[BLKNSLVR]

By adding "morally" it enforces questioning one's own principles in support of the thing.

Without "morally" it's dismissable nonsense (ie. bullshit). With "morally" it requires pulling at strands that make up our world-view.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to question one's world-view on occasion, but causing that level of fundamental questioning, for a comment that would otherwise be easily dismissable, is gaslighting.

(by my opinion of the definition)

[dcow]

Personally I think the repeated part of the gaslighting definition is really important (and the implication that the repetition is conducted abusively). Otherwise you'd argue that any dialog that causes one to question one's world-view is gaslighting, and that's simply not true under the colloquial use of the term.

If I make a statement that killing is not justifiable even in self defense, and that causes you, who believes that killing is justified as a measure of self defense, to question your worldview, I'm not gaslighting you into believing me, I'm simply sharing a viewpoint. If I repeatedly show you propaganda where innocent people regularly die because they are not allowed to defend themselves, and where people who do are punished, perhaps by being put in mental hospitals, etc. then I'm gaslighting you. Generally gaslighting refers to using lies and other statements that do not reflect reality, repeatedly, to manipulate someone into a false worldview.

I actually think it's dangerous to throw gaslighting as a term around so casually. Gaslighting, very specifically, means to repeatedly question someone's worldview, while ignoring their anecdotal experience, and that of general reality assuming they roughly align, in order to emotionally abuse them into submission or indoctrination. It's pretty serious and ugly. I know it's fun on HN to throw the term around, but Elon (regardless of how much you dislike him, and how many people follow him) arguing that WFH is morally wrong, is not an instance of Musk gaslighting the public at large. Not even really by a fun shot.

[dcow]

Preemptive corollary: to repeatedly espouse one's viewpoint, even if it pertains to the mental health of a class or group of people, is also not to gaslight, though that is more recently how the term has been used and how we bridge from a serious topic to a rhetorical device used as a Kafka trap. Gaslighting is targeted at an individual, with the specific goal of essentially brainwash. It's not espousing a political belief that may negatively impact a group of people, even if the result would be oppression of the faction's liberty. That's just politics, and politics in the west is all about choosing which factions to oppress and at what cost to the majority.

For example, repeatedly arguing that you think the idea of unchecked ownership of assault weapons is a stretch too liberal of an interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and that it's crazy to think it's okay for anybody to own one without training, and that you think it'd be a good idea to limit gun ownership and require mental health checks and registered firearms lists of trained individuals, and even that you think it's immoral to allow such easy access to acquire devices that make killing trivial, because it puts too much responsibility in the hands of civilian organizations to protect people from maniacs, which they clearly can't do at scale, and even to go so far as to argue they're insane to think otherwise, is not an instance of gaslighting gun owners or rights advocates into thinking their worldview is broken and in need of an update. But by the casual interpretation, it is, since you're arguing to oppress the liberty of some group of people on practical and/or moral (designation doesn't matter, anything that causes them to question their worldview) grounds.

[opmelogy]

Good answer.