How to discount gaslighting based on your experience?

Post Reply New Topic

A lot of times structural violence against us is embedded in "plausible deniability". Ie "technically" there are options out of a problem, but the options upon investigation are very bad, but only after testing.

For example :
Option A : a friend could give you $50 to buy a guitar, that you could use to busk.
Option B : You can sign up to welfare, through a complex process, get treated like a criminal and bullied by third party contractors, maybe get a few hundred a month until they decide they have overpaid you and issue you a debt for several thousand that you have no way of paying.

Thanks to Neoliberalism, most people lucky enough to live in a "rich" country are indoctrinated to guide you to option B, immediately applying the logic "what's in it for me" to option A.

However those of us with experience of welfare systems know that "support" is anything but guaranteed, and mired with bureaucracy and hellishly uncertain delays, placing you in a very stressful situation.

Now we wind up with the case that we must make a firm case based on our past experiences that contradicts the reality of the NT or aid provider, who is likely to immediately turn it into a negotiation, where they have the upper hand in terms of emotional health and adversarial bad-faith tactics.

How would you do this?

The situations are mostly fictional, please replace with something from your life to suit the discussion. Generally this kind of holds for any marginalised group, where the longterm experiences matter and are difficult to understand without going into more detail than is really possible. I guess the real crux for me is this kind of requires lying.

I am not sure I understand what you are asking specifically.

In general terms if you are a "fish" swimming in a particular pond, you will have to learn the rules of that particular pond.

If you can find employment and function in life, you can do as well as you can. If you need to services of a support agency (welfare), you may have to abide by their procedures. It can be useful to enlist the assistance of an advocacy group or church to help navigate murky waters.

My mum has gaslighted me my entire life until I called her out on it 11 years ago. I told her that she likes my younger sister more than she likes me and she got all angry and called me a liar because she couldn't face the truth.

I suppose in the larger context the subject is truth. There has been a lot of effort in the last several decades to promote relativism. However, I have found that a view of absolute unchangeable reality is the best foundation for truth.

As I understand it, "gaslighting" is an attempt to deceive. People may call it attempting to alter a narrative, it still sounds like deception to me. If someone attempts to present me with an alternative "reality" I generally try to avoid them as they are seldom interested in my perspective.

In history, most people (except for the nobility) were too busy with the harsh reality of living to indulge much in deceptions of self or others.

If you consider the various motives people might have to push a deception on you there seems to be a limited number of possibilities.

1. They want money.
2. They want to use you in some way.
3. They want you to support their self-deceptions
4. They want to control you.
5. They may even think they are trying to help.

In our search for truth, those on different paths can be avoided if possible and resisted if unavoidable.

Quote from above:
you consider the various motives people might have to push a deception on you there seems to be a limited number of possibilities.

1. They want money.
2. They want to use you in some way.
3. They want you to support their self-deceptions
4. They want to control you.
5. They may even think they are trying to help.

In our search for truth, those on different paths can be avoided if possible and resisted if unavoidable.
-------------------- ---------------- -----------------------
Depending on the person or group : several of these can manifest together. And often with poor outcomes for
the victim..? whatever you wish to refer to "them" by.
Often there are personality types that may wish to inflict themselves upon you and yours .And you may never understand why ..? but if you run into these types ,personally , you can try to contend( deal with) with this as long as you can..but ,I would very strongly be prepared to find away to distance yourself of vacate the area they are in for your own "safety"/ peace of mind. And might give yourself a possible action plan to do this ? ....whatever that maybe. Keep all private info away from them .

Write down or record any and all interactions with them, with dates ....If you can find or hire an outside party, to make aware of some of the more serious interactions . If you have to ...deal with "them" .....have witnesses that are aware of your opinions ..
Just My Humble Opinion .

Gaslighting.....Plausible deniability.....seen this used often by both high a low , governmental entities..And some individuals or group of persons, i believe...for example , see below:
The method of harming someone/ something,(or on a rare occassion possibly helping someone or something) by being just removed enough from the situation in some manner, for the perpetrator to say , it was just happenstance .
Or to say you cannot prove it was me or Us.( possibly ,where the concept of Gangstalking came from if used negatively)
Sometimes ,when this comes up in a warfare situation.Might be termed That it was collateral damage or just a accident.
When all the while the Perpatrator actually , knew of or intended the side effect to happen . IMHO.

But can be used in a potentially positive way, If you leave a nice gift to someone you know will appreciate it. But do not tell them it was you that left the gift..( of course if you are confronted about the gift, you then admit to leaving the gift,
but "that " does take away from the idea of being able to deny the act of leaving a gift.)

The phrase "plausible deniability" was coined by Nixon/Haldeman/Erlichman/Dean on the Watergate tapes.

Basically it means "to lie in a way that is believable".

Huh, I did not know that.