A pro-Palestinian rally Sunday in Times Square endorsed by the city chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America ensnared prominent party members amid widespread condemnation of the event.
Gov. Kathy Hochul and other leading Democrats blasted the rally as “abhorrent and morally repugnant” and drew a dividing line with far-left members of the party — including New York Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamaal Bowman, who denounced the attacks and called for a ceasefire but didn’t take a stand on the rally.
“I condemn Hamas’ attack in the strongest possible terms,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement. “No child and family should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing oppression and occupation in the region. An immediate ceasefire and de-escalation is urgently needed to save lives.”
Yep and not wanting Palestinians to die anymore means you hate the Jews. The gaslight is spooky.
I agree with the statement that you are making, but, if I may be pedantic for just a moment, the way that your example was worded is not an example of gaslighting; it is actually an example of something called “affirming the disjunct”.
I appreciate the identification of the fallacy.
That said, the use of fallacious arguments is the tool by which one gaslights. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
When you use fallacies intentionally to convince someone that their basic and true point is wrong… That’s a form of gaslight.
The term doesn’t need to only apply to relationships. Political gaslights have become increasingly prevalent through social media.
Fair point in that they aren’t mutually exclusive, but I would disagree that logical fallacies are then only means used to gaslight. Gaslighting is the action by which an abuser sews doubt in one’s own judgement, and beliefs – that can be done any number of ways.
Gaslighting isn’t necessarily attempting to convince someone that what they believe is wrong, it’s meant to cause someone to question reality, their own sanity, beliefs, memories, etc. This can of course be used to sway average public opinion in the direction of a desired agenda, but it’s not trying to convince change in one’s opinion, I would argue.
Oh, for sure. A simple example would be the official denial of a true event’s occurence.