All of this is nonsense: I'm the only person I know to still use gaslighting to light my home. The rest of you have appropriated my terminology. Repent.
"Or are they intersectionals who believe that anti-racism takes precedence over feminism and women can and should adjust their fear responses accordingly?"
It's that, 100%. I used to be one and shared so many memes Karen-ing that woman.
(Then it somehow morphed into that guy getting on board with the changing of the name of the Audubon Society and when I read how he got "enlightened" to reach that conclusion [he initially was like, who gives a crap about the name, if I recall correctly] I began to really see the illogic and irrationality of what I'd been preaching all those years.)
I saw my own perceptions of that incident change over time too. I thought there did seem to be a racist element in her description of his race to police but that he was not blameless and the response was disproportionate. I now don't think we can assume that simply because she described him. If she genuinely feared he might attack her, giving the police an accurate description of the attacker would be quite important.
I don't know about the incident you describe, though.
Thank you Helen. As thorough and clear as ever about a very knotty topic. As another psychiatrist, I support how (outside of psychiatric or therapy contexts) it’s best to assume good intentions and explore the ideas. You don’t mention that intentions are key in legal contexts and criminality. How much does gaslighting — or undue influence or imminent danger or whatever else it may be termed — come into play there? Whatever, the trend to legal thinking in cultural discourses might explain the growth of attraction and use of the current « gaslighting » fashion.
Argh, Nick. Please do not introduce another element! ;-) Yes, when it comes to the individual generally, their motivations absolutely matter. Sometimes, we really do need to evaluate whether a person is dishonest and ill-motivated and that would be the case in both intimate relationships and criminal offending. On the larger scale of political debates between people who do not know each other, though, I would like people to think less in terms of evaluating a character and more about evaluating ideas. I think, as humans, we will likely always struggle with this, though.
Sorry for causing your "Argh"! Like you I want to focus on evaluating ideas. I was mentioning another popular source of a focus on intentionality in order to try to account for the cultural interest. And to set it aside in favour of what matters more.
Evaluating whether someone is actually ill-motivated when they say something is the knotty issue at the heart of non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). It seems out government is encouraging a form of reasoning which says "I feel offended, therefore what you said was hateful", and the police accept that & record a NCHI. One could perhaps argue that in these cases, the "victim", supported by the state, is gaslighting the "offender". Rather concerning.
there is a cycle between the lawyer and the doctor modes, so the current trend of 'legal thinking' will eventually wane/wax, ( https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/the-lawyer-and-the-doctor ) we don't discuss these worlding preferences enough.
It is a paper that describes industrial-level rationalisation that occurs collectively at universities and other public institutions - basically it makes the claim that the political demand for "motivated evidence" has resulted in a market to supply it. The mass of garbage science that flooded in to support gender ideology is a great example of motivated reasoning delivered en-masse. Truly worth reading, perhaps Helen is already aware of this resource...
I find self-gaslighting most common among those in the political divide who claim they're 'against X,' (censorship, fascism, Nazis, racism, misogyny) yet exhibit those very same faults themselves while telling themselves "Only the other side supports X."
Gaslighting often targets/manipulates the worlding we do as we self along. The grey arises where we do not notice that continuum of self/world and so forget what is being targeted. That gaslighting is being modishly overloaded with adjacent issues speaks a lot about how we cannot or do not acknowledge worlding in our selfing.
PS my share to notes checkbox is greyed out across substack, is this common? Is this a type of shadowban, it's been about two weeks now.
Honestly I think it is the default human condition to do so
All of this is nonsense: I'm the only person I know to still use gaslighting to light my home. The rest of you have appropriated my terminology. Repent.
"Or are they intersectionals who believe that anti-racism takes precedence over feminism and women can and should adjust their fear responses accordingly?"
It's that, 100%. I used to be one and shared so many memes Karen-ing that woman.
(Then it somehow morphed into that guy getting on board with the changing of the name of the Audubon Society and when I read how he got "enlightened" to reach that conclusion [he initially was like, who gives a crap about the name, if I recall correctly] I began to really see the illogic and irrationality of what I'd been preaching all those years.)
I saw my own perceptions of that incident change over time too. I thought there did seem to be a racist element in her description of his race to police but that he was not blameless and the response was disproportionate. I now don't think we can assume that simply because she described him. If she genuinely feared he might attack her, giving the police an accurate description of the attacker would be quite important.
I don't know about the incident you describe, though.
Thank you Helen. As thorough and clear as ever about a very knotty topic. As another psychiatrist, I support how (outside of psychiatric or therapy contexts) it’s best to assume good intentions and explore the ideas. You don’t mention that intentions are key in legal contexts and criminality. How much does gaslighting — or undue influence or imminent danger or whatever else it may be termed — come into play there? Whatever, the trend to legal thinking in cultural discourses might explain the growth of attraction and use of the current « gaslighting » fashion.
Argh, Nick. Please do not introduce another element! ;-) Yes, when it comes to the individual generally, their motivations absolutely matter. Sometimes, we really do need to evaluate whether a person is dishonest and ill-motivated and that would be the case in both intimate relationships and criminal offending. On the larger scale of political debates between people who do not know each other, though, I would like people to think less in terms of evaluating a character and more about evaluating ideas. I think, as humans, we will likely always struggle with this, though.
Sorry for causing your "Argh"! Like you I want to focus on evaluating ideas. I was mentioning another popular source of a focus on intentionality in order to try to account for the cultural interest. And to set it aside in favour of what matters more.
Ha! I was both teasing and agreeing with you. Being human is so complicated.
Evaluating whether someone is actually ill-motivated when they say something is the knotty issue at the heart of non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). It seems out government is encouraging a form of reasoning which says "I feel offended, therefore what you said was hateful", and the police accept that & record a NCHI. One could perhaps argue that in these cases, the "victim", supported by the state, is gaslighting the "offender". Rather concerning.
there is a cycle between the lawyer and the doctor modes, so the current trend of 'legal thinking' will eventually wane/wax, ( https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/the-lawyer-and-the-doctor ) we don't discuss these worlding preferences enough.
HP is tackling this subject on an individual level - but I found an extraordinary resource which covers this behaviour on a collective scale:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/economics-and-philosophy/article/marketplace-of-rationalizations/41FB096344BD344908C7C992D0C0C0DC
It is a paper that describes industrial-level rationalisation that occurs collectively at universities and other public institutions - basically it makes the claim that the political demand for "motivated evidence" has resulted in a market to supply it. The mass of garbage science that flooded in to support gender ideology is a great example of motivated reasoning delivered en-masse. Truly worth reading, perhaps Helen is already aware of this resource...
I find self-gaslighting most common among those in the political divide who claim they're 'against X,' (censorship, fascism, Nazis, racism, misogyny) yet exhibit those very same faults themselves while telling themselves "Only the other side supports X."
Gaslighting often targets/manipulates the worlding we do as we self along. The grey arises where we do not notice that continuum of self/world and so forget what is being targeted. That gaslighting is being modishly overloaded with adjacent issues speaks a lot about how we cannot or do not acknowledge worlding in our selfing.
PS my share to notes checkbox is greyed out across substack, is this common? Is this a type of shadowban, it's been about two weeks now.