The moron has no bitchute mirror linked so…
The moron has no bitchute mirror linked so…
However, a source told the Daily Mail that he eventually tired of her ‘prima donna-like behaviour’, which involved trading on her TV fame.
Specifically, it’s claimed the Toronto-based restaurateur finally snapped when she took credit for one of his Italian recipes at a dinner party.
The “ordinary” narcissist gaslights primarily to restructure history to favour her. (Yes, men are narcissists too and do the same things, but I don’t want to play with multiple personal pronouns so, for simplicity’s sake, I’m sticking to the female gender here.) Let’s say you and your narcissistic cousin are out shopping and you suddenly remember that Trendy Bootery is having a massive sale. You mention this to your cousin and after a little bit of convincing, she agrees to go to the sale. There, she finds some really cute boots but waffles on buying them and you convince her to do so. Later, you and cousin are with some friends having a drink and someone compliments cousin on her boots. The story she tells, however, is that she remembered the sale, you had to be talked into going and you tried to talk her out of the boots. Later, when you two are alone, you ask why she twisted the tale and she looks at you like you have two heads—“but that is what happened!” she insists. You have just been gaslighted.
Because your cousin is not a malignant narcissist, she has altered the reality of the experience simply to make herself the bright, decisive one. She remembered the sale and you were reluctant to go. She was bravely unwavering while you didn’t want her to have the adorable boots. It is all about making her look good—but not about making you feel bad. If you do, it is simply fallout, but not her intent…
The thing about a person who gaslights another is that they portray a degree of absolute certainty that they are right, and that very certainty can cause anyone not as narcissistic as they are to buy into it.
…. The victim must stick firmly to the truth, write the truth down if necessary so she can remind herself of it through regular reading and re-reading. If there are witnesses, asking them for clarification helps.
There are seriously people who take credit for a meal FROM A CHEF.
I’d ask her how she made it. In detail.
But the primary weapon against gaslighting is awareness not only that it exists but that one’s parent/partner/employer/co-worker may employ it. One must also develop the ability to recognize it.
Done and done.
One error “normies” (normal people or those who were not raised in a narcissistic household) frequently make when dealing with narcissists is to base their opinions on their own selves. “Why would anyone want to do that?” they might ask. Unable to relate to gaslighting or why someone would gaslight another, too often the uninitiated are unable to grasp the motivations of the narcissist and turn it around to blame the victim:
Someone is gonna cry.
I can’t say who.
This will end terribly.
A highly useful article
Trying to force intimacy is prior to discovering their missing parts.
When you only have a hammer…
you’re already semi-Communist.
The authors conclude that the ultimate destination sought by men is “porntopia,” that is, a place of “sheer lust and physical gratification, devoid of courtship, commitment, durable relationships, or mating effort.” On the other hand, they call women’s desired destination “romantopia,” a place of love stories where winning hearts, overcoming obstacles, and getting married reign supreme.
When you only study porn addicts….
Men invented courtly love, so that’s totally off.
There are few poetesses.
There are plenty of masculine female porn addicts (by testosterone).
It is not difficult to see how such information, coupled with the seemingly daily exposure of some men’s unwanted sexual aggression, can lead to the pathologizing of all men as shallow beasts with no control over their impulses. As a sex therapist, however, I have seen the depth of men’s suffering around trying to bridge the gap between their attachment language and their partner’s.
When you only speaking to the suffering….
And it isn’t pathologizing if they have a pathology.
NAMALT, he cries, to cover the obvious error in logic. Even if it’s 99%, that still isn’t good, is it? Never trust a sex therapist, they are some of the worst humans in existence and want to spread the misery.
Instead, they are hoping that their partner can understand when they use language or actions in the bedroom that may objectify the partner, they are seeking erotic intimacy.
You see, there’s the stupid illogic of saying I didn’t want to kill them, your Honour, only stab them fifty times.
You bring that suffering on yourself.
Assuming women should accommodate men when the sexes are different is absurd.
Men shouldn’t accommodate women either. You negotiate and meet halfway like adults
Objectification is demeaning. It’s demeaning to male models as much as female.
You shouldn’t be demeaning anyone you personally know,it’s a form of emotional abuse, however normalised by perverts. Porn is a fantasy of women you do not know. That is the attraction. The association of objectifying them is porn-learned behaviour.
Intimacy is emotional. It doesn’t require the physical. They need to work on their emotions by speaking to the woman, not griping to another man who will console them that they’re fine – because neither get it. You’re fine, just the way you are – spoken like a true SJW. You see, the more you suffer personally, the more they gain.
