Talk:gaslight
Usage in politics[edit]
The verb "gaslight" is often used these days in relation to politicians. For example, John Crace writing in The Guardian:
So what the Incredible Sulk [prime minister w:Boris Johnson] was really admitting was that he had lied to the country, lied to parliament and lied to the Queen. His five-week prorogation had only ever been a scam to waste time. There had never been any intention to get anything done in the new parliament. Sure, he’d promised free pet care for the elderly and a new motorway for the Isle of Wight, but that had all just been a load of Classic Dom bollocks. The gaslighting for the gullible didn’t stop there.
Also a prevalent term in the United States. Could this usage be developed? Hope this helps. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
New sense 2: "To deny reality when speaking with someone, with the misplaced good intention of a white lie to spare their feelings or cheer them up, but with the unintended consequence that they feel misled by, and lose trust in, the speaker." Equinox ◑ 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- One can be google:"inadvertently gaslighting" someone, which is google:"inadvertent gaslighting", so I'd suggest changing definition 1's "for malevolent reasons" to "usually..." or "typically for malevolent reasons", but I'm sceptical that there are uses where it means this, specifically / that we need a separate definition like this. - -sche (discuss) 13:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Trying to capture such subtle differences in meaning can in some cases lead down a rabbit hole. I think we should be careful about having, for an entry like best, a sense like "somewhat less than the best". — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why not simply leave out “, for malevolent reasons”? A similar case is the verb malign, something that is usually not done with the best of motives, but there may be cases of someone “unintentionally maligning”.[1] The definition of malign is not burdened with suppositions of the intentions of the maligner. --Lambiam 12:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I remember many of us discussing a similar issue wrt ‘accidentally committing suicide’ a while ago. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why not simply leave out “, for malevolent reasons”? A similar case is the verb malign, something that is usually not done with the best of motives, but there may be cases of someone “unintentionally maligning”.[1] The definition of malign is not burdened with suppositions of the intentions of the maligner. --Lambiam 12:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Trying to capture such subtle differences in meaning can in some cases lead down a rabbit hole. I think we should be careful about having, for an entry like best, a sense like "somewhat less than the best". — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The tag was removed out of process, but the sense was never cited and is far too specific, so I've removed it (RFV-failed). It's quite possible enough cites can be found to support a "loose use" sense, but the definition would be rather different and broader than the one above. People misuse the g-word these days for any lying (whether for good intentions or to spare feelings or not), anyone insistently disagreeing with or trying to persuade you, and all kinds of abusively putting someone down (e.g. on the cites page is a boss who "gaslit [someone] by constantly insulting her work and making her feel too insecure to speak up"). - -sche (discuss) 08:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)