Gaslighting
.jpg)
Gaslighting is psychological cruelty where one sows doubt by manipulating others into questioning their own memory and sanity.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2022-06-20 |
| Left | Right |
|---|---|
| Gaslighting is evil. Not only is it a double standard, but it's trying to convince the other side that they're mentally unstable for even thinking it. | The Clinton's are infamous for this technique (Bimbo Squad, Russia, Birther). But it goes back way further, in politics and history. See Alternate History or Alternate Reality for a few examples. |
The term has been popular since the 1960's, and the practice by the left in politics goes back much further to ideas like the Nazi's "the big lie" techniques, propaganda and the ministry of truth: not only lying about an issue, but trying to convince the other side that they're insane for even thinking it.
Democrats[edit | edit source]
The Democrats and their media loves to portray the right as instigators of it -- which is evidence of them doing it. Either they are completely ignorant about their own history and use of the technique (which I doubt), or they know of it and are suppressing it. Maurine Dowd used it against those complaining about Clinton (like Newt Gingrich), and trying to get hm to say hysterical things, or Donald Trump's obnoxious style of overstating everything. But they ignore that the complains against Bill and Hillary Clinton were valid, and that Hillary Clinton alone has many examples of gaslighting... not to mention many more before or since against the left:
- Hillary Clinton/Attacked a 12 year old rape victim - Early into her career Hillary was appointed as public defender in a rape case, and made the centerpiece of her defense attacking the 12-year old victim's credibility (eventhough there wasn't a shred of evidence that the victim had any sort of history of making false claims). Then giggled/laughs about it later.
- Birth of Birthers - Recently Donald Trump re-ignited the birther campaign by saying the following, "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it...." This of course has revived the fable that the Obama birther movement didn't come from the Clinton campaign, and the Hillary-supporting media is quick to carry her campaigns' water.
- Hillary Clinton/Divulges Nuclear Response Times - Amongst the top most classifications are Special Access Program (SAP) and the “need-to-know” (NTK) classification that includes only a few top cabinet officials like the Secretary of State. These contain things like the nuclear response times, that have been completely classified and foreign enemies would always have to make educated guesses on how fast we could possibly get missiles in the air.
- Hillary Clinton/Go-Awaygate - Hillary Clinton fires back at critics: No one told a man who lost an election to shut up. Which is ignorant, abrasive, and ignored the context that noone was as venomous and divisive a loser (or winner) as she's been. This wasn't about her genitalia but her perpetual victimhood and attempts to gaslight anyone who disagrees with her is annoying as fuck.
- Hillary Clinton/What Happened? - Hillary's book was a spiteful, divisive, finger-pointing-fest. It was everyone else's fault but her. Fake apologies like, I should have campaigned harder, or it was her fault that others didn't understand how brilliant she was, and so on. But it was as tone deaf as her campaign, and it was an attempt to gaslight anyone that would question her version of events.
- Hillary Clinton: Bimbo squad - Hillary is a hero to Women's liberation, unless you were one of her Husbands rape or assault victims (a few dozen of them)... And as we know with predators, there's like a lot more that have not come forward, or were bullied or paid off by Hillary or her hendchmen into silence.
- Inciting Violence - Progressives need to convince everyone that every issue is life-or-death, the end of the planet, or the other side being evil, or nothing would change. So inciting violence is practically required by the left. For the right, if things aren't that bad, then they get what they want, less change for the worse.
- Paying thugs to assault people - Project Veritas undercover video, Wikileaks, and others all caught prominent Democrat operatives (Robert Creamer, Scott Foval) admitting that the DNC and Hillary Campaign was paying protestors to disrupt, and thugs to assault or provoke assault with Trump supporters are Trump rally's/events.
- Protest funding - They say "follow the money". So where was the funding coming from for various "grass roots" leftist protests against Trump? Besides Soros, there was ANSWER, the Workers World Party front, and the Socialist Alternative. And who funds them? The media had no interest in reporting this story. When the informed say, "Marxistm drives the left", this is what they mean.
- Quotes/Hillary - Hillary and her Pants-suit posse attacked other politicians for being insesitive racists, and lead by example with gems like these
- Russian Hackers - There's scant evidence that the Russians were behind DNC (Podesta) email hacks, and certainly not the leak to Wikileaks, or that they'd want Trump to win over Hillary. And if they were, that makes them guilty of investigative journalism and leaking the truth to the American public.
- Some People - Ilhan Omar claimed anti-semitic CAIR was founded because "Some people did something", to avoid admitting that Islamic Terrorists took down the Twin Towers on 9/11. Oh and CAIR was actually founded nearly a decade earlier. Of course the far-left Press claimed Trump was endangering her, by retweeting a video of her saying that, in her own words.
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
That's just the tip of the iceberg: the whole Alternate History area has a few more examples. Not to mention getting into the much larger Alternate Reality or Left Lies section, where on many of these, they won't only lie about something -- but will attack anyone as not being in touch with reality, or being a shill for the opposition party (or Russians) if they try to point out the real history or version of events.
Again, it's one thing to disagree on what we think the likely outcome on something will be. I have no problems with that kind of political discord. We're talking about a much further extreme where you question the morality or sanity of those who disagree. By nature of the left being a more extreme ideology, more emotion-based, and thinking they're morally superior, and having a lot more youth -- they tend to go there far, far, far more often than the other side could try, let alone get away with, with the bulk of the media and academia leaning far-left and being against them.
🔗 More
| |
| |
| |
🔗 Links
Tags: Terms Left Lies Double Standards
