15 thoughts on “Gaslighting”

  1. I think a lot of the argument around “climate change” definitely can be classified as “Bulverism”. I think I’ll adopt a new adverb for such argument; I henceforth proclaim title to the word “bulveristic”, with all credit due to Ezekiel Bulver and C.S. Lewis.

    1. “bulveristic” adv. Meaning a form of dismissal that relies on a presumptive prejudice while free of refutable facts. As in “bulversitic rebuttle”. Ex. “I’m not gaslighting you! You are just saying that because you are a woman!”

      1. Replace ‘facts’ with ‘statements’. A fact, which is provably true, otherwise it is a lie, is not refutable.

  2. A discussion with a relative on the merits of ‘abortion’ hit an impasse when she adamantly refused to call it it anything other than Right To Choose. This is akin to agreeing on a coin toss with it marked “I Lose/They Win”… So discourse died a quick and ugly death in silence.

  6. Of course, the premier example of gaslighting is the way the media gushed over Michelle Obama for eight years, telling us how beautiful, poised, and elegant she was. She appeared on the cover of countless magazines.

    Those same publications have gone out of their way to pretend Melania Trump doesn’t exist, even though she is all of the above and more.

    1. “Of course, the premier example of gaslighting is the way the media gushed over Michelle Obama for eight years, telling us how beautiful, poised, and elegant she was. She appeared on the cover of countless magazines.”

      She’s baaaack! And on the cover of countless magazines. The Hive is obviously gearing up for “Wookie in the White House.”

  7. I don’t think there ever was a time when people engaged in rational analysis and debate of of proposed laws and policies. For sure, there has always been lots if debate but it is always muddled with no objective winner that evsryone agrees with. Politics is a game of this is what we want to do and this is what we will give you to let us do it or simply having a majority large enough to skip all that.

    There is also a lot to be said for the theory we make up our minds about something and then use logic to rationalize the decision after. There are a lot of human traits that we are blind to in part because modern humans tend to think they have a touch of the divine and are immune to certain modes of thinking.

    According to Trump loyalists, anyone with a smidgeon of international expertise is a morally suspect “globalist.”

    This is the bulverism mentioned in the article but while the author is attacking Trump supporters he illustrates perfectly how NeverTrump namecalls rather than engage in debate. I’m surprised he didn’t say Trumpist or Trumpanzee. It would be great if the “globalist” entered the debate rather than dictating and name calling.

    Also, how does the author not remember Bill Whittle’s excellent video? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3aw3df-LpbY

    1. “I don’t think there ever was a time when people engaged in rational analysis and debate of of proposed laws and policies.”

      No, but there was a time when most countries were nations of people whose opinions were pretty similar, and didn’t try to stuff multiple incompatible groups of people into the same geographical area. Then you didn’t need much debate because you weren’t likely to see laws and policies that diverged much from what the people would want.

      The current political climate is the inevitable result of pushing ‘diversity’ for fifty years. In much of the West, there are now many differences between people in the same country that are only reconcilable by segregation or war.

      It’s even worse, of course, in countries where the machinery of government has been captured by those who want to destroy the country.

      1. “No, but there was a time when most countries were nations of people whose opinions were pretty similar, and didn’t try to stuff multiple incompatible groups of people into the same geographical area. Then you didn’t need much debate because you weren’t likely to see laws and policies that diverged much from what the people would want.”

        What time was that? And which countries are you think of?

        1. “What time was that?”

          Most of Europe pre-WWI. WWII was caused, in part, by disconnects between borders and populations after that war. Hitler justified some of his early invasions as bringing German-speaking people back into Germany, for example. And many in the West accepted that.

          One of the reasons Europe was relatively peaceful for a few decades after WWII was the ethnic cleansing during the war, which resulted in more homogenous countries after the war than before it.

          Western governments, of course, then started importing foreigners en masse to those countries, and set us up for a war which will make WWII look like the Teddy Bear’s Picnic.

          1. It’s even worse, of course, in countries where the machinery of government has been captured by those who want to destroy the country.

            This part is key and many of the same people currently talking about the destruction of American values or needing to adhere to shared American values are the very same people who think the existence of our country is illegitimate and that have been transmorgifying American values into Marxist values.

            A lot of the problems we have now can’t be solved because the other party benefits from the degradation of our system because degradation has to happen before it can be replaced by “something better”.

Comments are closed.