Consider the source.
You don’t go to a woman for information on erections, do you?
If a woman relinquished all forms of companionship and emotional support, a man would feel repelled, however ‘good’ the sex. That is essentially what these men are doing. Do not treat your woman like a porn star. You wouldn’t want other men to and she’s the one you’re meant to love best. You can try new things without insulting a woman’s dignity, which is the more common form of virtue when chastity is out the window.
You have half the bargain. You don’t do your half, she’s in the right to walk because you fail as a spouse. If you’re not spouses, you owe nothing. She owes you nothing, because you provide no security, which all women crave. This used to be common sense.
Think back to the 50s. Did men want to think of their wife like a stripper? Did they speak of, treat her in those terms? Let alone the hooker many men think they want. Thanks MTV!
Your downstairs brain will ruin your life.
A woman’s nurturing instinct is killed dead by a man who objectifies her body, because a woman’s most precious resources are inner beauty.
Happy husbands do not objectify their wives, this erodes love over time. This should rest my case but you can’t tell a blind man what he’s missing.
The least helpful thing one can do is succumb wholly to one’s bias toward a feminine approach to relationship, forcing the man into greater feelings of self-loathing, shame, and suppression of his desires.
Sex therapist encourages fornication.
Is that not unhealthy for the men too?
I mean, impulse control in men is just so 19th Century, and we all know how poor the quality of those average men.
And bias? If it isn’t a choice, or an obligation, how is bias the correct term?
Without balancing both of men and women’s sexual and relational needs, there is a risk of creating even more distance between them.
The Sexual Revolution has only been good for us. We are never/always at war with dissatisfaction. Bad sex is the cardinal sin. You have too much/too little/bad quality and there’s always, ALWAYS something wrong with you – gimme money. I can’t fix the problem though, that’s down to you, and whether you feel you need more
development work Mafia style beat downs to your ego, courtesy of the people who know your body better than you and just care too damn much. They only want world peace! A fuck-a-thon orgy for peace!
How about a balance of life and death? Hunger and gluttony? Nude and prude?
A balance between good and evil is not physically possible, and that keeps ‘therapists’ rolling in bucks. Either it’s prosocial or antisocial. What is sleeping around? What is an objectifying (psychopathic) attitude to the pair bonding event of sex?
At least preachers are sincere.
Psychopaths objectify naturally, we’re all ants to them. Used/abused/crushed to amuse.
Those of us who have studied and trained in the concept of healthy sexuality—not just sexual pathology—realize the vast ranges of erotic expression in humans. We have barely begun to open to the idea that what has been acceptable culturally—heteronormative, monoganormative, and vanilla sex—does not begin to address who we really are.
“Vanilla sex” is actually healthy, normal, evolutionary sex. If you can’t appreciate normal sex, there is something medically wrong with you.
There’s the money, there’s the sale, there is what you’re really paying for.
Degenerates. Always preaching, always selling.
Go gay for Putin!
To think of all men as having pathological attitudes about sex is a sure way to shut down the emerging awareness of the myriad ways in which we can healthfully engage in this most basic expression of love and attachment, and differentiate it from the unhealthy ways we are seeing it played out in the media
He just said it isn’t about love and is 100% lust but ignore logic.
OMG it’s basic how can you argue with something so basic just go to a standard fuckparty and express yourself so basic, the only way to attach to another human being requires the Kama Sutra (btw quite a shit book).
Related, do gaslighters know what they’re doing?
Duh. They know they get a thrill out of putting down good/kind/vulnerable people.
You wonder why there are less of them in the world?
The manipulations of gaslighters.
The Alt Right has been flooded with them, power-tripping on the quickly disappearing women and ‘beta virgins’ – no, they won’t read any evolution that makes them know how dumb they are.
“it’s okay to bully you, we’re on the same side” (in evidence, they only care about themselves, not even other white men)
“take a joke, you’re not allowed to be offended by banter” (British term, stop using it America)
“you’re too sensitive, stop caring about things” (not inc. their shit-tier opinions)
“what a loser” (by their highly subjective standards where they are #1 alpha dog in charge)
It would be sad if they weren’t so toxic. Gaslighters are a type of emotional vampire, this is why they threaten to leave – they feed on the drama of being begged to stay.
They leave when the host runs out of histrionics they can cause/manipulate (narcissistic supply) and they kill whatever movement they’re in (the cause of the manosphere implosion).
Men are dumb to gaslighters, failing to distinguish it from regular bullying or, in denser cases, bonding banter. When someone ostracizes you for existing, they’re not trying to bond?
