Roger writes:
“This brought me to the idea that our primary form of social interaction is gas lighting each other. Not in the sense that we are trying to drive each other crazy by hiding evidence of the truth, but because we are continually trying to
persuade each other of truths.”
We hear complaints here periodically about how annoying it is that people are `pithy’. First of all, let’s separate situations in which autonomy is desired and attention is scarce, from willing participation in a discussion. In the first
circumstance, being pithy is a way of communicating “Please leave me the f*** alone.”, or I have no time (or limited time) for this.” It is deliberately to flow-regulate communication bandwidth because the utility seems to be low.
Then there is are situations as in this article, in which it is hard to exhibit skepticism because it is posed as horrible -- a dystopian misogynistic insight into the male brain that cannot be qualified or deconstructed. The Trump Access
Hollywood tape was similar because it was put out as if it was sufficient evidence and not just evidence – to me it was more the campaign’s immediate absence of shame or regret that made it clear it was true this is how he thinks, and of course evidence
from other women that came later. He used it to consolidate consensus amongst his ranks by normalizing it, which is shocking in how well that worked.
I think women are often thought to be the usual victims of gas lighting, but I would say the reverse happens under the guise of hypothetical or anecdotal male motivations like in the article. (As opposed to childish nervous humor that
can arise in awkward or overwhelming situations.) Is it surprising that some men are accused “You are bad, despicable, untrustworthy and mean”, that they just don’t respond very well? There’s an appropriate amount of accusation, and it needs to be followed
by consideration of counter-argument. (In this case, say, the possibility that husband had real terror over the degree of an apparent injury.) When that back and forth doesn’t happen, then people just start gas lighting one another, and divisions deepen.
This also reminds me of the objection to safe spaces at universities and the (supposed) danger of protecting snowflakes who should protect themselves by engaging in argument. But in that situation the real question is who has the power
and whether it is being used to intimidate. If there are minority groups of people that have no way to speak without being ganged-up on and humiliated, yes, they do deserve protection by university policy, or at least some edgy bodyguards. But if they
are just white guys spouting far-right garbage in a conservative, white-dominated community, no they do not need protection by policy. They are already safe.
I spent much time as young person hanging out in the university park blocks going after the Christian apologists. But they were the ones gas lighting the passers-by. Being an anti- gas lighter – a demolisher of belief -- is not being
a gas lighter. The complement of the gas-lighted message and it is a bigger, freer space, not a manipulation of innocents.
Marcus
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |