be the part about about the impoverishment of language for political ends.

[satvikpendem]

You're about 20 years too late regarding Stans. Also, where and how do they sound like incels?

[PaulHoule]

Incels might be the most prominent example of a group with a large hermetic vocabulary that floats independently of the rules that govern neologisms.

For instance you could almost figure out what ‘anti-racism’ is based on the composition rules of language. (But you might think “anti-“ means “opposed to” whereas “anti-“ as in anti-matter is more like it according to Coates.)

Someone who went to the movies might dimly understand the “pills” (or do some people just take a lot of drugs?). On the other hand you could never figure out “chad”, and “stacey” without explanation.

[UncleEntity]

> On the other hand you could never figure out “chad”, and “stacey” without explanation.

Or, you know, context.

I don’t know what a Stan is but could easily understand what they were referring to by the way they used the word.

Incels? What’s that? Pots that call the kettles black?

[hgsgm]

You are trying to lock down language with your own restrictive unstated rules, while also complaining about 1984 locking down language with rules?!

Shaka, when the walls fell.

[asddubs]

stan is a reference to the eminem song of the same name, referring either to just being a big fan, or being unhealthily obsessed with something, depending on context.

[bccdee]

"Stan" has been fairly mainstream slang for about twenty years [1]. Being out of touch with popular culture is not a sign of Orwellian thought control.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_(song)

[theandrewbailey]

Looks like Stan is the archetype for an obsessive fan.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stan

I had to look it up; I was under the mistaken impression that Stan was the male equivalent of Karen, but I guess there are some similarities between them.

[hgsgm]

Enriching language by creating new words for new ideas is the opposite of 1984.

[29athrowaway]

"I spoke to everyone and they all think you are wrong" is a form of gaslighting.

And that is the force behind many of the cargo cults.

[dkiok21k]

No. A single statement can never be gaslighting. Gaslighting is a process. Being told to be wrong (even if you may be correct) is not gaslighting either. The important element is to plant doubts about your _perception_.

[29athrowaway]

I spoke to others and everyone is very disappointed of your comment. They do not want to say it, but I had to.

I am your friend, trust me.

[ceejayoz]

> A single statement can never be gaslighting.

"I spoke to everyone" is, by definition, not a single statement.

Everyone telling you you're wrong definitely can instill doubts about your perception.

[dkiok21k]

""I spoke to everyone and they all think I am wrong" is a different statement than "I spoke to everyone and they all think you are wrong".

Continously being told to "be wrong" can instill such doubts, but more precisely it would be me worrying about you "seeing it wrong", not accusing you of _being_ wrong about something. Your quote does not necessarily carry that meaning.

[Larrikin]

I talked to everyone that uses the term gas lighting and they all think your definition is too narrow.

[drewcoo]

> An important element for real "toxicity" is something _attractive_, something that pulls you in, and keeps pulling you back in even when you are hurt.

Toxic means poisonous.

I think you're talking about addiction.

[ceejayoz]

> A forum full of nazis is not toxic. An important element for real "toxicity" is something _attractive_, something that pulls you in, and keeps pulling you back in even when you are hurt.

That's precisely how forums full of Nazis get recruits; by being attractive to folks trending in that direction.

[dkiok21k]

I need to attract you, continuously, and then, in the same fashion, _hurt you_. Both elements need to be present for something to be toxic. If someone is "just" attracted, that's simply recruitment, and not toxic in itself.

[ceejayoz]

If you don't think being recruited into neo-Nazism isn't a harmful thing, I'm not sure what to say.

[dkiok21k]

That's not what I said, at all.

[ceejayoz]

> I need to attract you, continuously, and then, in the same fashion, _hurt you_.

This is precisely the case with cultish groups like neo-Nazis.

They draw vulnerable/disaffected people in, they have attractive elements (sense of community, us-versus-the-world, positive feedback on traits others see as negative) that make it hard to leave, and they hurt you (job loss, friends and family disown you, reinforcement of those negative traits).

[dkiok21k]

I never said otherwise. I said a forum full of hatespeech/nazis is not _automatically_ a "toxic" place. It may be "violent", or "dangerous", and other things. If you can outright see what they are up to, and they are open about it, it is not toxic. Membership may indeed become toxic for particular individuals later on. I didn't say it won't.