It’s actually the Mean Girls unique form of bullying, deeply female. Isolation, esteem pummeling, all girls have experience with this. Bitchy traps like “you’re really pretty…. so you agree?” are tactically designed to plant a poisonous little seed of doubt or trigger some pain, the stupid men tend to skip ahead and insult a woman’s body parts e.g. her womb and/or fuckability, same as Mean Girls – pregnancy/whore slander and sluttiness/prude impossible fake standards. Think how low a man must be to verbally abuse a woman by her children, existent or not?
Others gaslight in order to feel some sense of control in their own lives by making others depend on them. Gaslighting can also be part of an authoritarian personality. A person with an authoritarian personality tends to think in absolutes: Things are 100 percent right or 100 percent wrong. When a gaslighter thinks that they are not the problem and everyone else is, this is called having an ego-syntonic personality.
It can be very difficult to get ego-syntonic gaslighters into treatment; they believe nothing is wrong with them.
That is called a lie.
In truth, they don’t care or see it as an advantage.
They’re the atheistkultists who lie about Darwin.
A gaslighting spouse or partner may either refuse to go to therapy, or if they do attend with you, they may tell the therapist that you are the problem.
If the therapist recommends that the gaslighter changes a behavior, the gaslighter will label the therapist as incompetent.
Even in therapy, a gaslighter may not truly be aware of, or may refuse to acknowledge that their behavior is the problem.
Even if a person is practicing gaslighting behavior without being consciously aware of it, they may get a “payoff” when their victim becomes more dependent on them. And then the cycle continues. The gaslighter also gets a “boost” when there are no checks and balances in place—no one holding them accountable for their behavior.
They claim not to be aware but they know it makes them feel strong?
Someone fell for it. The sob story.
If a gaslighter is not aware of their manipulative behavior, that does not make it acceptable—it is still pathological, and it is still their responsibility. For gaslighters who have read up on this behavior or were taught it, of course, the same rule applies.
People tell them constantly. The definition of insanity? They’re just dense, they will never learn, so they’re commonly just a type of sociopath forever blaming their parents.
Negging is like gaslighting lite. They act like it’s nothing but select for the broken, like attracts like. Anyone with a spine is a ‘bitch’ or in the case of men, ‘an asshole.’ Lord Fauntleroy wants his way so the world must bow to Little Emperor…
I did have a post explaining the real features of mansplaining but I need to find it to post it. At least I doubt I posted it. It’s hard to keep track. This will be blunt for the spergs.
You’re not holding court if the other party hates you and wants to leave.
I have never seen a woman do it. We keep out. It seems a male feature, especially a bitchy gamma male type. Internet bitch fights between guys. Think the atheist talking about sky fairies when nobody asked.
When men do it to other men, which is uncommon, they’re just called jerks.
There should really be a term for this behaviour though.
It’s toxic, it’s antisocial and it’s ignorant to think a conversation is an excuse to chop the other party down.
You can say someone’s wrong if you think, but there’s a respectful adult, mature way, and then the way where you make them never want to speak to you again and act like it’s their fault you’re an ass.
Also a favourite with the guys who complain of being friendzoned. They’re normally not friends but acquaintances.
I insult her! I demean her! I disrespect her! Why won’t she date me? I’m such a Nice Guy!
Really they’re passive aggressive and blow hot and cold while thinking they’re being smouldering and mysterious.
One of the assumptions is that a woman, despite credentials, has no idea what she’s talking about (even as she’s teaching you the thing, thereby proving it) or randomly invalidating their opinion purely because they’re a woman (that’s just sexist, like when SJWs dismiss men on that basis).
Opinions don’t need to be right.
So the bloviating moron just rattles off his opinion like a fact glibly and expects the presumably ditzy girl to be sexually impressed. And that’s the worst part, they think cocky is sexy.
No woman fancies House.
Have you noticed that?
…Why do you do this?
It’s the shittiest flirting tactic known to man.
Look how smart I am! they think they’re signalling.
Look how obnoxious I can be! women see.
You are not at work and you’re not the boss there either, so you couldn’t bully people like that at work. If you did bully work inferiors, they’d leave. If you’re mean when you’re trying to be ‘nice’ on first meeting, imagine what an asshole they think you are once they get to know you, who wants to? Really it’s the bottom rungs of men who do this because negative attention is better than none, they’re already unattractive but this makes it hard to look past because there isn’t even inner beauty or some sympathy.
Why should I be nice and carry you in this conversation? Next!
