Telling people that the reality is not what they see and they imagine things, is - so to speak - the definition of gaslighting. Gaslighting might be hyperbole and surely I made it a bit more pointed, however I see how his post can be seen as gaslighting.
> Gaslighting by definition requires ill intent or manipulation and you are conveniently ignoring that.
You cannot determine or know ill intent, so it's not really helpful as a property.
> In your version pretty much any internet disagreement is gaslighting.
Disagreement alone does not suffice. You need to tell the other person that what they see is not real and/or that they imagine things. But as I said, it's a bit exaggerated, however it's not so farfetched either.
>You cannot determine or know ill intent, so it's not really helpful as a property.
You're clearly still trying to change the definition and are still ignoring that gaslighting itself requires negative manipulation. From wikipedia, these actions are easy to identify:
>Obfuscation: deliberately muddying or overcomplicating an issue.
>Withholding: pretending not to understand the victim.
>Countering: vehemently calling into question a victim's memory despite the victim having remembered things correctly.
>Blocking and diverting: diverting a conversation from the subject matter to questioning the victim's thoughts and controlling the conversation.
>Trivializing: making the victim believe his or her thoughts or needs are unimportant.
>Forgetting and denial: pretending to forget things that have really occurred. The abuser may deny or delay things like promises that are important to the victim. Although anyone can deny or delay, the gaslighter does it regularly in the absence of real external limitations. The gaslighter may make up or create artificial barriers to allow themselves to deny or delay that which is important to the victim.
Telling someone who asked for feedback, in earnest that you think their perceptions are wrong is not in any way gaslighting.
