An actual use of gaslighting.

[KingsGambit]

I believe the term "gaslighting" is way over used in political discourse to mean "all disagreement", but I believe the anti police movement has legitimately done this.

Many people have rushed to say "nobody really literally means abolish the police! You are taking it too literally!"

And then I saw this from the New York Times today...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/o...nd-police.html

[seanD]

I think in the case of folks like JimL... he's just ignorant. He really believes "nobody really literally means abolish the police! You are taking it too literally!" because he limits the sources he gets his information about this subject, and the limited sources he uses don't argue this and make fun of those that do. IOW, he and folks like him are in a bubble.

[Cow Poke]

I think in the case of folks like JimL... he's just ignorant. He really believes "nobody really literally means abolish the police! You are taking it too literally!" because he limits the sources he gets his information about this subject, and the limited sources he uses don't argue this and make fun of those that do. IOW, he and folks like him are in a bubble.

There has been ZERO evidence that the Minneapolis City Council is even CONSIDERING the path taken by Camden NJ, who FIRST obtained police protection from the County, BEFORE attempting to remake their PD.

Yes, Minneapolis City Council members have been EMPHATIC about "dismantling" their PD, and using "other than Police" for societal order.

I suspect they may end up like CHAZ if they're not careful. FORTUNATELY, the Mayor, and others in City Council, are slowing things down a bit and proposing maybe they should let the voters decide this in November.

Minneapolis voters could be asked as soon as November to remove police department from City Charter

Minneapolis voters could be asked to cast a ballot on the future role of Minneapolis Police Department as soon as this November, under plans revealed on Friday.

Five city council members – president Lisa Bender, Alondra Cano, Jeremiah Ellison, Steve Fletcher, and Cam Gordon – signaled their intentions to propose an ordinance that would change the City's Charter by removing MPD as a "Charter Department."

The Charter currently stipulates that the council must provide a police force of 0.0017 officers per resident of the city.

It would be replaced on the Charter with the creation of a "new Charter Department to provide for community safety and violence prevention."

By removing the MPD requirements from the City's Charter, it seems to be laying the groundwork for the councilors' eventual plans to disband the department in the wake of George Floyd's killing, and replace it with an as-yet alternative public safety strategy.

The proposal didn't merit much discussion on Friday, with the councilors expected to provide more detailed plans when they introduce it as an ordinance at its next meeting on June 26.....

[rogue06]

There has been ZERO evidence that the Minneapolis City Council is even CONSIDERING the path taken by Camden NJ, who FIRST obtained police protection from the County, BEFORE attempting to remake their PD.

Yes, Minneapolis City Council members have been EMPHATIC about "dismantling" their PD, and using "other than Police" for societal order.

I suspect they may end up like CHAZ if they're not careful. FORTUNATELY, the Mayor, and others in City Council, are slowing things down a bit and proposing maybe they should let the voters decide this in November.

Minneapolis voters could be asked as soon as November to remove police department from City Charter

Minneapolis voters could be asked to cast a ballot on the future role of Minneapolis Police Department as soon as this November, under plans revealed on Friday.

Five city council members – president Lisa Bender, Alondra Cano, Jeremiah Ellison, Steve Fletcher, and Cam Gordon – signaled their intentions to propose an ordinance that would change the City's Charter by removing MPD as a "Charter Department."

The Charter currently stipulates that the council must provide a police force of 0.0017 officers per resident of the city.

It would be replaced on the Charter with the creation of a "new Charter Department to provide for community safety and violence prevention."

By removing the MPD requirements from the City's Charter, it seems to be laying the groundwork for the councilors' eventual plans to disband the department in the wake of George Floyd's killing, and replace it with an as-yet alternative public safety strategy.

The proposal didn't merit much discussion on Friday, with the councilors expected to provide more detailed plans when they introduce it as an ordinance at its next meeting on June 26.....

Interesting piece in the Federalist that I'll post the pertinent part from:

BLM activists are celebrating these developments—it’s long been one their core demands—but so are people like Brian Fallon, former Justice Department spokesman and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign press secretary, as well as supposedly moderate think tankers like the Niskanen Center’s Will Wilkinson, who tweeted out unironically that “communities no longer required to finance police with their taxes will purchase some other form of more accountable security.”

Fallon and Wilkinson and others like them seem completely unaware that these other forms of security—the mafia, cartels, armed militias—are far less accountable than the police. If you want to know what that form of security looks like, look at Iraq, or Somalia, or Libya.

[seanD]

There has been ZERO evidence that the Minneapolis City Council is even CONSIDERING the path taken by Camden NJ, who FIRST obtained police protection from the County, BEFORE attempting to remake their PD.

Yes, Minneapolis City Council members have been EMPHATIC about "dismantling" their PD, and using "other than Police" for societal order.

I suspect they may end up like CHAZ if they're not careful. FORTUNATELY, the Mayor, and others in City Council, are slowing things down a bit and proposing maybe they should let the voters decide this in November.

Minneapolis voters could be asked as soon as November to remove police department from City Charter

Minneapolis voters could be asked to cast a ballot on the future role of Minneapolis Police Department as soon as this November, under plans revealed on Friday.

Five city council members – president Lisa Bender, Alondra Cano, Jeremiah Ellison, Steve Fletcher, and Cam Gordon – signaled their intentions to propose an ordinance that would change the City's Charter by removing MPD as a "Charter Department."

The Charter currently stipulates that the council must provide a police force of 0.0017 officers per resident of the city.

It would be replaced on the Charter with the creation of a "new Charter Department to provide for community safety and violence prevention."

By removing the MPD requirements from the City's Charter, it seems to be laying the groundwork for the councilors' eventual plans to disband the department in the wake of George Floyd's killing, and replace it with an as-yet alternative public safety strategy.