It’s this alpha posturing BS going round. The old term for this? False bravado.
It’s fake as those thots’ nails. Pretending it’s about the intellect doesn’t make you less superficial than a guy in a tight tank top, you’re still being vain. It’s a false image of leadership. Who is inspired by catty comments?
There’s a sexual element where it’s like negging but instead of appearance or something superficial like a laugh or posture, they’re dehumanizing you. It’s the dehumanization part that rings true to regular, non-SJW women and made this such a Thing, thanks to EQ. I’ve had men on here try to deny women’s EQ when there are plenty of studies, since the idea of women being good/better at anything triggers them to their tiny fragile peanut balls, but then go on to say women are too sensitive. ….like -how? How does your brain keep you alive when it’s so dumb?
They’re patronizing but in doing so, demonstrating their stupidity. If the woman defends herself, let alone fighting fire with fire? He gets really offended and maybe calls her a sexist bitch.
You don’t take the time (SQ) to explain something for free only for the ingrate to turn around and begin implying that, because they don’t like what you say, you have no right to say it.. also because you have tits. Ironically they talk about freedom of speech constantly…. yeah, they just mean their speech. So you can’t punch them for being jerks….
That was April 2008 and it struck a chord. It still seems to get reposted more than just about anything I’ve written at TomDispatch.com, and prompted some very funny letters to this site. None was more astonishing than the one from the Indianapolis man who wrote in to tell me that he had “never personally or professionally shortchanged a woman” and went on to berate me for not hanging out with “more regular guys or at least do a little homework first,” gave me some advice about how to run my life, and then commented on my “feelings of inferiority.”
Don’t be this guy.
If it’s something a nosy old woman might say, don’t.
Hearing something you don’t like isn’t a personal insult.
Don’t make it personal.
He thought that being patronized was an experience a woman chooses to, or could choose not to have–and so the fault was all mine. Life is short; I didn’t write back.
the way someone else speaks to you is THEIR fault
they are the responsible one for their tongue
even being wrong isn’t a provocation
it’s a learning opportunity
a bonding opportunity
or maybe that’s my EQ talking
not a bitchy high horse shade-throwing competition
straight men are acting gay
to attract women
it puts off women
homosexual men do this
that’s why they do it
they always did this
look at Oscar Wilde!
Young women subsequently added the word “mansplaining” to the lexicon. Though I hasten to add that the essay makes it clear mansplaining is not a universal flaw of the gender, just the intersection between overconfidence and cluelessness where some portion of that gender gets stuck.
nothing between the ears
literally no self-awareness, like, autistic levels but no autism
It’s like being nagged but about something you don’t need to do, by someone who acts like they know you and has no idea what they’re talking about. They seek you out and maybe corner you and trap you with a question to make it look less like bullying.
to the sincere fools:
you can’t banter until there’s a bond
Busybodies is too archaic a term. The worst were crotchety old men. At least the women would feed you and it wasn’t about sex.
The funniest are when any woman who uses this word gets mansplained by a broflake guy who says he’s never seen or done it.
It’s a thing you do, that’s why the word is used.
It just isn’t always directed at women, but when it is, there’s a significantly patronizing power dynamic imbalancing tone, regardless of the actual status of individuals involved.
The other cause? Smartphones.
They can’t hold a conversation anymore, we blame the internet.
Then there’s the sociopathic nutjobs-
On two occasions around that time, I objected to the behavior of a man, only to be told that the incidents hadn’t happened at all as I said, that I was subjective, delusional, overwrought, dishonest–in a nutshell, female.
That’s misogyny and gaslighting.
You are woman, therefore must be <character insult>, it’s defamation.
Men used to hold their tongue in days of dueling.
The craziest ones you’ll ever see think they’re playing Freud and can sit judging all women as inferior because they imagine a fetish of theirs, daddy issues (plot twist: because they have the daddy issues) and begin seeing insanity or dishonesty everywhere… because they need a shrink themselves. Put down the schoolgirl/teacher porn!
Men explain things to me, still. And no man has ever apologized for explaining, wrongly, things that I know and they don’t.
that’s the virtue of humility
let me end with
Surely one of these men has died of embarrassment, but not nearly publicly enough.
This isn’t news and I’ve mentioned it before.
The article mentions narcissists and sociopaths as typical predators who use this technique.
Yes, it’s also a PUA one.
However, many sociopaths are actually misdiagnosed borderlines and male borderlines try to control when their fear of abandonment kicks in. In effect, the lovebombing is a bribe – how can you leave me after all I did for you?
