Fear by Bob Woodward

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> In the News

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

WhatFor

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 11:04 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Here are some examples of gaslighting:

Making a statement and denying in the next breath that you ever made the statement.

Making a deliberately provocative statement and then when the target is predictably provoked, say, "What's there to get upset over?"

Make a deliberately provocative statement and then when the target reacts, claim you were joking and hold up reaction as evidence of target's gullibility and lack of humor.

Make a provocative but ambiguous statement. Whatever interpretation the target gives, claim you really meant the opposite.

Split hairs over the definition of the term gaslighting and then claim that misuse of the term (according to however you define it) is disrespectful to its victims.

I don't really care, do u?

I appreciate this post.

Fox

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 12:05 am

Jeanette wrote:

Split hairs over the definition of the term gaslighting and then claim that misuse of the term (according to however you define it) is disrespectful to its victims.

Sorry, but you know me well enough to know that I'm happy to source what I say, and I don't get prodded into losing my cool.

Last time somebody went all out to insult me, she ended up inexplicably dragging actor Kevin Sorbo into the convo, which I actually thought was pretty cool. I responded with my usual kvetch about his losing the iconic role of Fox Mulder, but one of my friends reminded me off-line to remember that Hashem runs the world: had David Duchovny not gotten the role, he might have finished his doctorate and gone on to teach English, thereby sending the rates of college s-xual abuse skyrocketing and triggering a Title IX crisis. But I digress . . .

What Gaslighting Isn't

How To Deal With a Progressive Bully

National Domestic Health Hotline

However, if you want to use a broad definition of "gaslighting," perhaps a good example might be all the threads and posts going back two years, each assuring me that the world was going to end if Trump became President. Then assuring me it would end any day now. Then assuring me that he would be impeached or resign in disgrace just as soon as his horrific crimes were revealed. If the world didn't end first, of course. Oh, and did I forget all the things that would cause people to "literally die"?

So I guess I was "gaslighted." Except that it's not really gaslighting if you recognize that the person doing it is trying to manipulate you. Oh, well, just another category of victimhood that I'll decline to participate in. In the meantime, I'll just keep waiting for the world to end, which I've been promised repeatedly will happen any minute now.

Jeanette

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 12:36 am

As a matter of fact people did literally die as a result of his policies.

But we are not allowed to talk about those people. Because then we are accusing you of "not caring."

Just because the bad things don't register as bad on your scale doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Nobody plays victim better than Trump and his followers. It's kind of sad.

Fox

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 12:52 am

Jeanette wrote:

Hmmm . . .

* Throwing out a vague statement without specifics or sourcing;

* Telling someone how she feels or thinks;

* Making an accusation with no supporting evidence.

I think I'm getting the hang of recognizing this gaslighting thing! ☺

PinkFridge

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 9:29 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Oh cmon. This is the funniest thing I’ve read in years. Trump supporters grasping at straws, trying to grasp the last shreds of possibility that Trump is actually, I can’t think of the right word. Sane, maybe?

The NY Times obviously knows who wrote the Op Ed. They almost certainly met with the person, or at the very least spoke with him on the phone and verified his (or her) identity. Trump may try to paint them like idiots, and his supporters may be gullible enough to believe it. But that’s not the way the news industry works.

Should it have been posted anonymously? I don’t know. But it was important. And it certainly backs up Woodward’s reporting.

And it’s scary as h3ll. And you know what else is scary as h3ll? You’re not seeing a lot of denials that it’s true.

Yes, and they don't tell those stories about you and me.

But this is disconcerting. I've heard snips of interviews with journalism professors (sorry I can't name them, they're not big name I don't think and for all I know, they're Republicans) who are finding this disturbing.

The efficacy of this op ed is based on two things:
1. That we trust the NYT. My concern isn't NYT-specific. I just don't think that we should be putting our faith in a newspaper's ne'emanus for anything but very transparent news. I think it's fine and important to have op eds, to have opinions and features beyond straight news but this isn't a healthy use of a paper's power over the public. (Should they have power over the public to begin with?)
2. That - and again, this isn't case-specific either but a general principle - we willingly believe something that is said anonymously, even if it seems likely.

One more thing, it's been years since I read this and it's really not too relevant because we're talking about the NYT, not some supermarket tabloid, but this was a fun read:
https://www.amazon.com/Trust-M.....P4KDM

Jeanette

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 9:46 am

PinkFridge wrote:

Yes, and they don't tell those stories about you and me.

1. That we trust the NYT. My concern isn't NYT-specific. I just don't think that we should be putting our faith in a newspaper's ne'emanus for anything but very transparent news. I think it's fine and important to have op eds, to have opinions and features beyond straight news but this isn't a healthy use of a paper's power over the public. (Should they have power over the public to begin with?)

Masha Gessen makes this same point:

https://www.newyorker.com/news.....media

Basically if this op-ed is true and there is a circle of unelected officials controlling the president, shouldn't we know who they are? And by the NYT deciding to keep this secret, aren't they also taking this power for themselves?

InnerMe

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 11:33 am

Clarissa wrote:

When did Ivanka join Imamother?

(kidding!) (kind of)

While you were hibernating.