The proposal didn't merit much discussion on Friday, with the councilors expected to provide more detailed plans when they introduce it as an ordinance at its next meeting on June 26.....

The election has become a race to the bottom. Who will fatally self-inflict themselves faster? Trump or the Dems?

[Cow Poke]

The election is becoming a matter of who will fatally self-inflict themselves faster? Trump or the Dems?

Poor Joe --- he has to denounce this crap without offending BLM. Is he skilled enough to handle that? Can sloths run faster than the speed of light?

[Cow Poke]

Look sharp, everybody! JimL is reading this thread and will set us all straight soon enough!

[JimL]

I think in the case of folks like JimL... he's just ignorant. He really believes "nobody really literally means abolish the police! You are taking it too literally!" because he limits the sources he gets his information about this subject, and the limited sources he uses don't argue this and make fun of those that do. IOW, he and folks like him are in a bubble.

The problem is that those on the opposite side of the issue take the view that because maybe you've heard one version of what defunding means, i.e. abolishing the police altogether, you run with that even though that isn't what the great majority means by defunding. So if anyone is doing what you call gaslighting, it is those of you who continue pushing the idea that defunding means abolishing. You are taking defunding too literally because you want to take it too literally, even though it is all over the media that that is not what is meant by the great majority of those proposing it.

[Cow Poke]

Look sharp, everybody! JimL is reading this thread and will set us all straight soon enough!

And there you have it...

The problem is that those on the opposite side of the issue take the view that because maybe you've heard one version of what defunding means, i.e. abolishing the police altogether, you run with that even though that isn't what the great majority means by defunding. So if anyone is doing what you call gaslighting, it is those of you who continue pushing the idea that defunding means abolishing. You are taking defunding too literally because you want to take it too literally, even though it is all over the media that that is not what is meant by the great majority of those proposing it.

Jim - they are removing the PROVISION for a police department from the CITY CHARTER.

The Charter currently stipulates that the council must provide a police force of 0.0017 officers per resident of the city.

It would be replaced on the Charter with the creation of a "new Charter Department to provide for community safety and violence prevention."

By removing the MPD requirements from the City's Charter, it seems to be laying the groundwork for the councilors' eventual plans to disband the department in the wake of George Floyd's killing, and replace it with an as-yet alternative public safety strategy.

WHY is this so difficult for you to accept?

[Ronson]

I think in the case of folks like JimL... he's just ignorant. He really believes "nobody really literally means abolish the police! You are taking it too literally!" because he limits the sources he gets his information about this subject, and the limited sources he uses don't argue this and make fun of those that do. IOW, he and folks like him are in a bubble.

You mean like it isn't Global Warming? It's actually Climate Change? That was a good move because anything out of the ordinary is evidence of Climate Change. Hot? Cold? Dry? Humid? Climate Change.

"Defunding" something can mean only one of two things: To dismantle it, or force it to find other funding. Anything else is double speak.

[Mountain Man]

Liberals realize how insane this whole thing is, so they're trying to spin it. Saw one editorial claiming that "defund" doesn't mean abolishment but simply taking some funds from the police and putting them into social programs that will somehow magically reduce the need for a police force.

[Darth Ovious]

WHY is this so difficult for you to accept?

Its understandable, its difficult to accept things like that when you are literally watching the fall of society around you and the dismantling of the current system. I'm guessing JimL is assuming that everything will be fine in the end but the reality is that society is developing into an ideological nightmare.

[Darth Ovious]

Liberals realize how insane this whole thing is, so they're trying to spin it. Saw one editorial claiming that "defund" doesn't mean abolishment but simply taking some funds from the police and putting them into social programs that will somehow magically reduce the need for a police force.

That is called a cutback though, not defunding.

[JimL]

And there you have it...



Jim - they are removing the PROVISION for a police department from the CITY CHARTER.

The Charter currently stipulates that the council must provide a police force of 0.0017 officers per resident of the city.

It would be replaced on the Charter with the creation of a "new Charter Department to provide for community safety and violence prevention."

By removing the MPD requirements from the City's Charter, it seems to be laying the groundwork for the councilors' eventual plans to disband the department in the wake of George Floyd's killing, and replace it with an as-yet alternative public safety strategy.

WHY is this so difficult for you to accept?

It's not difficult to understand at all, CP, it's only difficult for you because you choose not to understand it.

[Whateverman]

I believe the term "gaslighting" is way over used in political discourse to mean "all disagreement"

I apologize for the tangent, but I think this is important (at least for me).

In the last ~4 years, the term has never appeared once on TV as a reference to political "disagreement". Not once, not ever.

What it has appeared as - is as a reference to the deliberate spreading of false information. As in someone deliberately lying so as to spread confusion.

After the first sentence in your thread here, I actually went and looked up a definition for the term, and was surprised to find its origins lie psychology, rather than discussion/rhetoric. I hadn't know this prior to today, and I honestly appreciate the lesson. A simple definition (which I hope is representative) is to "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity".

This simple definition shows that my understanding of the term was wrong. No matter how much I dislike a politician, none of them have come close to making me question my own sanity. Sure, the deliberate and brazen spreading of disinformation by public officials is offensive, but even when encountered, it never makes people wonder whether their perceptions are being screwed-with. It's simply a public campaign of disinformation, and it's always perceived as this.

---

I suppose a debater could come along and make a decent case for me being wrong about this; maybe dishonest politicians are really trying to make me question my sanity. If so, every single one of them has utterly failed. Momentary doubt about whether some claim is true or not never makes me wonder if I'm incapable of perceiving reality.

---

So I guess I should stop accusing the Trump administration and right-wing media of gas-lighting.