Sounds a little better when they re-tell it than:
I won’t let you leave!
We’ll be together forever!*
They miss out their long list of conditions, “*as long as you put up with my…..”.
That’s not love, folks.
It’s just a form of compulsive lying.
It uses romance (courtship gestures, that have requirements, they aren’t empty displays like Americans think) to get close to a person, in their head actually.
They’re the guys who went around claiming to be Nice, when they really mean – manipulating with flowers, like the classic deadbeat husband that buys flowers every time he cheats. It’s the reason women are suspect to ‘nice’ guys. If they’ve gotta tell ya… force that belief in through a wedge… our EQ kicks in.
Their defense is flawless, to other parties, the fault lies with you for rejecting their affection – what’s wrong with you? Society tells you these displays are always wanted, good and sincere. Well, Disney tells us that, it teaches us romance is guileless.
It’s a type of gaslighting, forcing certain beliefs into them.
If they’re your soulmate, surely you don’t have to convince them?
If you have a long future to look forward to, then you’ll be around to plan it, you don’t need to keep mentioning it?
It’s cult behaviour but between two people.
You believe this, yes? You believe this because We believe this.
Note one party loses their identity but the other gets to retain their individuality, full freedoms and gain a newfound sense of control over the other…. that isn’t love, that’s slavery.
It isn’t purely men that do this but in a marriage, I’ve never heard of a woman doing it.
Those ‘redpill husbands’ claiming this is prosocial domination are covering for their antisocial, divorce-causing behaviour.
In a 1998 study of 130 newlywed couples designed to explore predictors of divorce or marital stability, marriage researcher and author Dr. John Gottman and colleagues, labeled this observed behavior of husbands — as “bat-em-back” — due to the force with which husbands automatically acted to cut off any attempts of wives to influence. To the researchers, this intentional behavior was likened to that of a baseball player at the plate, ever ready to “bat” a home run.
This and subsequent studies found that a husband’s “refusal to accept influence from his wife” — in effect, gaslighting — is highly predictive of divorce. On the bright side, findings also showed that a husband’s “acceptance of influence from his wife” is even more predictive of a stable and happy marriage.
Essentially he’s depriving her of her role, refusing to allow her to support him.
Well, if you didn’t want support, why aren’t you single?
If you hate the feminine, why legally and spiritually bind yourself to it?
Are the abusers honest about this fact? No.
Never. They’d lose control. You cannot cooperate with someone who wants to destroy you.
They don’t care about the marriage bond and they certainly don’t care about the other spouse.
In Biblical terms, they are letting the team down on the cherish part of the vow.
Naturally, the problem here is not male partners, rather the social conditioning that trains men to anxiously feel they have to prove masculinity on the basis of how different they are from women — and in general that means avoiding the “soft” stuff their female partners want, such as romance, nonsexual touch, doing things she wants or likes (without feeling emasculated), etc.
Anyone who does that whipped sound, you can tell they’re bad with women.
Love is a verb. Do or do not do.
Culturally speaking, we don’t trust that a baby boy will grow to become a man in the same way that an acorn becomes an oak tree. We expect men to be on guard throughout their lives to prove they are the “real” thing, and not “sissies” or “gay” and the like. And men’s fears are real; everyone is “watching,” male and female, ready to shame them to get back on track. (This shaming has intensified in last two decades.)
As Ali notes, gaslighting is a result of social conditioning rooted in a set of beliefs regarding gender roles and masculinity, such as that:
Women’s opinions don’t hold as much weight.
Women’s wants should not be treated as legitimate.
Men should never express regret when their actions have caused pain.
Who doesn’t want to live with a psycho?
Geez, no wonder they divorce the bastard.
If they really believed any of those false beliefs, they would never, ever marry.
They’d rather die on the end of a shotgun.
I don’t think the men who do this realize – if we brought back fault-divorce, men would lose because dissolution is normally their fault. It’s a failure of EQ on their part. That’s also why they refuse therapy, they don’t want to change, like a toddler. They’d rather hurt/weaken or lose the spouse.
“Hamstering” explained as bullshit;
Because women are conditioned to collaborate and empathize, this tactic can send a woman’s brain into an exhaustive wheel-spinning mode of explaining, complaining, crying, begging, pleading, etc. (and women’s socialization leaves them more susceptible …), and deceive a man’s brain into making several false, misleading (and unfortunate) conclusions.
Victim blaming, hilarious. Note that they’re fine around normal people though. It’s mere proximity to the loser who feels the need to throw around diagnoses like a Munchausen by Proxy (Woe is me because of them) that’s the real issue.