Clarissa

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 12:10 pm

InnerMe wrote:

While you were hibernating.

Good thing this is women only, because if her husband the slumlord joined, I'd be even crankier.

InnerMe

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 12:26 pm

Clarissa wrote:

Good thing this is women only, because if her husband the slumlord joined, I'd be even crankier.

Lol, but there is a guy staring back at me every time I read your posts.

And off with the crankiness. There are some uncranky threads on here too. Like the very important thread about how you consume chocolate.

Clarissa

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 12:30 pm

Good points. And I do like to talk about chocolate.

ectomorph

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 1:14 pm

Wow, this thread is incredible study of liberal arguments and how people get shouted down (except fox who is clearly made of rubber)

Jeanette

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 1:20 pm

ectomorph wrote:

Wow, this thread is incredible study of liberal arguments and how people get shouted down (except fox who is clearly made of rubber)

In between baby killing and violating Torah by not supporting Trump.

I really was hoping you were joking. Sad.

SixOfWands

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 1:39 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

The item is an op-ed piece. That usually means that we need not look to or trust the publisher at all. Its not the publisher's piece; its someone else's.

In this case, there is an element in which we must trust the NY Times -- that it was actually written by a senior official in the Trump administration. And my experience tells me that the NY Times would have checked and re-checked that. I'm convinced that part is rock solid.

But they don't have solid facts to back it, or they would have offered it as a news item on the front page, rather than an op-ed. Its presented as the opinion of someone in the administration, who may or may not be completely honest.

Do I believe that it is at least substantially true? Yes. Its backed by other reports, and by my own observations of the administration. And maybe a little bit because I want to believe that there are some real adults in the White House trying to control Trump's worst impulses.

What still fascinates me is that the administration is more concerned with outing the author than it is about the allegations, and that the denials go more to who wrote it than the allegations.

Fox

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 1:43 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Basically if this op-ed is true and there is a circle of unelected officials controlling the president, shouldn't we know who they are? And by the NYT deciding to keep this secret, aren't they also taking this power for themselves?

The "Deep State" has been portrayed as a wacky conspiracy theory by most media outlets. Now, all of a sudden, the NYT is saying, basically, "OMG! There are people trying to subvert the administration of an elected President!"

I suppose this is why I find the whole thing kind of funny -- in an ironic way.

In the end, it's not going to matter whether the op-ed is 100 percent true, somewhat true, a little bit true, or completely fabricated. The NYT has completely blown whatever shred of credibility they had left.

If there really is a cabal of bureaucrats subverting the administration, then the NYT, et. al., demonstrated complete incompetence and bias by not investigating the accusations of a "Deep State" made by Trump and others.

If there's not, then the NYT demonstrated complete incompetence and bias by not adequately vetting their source and his/her claims.

So now, an additional layer has been added when Trump refers to "the failing NYT." Those of us who don't viscerally hate Trump generally took it mean their financial woes, but now it's clear that they are failing at journalism, too.

Clarissa wrote:

Good points. And do like to talk about chocolate.

I for one am thankful we can exorcise our angst by arguing about Trump rather than risk permanent division and animus surrounding the issue of real vanilla extract versus artificial.

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 2:22 pm

Maya wrote:

I absolutely would. I don’t think he has business sense at all. I think he got where he is by being a bully and scaring or blackmailing people into submission. Not because he’s that business savvy.

Oy..that’s a new one...getting to be a Billionaire by bullying. I’d like some lessons..,lol

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 2:25 pm

fmt4 wrote:

Cheiny, seriously, chill. Why are you so excited? Relax and put down the Pom-poms for a minute. You’re not being paid to be The #1 BIGGEST FAN OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENT THAT EVER WAS IS OR WILL BE - or at least I hope you’re not lol. But for real, that’s what all your posts sound like and it’s really over the top. I don’t think I have ever in my life seen a person as worked up and enthused about a politician before. Like this is a level of enthusiasm and fan worship that is usually reserved for young girls for pop stars. If we all say that we love Trump too, will it make you stop?

The real question here is, why does it bother you so much? Why do you need me to “stop”expressing my political views? That’s really where you should focus your efforts.

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 2:27 pm

Fox wrote:

Where did I say I admired it? Please quote specifically where I said that (a) I believed that the op-ed was a false flag move; and that (b) if so, I admired it.

I said I could see it making sense. That implies neither belief that the theory is correct nor approval of it.

I said I admired his social media strategy. That's a different subject.

I’ve found that to be a common and devious tactic from the left, to twist what the other side says to suit their own agendas....sad.

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 2:29 pm

Fox wrote:

Again, where did I say that I believed this or supported it. Waiting . . .

I thought it was interesting and kind of funny to consider. I forgot that amusement at humorous scenarios is evidence of not being sufficiently enraged by the fact that the world is ending.

Lol brilliant! Smile

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 2:31 pm

Fox wrote:

Like I’m still waiting for the person who accused me of attacks against others, to show me any proof.

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 2:35 pm

Fox wrote:

Where did I say I find it plausible? Still waiting . . .

I found it funny and ironic.

Don’t hold your breath...talk (and accusations) is cheap, proving is another story!

Page 8 of 10

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next