For one, they interpret the effectiveness of this thought control tactic to silence their partner’s voice as “proof” of men’s superiority, rightful dominance, strength and intelligence compared women’s, etc., and thus get tricked into relying on a tactic that harms their relationship, and gradually pushes their partner away.
They crave attention, spew bullshit, get what they wanted – but it’s the woman’s fault?
Amazing magic trick.
The dumbass doesn’t know he’s conditioning women not to provide him affection.
That’s a level of retard I’ve never seen.
In truth, gaslighting is a major obstacle to forming a healthy, vibrant couple relationship — emotional intimacy. For most female partners, for example, a failure to build emotional intimacy often means a gradual loss of interest in sex.
Literally the manosphere.
Women don’t want me – how is this their fault?
But while discussing their relationships, you can never, ever talk about them.
Guess the common factor.
Guess the problem.
And it’s rude.
As an addendum to a little thing I wrote previously.
“In reality, “political correctness” is just being considerate.”
Haha, no. This is a technique of manipulation called minimization (it’s just this, what’s your problem deflection) common to gaslighters, similar to You would if you loved me, it’s only… They also catastrophize trivialities regularly and screech when their lack of perspective (concern and awful priorities) is pointed out. They can’t lobby for normal things, they need special things! Special victim groups and special causes for special people!
It’s heavily politically skewed far-Left. Those things called standards are mutually agreed, as rules of etiquette and enforced politely, otherwise you’re a controlling bitch trying to manipulate a person into behaving how you consider ‘acceptable’ and calling them deficient as a human (you’re a terrible person, you’re worse than X, please kill yourself dehumanization) when they dare exert agency. Control+lies+guilt-tripping = gaslighting.
Who let you make all the rules? I didn’t vote for you.
SJWs love discusssing gaslighting only to twist the definitions at the very end.
To make you feel bad about yourself for
opposing disagreeing with them. Even when you don’t know them. That’s how toxic they are.
“And telling people not to be hateful isn’t limiting their free speech. They can still legally say what they want.”
What a contradiction. Underline: there’s your problem, slut.
Why not ban other unpleasant emotions? Anger, guilt, shame, remorse!
I guess we can take speech law crimes off the books, if social shaming is the means of enforcement!
And what about accusing people of various hate crimes when you aren’t a judge? Isn’t that slander? Libel? I wonder if the new surveillance powers will be applied to SJ monster mobs. Somehow doubt it.
You know, the longer you stay with bad people, the less people sympathize. I bet she was with that terrible person for months/years, yet expects sympathy? Why not leave, really? She knew damn well what she was doing and I’d bet money he dumped her and she pines for him. I mean, she wrote a whole article on someone she claims to be over. ….O.K.
Isn’t denial a human right?
Isn’t a slur a social construct? Shouldn’t it be taken as a compliment?
If she comes here looking for
attention a definition of ‘slut’, here’s one.
Slut: You slept with someone you hated. There is something wrong with you.
Social justice – anti-social revenge against the happy.
It’s a Guardian thing to smear populism as a bad thing.
In a democracy, appealing to the public is a social good. The common man was said to have the best experience of what we’d now dub realpolitik.
They’re taking an anti-intellectual signalling stance that whatever the common man thinks must be inferior and wrong and yes, bigoted. That’s what they mean by bigoted = poor.
They keep conflating a University education with intelligence, an ironic mark of low intelligence.
This confirms the GE finding – the MSM is dead. People don’t listen to it anymore. We don’t trust it. We don’t trust our claimed betters, who are shills guarding their own wallets and selling their country down the river for thirty pieces of silver.
Yes, such a ‘crash’. Let’s ask English majors about the ForEx.
Lesson #1 for any lefties reading: the markets reflect risk profile, not the reality of whether something was a good idea or not. Uncertainty is a margin, and that error of profit can turn up too. If brokers knew exactly what would happen, there would be no trading. Crooked financiers bet on certainty because they rigged it. Uncertainty is good for literally everyone else. Think of it this way – the people you didn’t want to bail out just lost a fuckload of money.
Days later, they’re still trying to gaslight us.
They’re just stupid/They’re crazy/They can’t ignore us/They don’t know what’s good for them – terms an abuser would use.
The emotional blackmail was obvious after some rando killed a bitch of an MP but let’s be honest, nobody likes our MPs. Nobody. In any party. She failed in her duty to vote against punishing benefit cuts for the (real) disabled so I’d bet good British money that cunt is rotting in Hell.
We have rejected the Multicultural Project.
The Supranationalist Socialists are turning Stalin.
The Left always rediscovers its totalitarian roots eventually.
If they could, they’d line up every Leave voter against a wall and shoot us. Perhaps after a spot of gang rape a la Rotherham and The Red Army.
Another referendum would create a constitutional crisis because MPs are representatives, i.e. they gain authority on the basis of accepting the will of the People. In the Government leaflet, they agreed to enforce that decision.
I think Non-EU immigration will be raised to compensate cheap illegal labour.
Whatever happens, this country knows it did the right thing and the silent majority are sick of being bullied for existing.
We still have the non-Brits claiming to be more ‘real’ British than us. The anti-white sentiment is ticking up.
As for terrorism.
Threats to Brussels and Germany.
Well, we wanted our border control back. The fact they aren’t planning terrorism in London (cough Khan cough) is a victory for us. Those countries aren’t our business.
Pro: Racist officially means nothing.
Con: The people slinging it don’t yet comprehend their irrelevance.
This is so offensive I don’t actually know where to start.
Three major points. Keep it brief.
I was tempted to put this on the wall of shame but it’s more productive to explain why it’s wrong.
Also, this ugly pig somehow manages to be uglier on the inside. Abuse victims are not rhetorical chips to play against people you dislike. I’ve seen the damage firsthand and I want to personally slap anyone who minimizes their trauma.
What was the argument, the topic?
A 15 year-old who thinks cutting its hair will make it a boy, responding to the correct claim it has a mental illness with ‘fuck you’.
Truly, it is the rhetoric of champions.
They’ve lost their minds, haven’t they?
Tone policing is when somebody with a higher social or other IQ insults you and all you can say in return is
“I don’t like your tone.”
That’s it. The sole ‘criticism’.
Nothing more, nothing less.
That is literally it.
If they have anything else to say, the tone thing is a passing comment. Especially if they reference a specific etiquette rule which has been breached (rationality).
Another form, often improperly used for the same task is “You’re being very rude.”
Commonly used by men losing a row with a woman when the fact she is a woman makes them rampantly insecure.
It never works to silence women (they use it in a bitchy gay way) because a gentleman would never say that (if both parties are doing it, neither can play high horse) nor get into a row in the first place. Debates and other meetings are mannered, respectable affairs and if you flout the rules, you automatically lose. This isn’t a bar at closing. This improper decorum should be pointed out after a few like infractions and once pointed out. with evidence, the debate or other meeting is already over. Arguably, it ended when the rules were broken. If you have to breach the etiquette, you are the loser.
Sometimes, the topic calls for rudeness e.g. using the word vagina in a conversation about abortion. It doesn’t change the logos of the argument, the facts. If it devolves to a verbal barrage of personal insults, that person is declaring their own loss in trying to poison the well.
The speaker knows this, but things like ‘omg rude’ and other synonyms as an excuse to end the conversation are cheap tricks to get out of explaining oneself when your turn comes around once you already volunteered to do so (making the user, in fact, the rude one).
“I’m losing and/or I’m wrong so instead of admitting it and/or bowing out gracefully, I’ll blame you (possibly gaslighting, actually); I don’t want to talk to you anymore and I will control this situation because you’re a Big Meanie and should feel ashamed of yourself, you’re a bad person for making me feelbad.”
If you keep pressing their triggered amygdala, they’ll go onto a long projecting rant about how rude, ugly and stupid you are. Hitting the three main notes of manners, looks and intelligence that liars often seek to conceal re themselves.
They have a tell. “No you’re not“, whatever the topic and they’ll try to make you feel stupid.
They try to tell you what you’re (supposedly really) feeling, or that what you’re feeling is wrong. Feelings can’t be wrong, facts causing feelings can be wrong but again, there is a clear demarcation. It comes down to a 100% logical truth: Another person cannot know your mind better than you can. Anyone who claims otherwise is gaslighting you.
(For this reason, you will never hear a psychologist deny your experience, they will simply work with what you’ve got).
However gaslighting may be claimed by people who want to lie for attention and later claim other reasons. If you’ve got proof their ‘memory’ is wrong, they’re in the wrong. Sometimes manipulative people want you to take their version of events, with varying levels of awareness about how much they’re manipulating. That’s right, many gaslighters have little awareness about what they’re doing, and deny-deny-deny if they feel the slightest gain is to be had. Narcissists may use gaslighting without a conscious awareness of what they’re doing, like a deceptive fugue, better known as a ‘selective memory’. They’ll manipulate and even with dripping knife in hand, will always play victim, sometimes claiming to be gaslight victims themselves, or justifying themselves commonly with “She deserved it.” As if anyone deserves any form of abuse. That they can treat someone they ‘loved’ with such cruelty, someone intimate and personal, that they took personal revenge? You’re dealing with an omega, lowest of the low.
The two types of narcissist act differently but both play Victim to control others: the covert kind often self-diagnoses (no, don’t do that) to control the narrative of their own life and use this ‘diagnosis’ as an excuse to control others. Frequently female.
The overt narcissist Plays the Psychologist (without qualifications, obviously), diagnosing everyone who disagrees with them as some form of ‘crazy’ (as if mental illness is an insult and sign of personal weakness). This type are more often male and almost always think of themselves a superior version of Freud (who, as we know had Mother Issues), so they often go for women they believe they can break, psychologically, and put back together in their model of Perfect Woman. First they minimise your experience before completely denying it. Naturally, this never works and she leaves him eventually. They become more bitter and sadistic as time goes on. They like Freud because they mistake it for an easy way to blame with a veneer of social acceptability.
Bear in mind the key question: If this person is so crazy, why do you want them?
For couple there is a simple way to smoke the rats out.
If they are actually ‘crazy’, why don’t you want to see a psychologist together? You see, they don’t want the psychologist to see their interactions, what they’re doing, because the psychologist has legally and socially valid opinions on what is crazy, although I have seen men try to gaslight female psychologists. Yep, scumbags. Exactly the same type to complain about how they never find the Right Woman (defined in real terms as a sex slave happy when emotionally abused, if you ask for details) and how it’s an injustice because they’re so ‘sweet’, when in the same bloody sentence they casually refer to us all as ‘whores’ (regardless of behavior). Does that sound oddly specific? Yes, yes it does. It’s a tell with 100% reliability. Berating the entire sex because you can’t get 1 (ONE) is desperate countersignalling (‘I didn’t want one anyway’… sure you didn’t).
“You’re (personal insult).” or “You’re not offended (as an order).” = dismissive, judgemental, definitive, gaslighting
“I think (self-ownership) your reasons (distinction) for being offended (valid emotion) might (room for error) be mistaken (outcome).” = not gaslighting
Translation: She doesn’t trust my version of events above her own direct experience of events. I’ve seen them deny text messages, honestly.
Of the man with ‘crazy exes’ ask yourself: what are the odds they were ALL crazy, if so, why did he pick them? Or did he make them crazy?
They tend to select introverted victims because those people naturally question themselves. If they’re too busy looking within for the problem, how can they look at the person next to them?
If you’re in this situation, you have my sympathy, ask yourself: Did these problems start when he showed up?
Gaslighters despise self-confidence, self-respect, any form of dignity (differentiates you from them) and happiness (when you’re happy, they’ll tear you down, test it by pretending to be happy for no reason and watch their reaction).
You need to establish clear personal boundaries and be willing to walk if you don’t get your needs met.
Somewhat connected to mansplaining before the concept was taken too far (dismissing a man’s opinion on a non-female-exclusive topic on the basis of being a man), really it’s where a man assumes he knows more on a topic, any topic – because he is a man, and attempts to browbeat you under the guise of teaching. This is like a subtle form of gaslighting but is light enough to be done naively, it can become true abuse with time and constitutes a red flag for this reason. The concept is amusing if only for all the mansplainers who deny it vociferously, then make it personal when it wasn’t even aimed at them, which actually proves its validity as a concept. By definition, they hate it when you point out what they’re doing (like gaslighters).
Mansplaining: because a Y chromosome is not a qualification.
Gaslighters do the opposite, it’s more advanced, they make everything about you because it’s personal. Most egregious are the ones where he pretends you’re too dumb to understand his argument (why socialize at all then?) when you reject it because you happen to be an expert (gaslighters deny any form of expertise not connected with them), and/or use their feelings (bless) as the barometer for what yours should be (solipsism).
…The actual crazies deserve one another. Leave them be.
Sorry this turned into an advice post but I thought What If someone in that scenario found this page by accident and couldn’t help myself.
Another final test for a gaslighter is to joke they’re gaslighting you, while they’re doing it. If they fly into a rage (and know exactly what that is), that’s a positive. “How could you?” they’ll turn. If they look confused, “Why?” they may be in denial or Mr Expert may be playing dumb, something along the lines of “I think I know my own mind better than you” is appropriate, delivered cheekily. If they logically explain why they aren’t, with proof, they’re either fine or a sociopath (good at rationalization, most people can’t tell the difference between that and logic).