Odds of Biden stepping down, being replaced. Choose.

[dlerious]

Trump most definitely gaslights! He lies as well but he directly gaslights, it’s a strategy narcissists use frequently,

Any connection between the gaslight and dog whistle?

 

[Moonbeam]

Do you believe reality is subjective or objective?

Let me try to arrange the some way to answer your question. Do you refer to reality as you imagine it, how I imagine it or are you talking about whatever reality is assuming it exists. Right now I am sitting in my dining room because one of my cats is asleep in my desk chair and you are someplace else. Is reality where I am or where you are or are we talking about, maybe everything that exists, assuming the universe is real.

We know also that in some ways reality is what our senses tell us it is but there are plenty of x-rays flying about we don’t see unless we use machines. The world also appears on our retinas up side down. So when we talk about the nature of reality we communicate a hopefully shared story, a story from our experiences of the past that others make the assumptions they understand.

In this way our realities are conditioned, things we were told, embellish, and accept. I am supposed to know what you mean by objective and subjective for example but I am tsomewhat odd.

Long ago I set out to prove that reality is objective, t oddly enough the one I believed was real. But things didn’t work out so well. I wanted to believe the universe is ultimately just and that all the millions of innocent people who die from the evil will be compensated in heaven. I could find no proof of that and my reality went black. That was new reality, one full of endless suffering. Of course, all of that was just self pity.

Well, as you may be aware, mystics, for want of a term, claim to enter a state of conscious awareness, presence in the now, beyond absent the experience of thought, fear, and time, that it is the one conscious experience that has no capacity to be described because duality that produces discrimination and language is absent. Truth, objective reality is where we have our being just as fish exist in water and could do endless theoretical searches for it.

My answer to your question, subjective or objective, then, is no. It is subjective if you ask the question you asked me. If you know a state of conscious awareness beyond thought and time the question never comes up. You don’t believe or doubt, you have no need to ask.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Let me try to arrange the some way to answer your question. Do you refer to reality as you imagine it, how I imagine it or are you talking about whatever reality is assuming it exists. Right now I am sitting in my dining room because one of my cats is asleep in my desk chair and you are someplace else. Is reality where I am or where you are or are we talking about, maybe everything that exists, assuming the universe is real.

We know also that in some ways reality is what our senses tell us it is but there are plenty of x-rays flying about we don’t see unless we use machines. The world also appears on our retinas up side down. So when we talk about the nature of reality we communicate a hopefully shared story, a story from our experiences of the past that others make the assumptions they understand.

In this way our realities are conditioned, things we were told, embellish, and accept. I am supposed to know what you mean by objective and subjective for example but I am tsomewhat odd.

Long ago I set out to prove that reality is objective, t oddly enough the one I believed was real. But things didn’t work out so well. I wanted to believe the universe is ultimately just and that all the millions of innocent people who die from the evil will be compensated in heaven. I could find no proof of that and my reality went black. That was new reality, one full of endless suffering. Of course, all of that was just self pity.

Well, as you may be aware, mystics, for want of a term, claim to enter a state of conscious awareness, presence in the now, beyond absent the experience of thought, fear, and time, that it is the one conscious experience that has no capacity to be described because duality that produces discrimination and language is absent. Truth, objective reality is where we have our being just as fish exist in water and could do endless theoretical searches for it.

My answer to your question, subjective or objective, then, is no. It is subjective if you ask the question you asked me. If you know a state of conscious awareness beyond thought and time the question never comes up. You don’t believe or doubt, you have no need to ask.

Based on your reasoning, if reality is subjective, then gaslighting cannot be proven really, since 'reality' is dependent on the observer and you'd need the accused to admit they were gaslighting (unreasonable, as they generally will not). This creates an impossible scenario where abusers can abuse to their heart's content, as there's no logic or reason to back up an accepted, objective 'real'. I reject this notion as a rational, thinking machine, and instead accept that reality is objective, at least to a point. If there are obviously four lights and they claim there are five, there are still only four.

 

[Moonbeam]

Based on your reasoning, if reality is subjective, then gaslighting cannot be proven really, since 'reality' is dependent on the observer and you'd need the accused to admit they were gaslighting (unreasonable, as they generally will not). This creates an impossible scenario where abusers can abuse to their heart's content, as there's no logic or reason to back up an accepted, objective 'real'. I reject this notion as a rational, thinking machine, and instead accept that reality is objective, at least to a point. If there are obviously four lights and they claim there are five, there are still only four.

This, of course, makes perfect sense to me. Anyone who has collapsed the paradox created by the illusion of difference, dividing reality into things, will not be driven by unconscious forces to impose a subjective reality. What does not make sense to me is the need to prove that is a superior way to experience reality. Nobody who does not understand this themselves will want to end the misery created by duality nor question their inner condition.

All one can do is offer what you can. I think when we call people pejorative terms and seek to prove that’s their condition, that is the result of our own inner pain. Please don’t think I an saying I am personally past all that. I’m saying it’s a healthier way to go. If there are 4 lights that is enough. I think it is better to tell people to abandon their guilt than inflict more of it as a way to make them change. The idiot that won’t change is me. I want my revenge. I want to see if I can detach from that need by seeing it as an unhealthy habituation.

 

[NWRMidnight]

I mean it's like you're totally agreeing with me and then disagreeing with yourself.

if that's your take, then you have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[MrSquished]

if that's your take, then you have a reading comprehension problem.

First you completely agree that words can change/evolve over time to take on additional meanings and that dictionaries get updated because of this - literally one of my main points.

But by the end you make some other statement that these updates are not right, slang this, or something. Nothing that really makes sense besides, well, I have to be wrong about this so let's just shit on academia. So it's all a bit convoluted.

Anyways, you are completely wrong about language that as it changes those changes are not valid which is somehow where you end up contradicting your opening - but how the hell would language work if it it did not change sometimes? I literally posted proof of this in an article about linguistics. There are a million academic sources you can find on this. It's like you guys just want to disagree so bad you are gaslighting about a well established academic fact. It's weird.

Also, btw, if something is slang, it is notated as such in the dictionary by that definition - it literally says 'slang', I think possibly in italics but not sure. These nerdy academics have thought of everything! And the 2. definition of gaslighting is not recognized as slang.

I find language quite interesting. I was an English writing major. In fact I wrote a fun and playful poem about linguistics and language and finding the right words for things, evolution of words.



linguist’s prisons



i sat in a tree of rustic brown.

or was that more like a tobacco beige?

leaves so brilliantly staccato green,

hammered to antelope branches,

which, i should have you know,

antelope is a shade of brown.

staccato green, i just made that up.

plucked it with my pen from cup.



what to do,

what to do,

if one leaf there is more civette,

and his neighbour has went with cress,

(all shades of green; no more, no less)



i dare say this tree has some panache,

to think i will not reach and catch

her devious drops of palette’s verve,

from horse’s blinders i will not swerve.



hushed amber wings squeal, whip, distract,

a Cockatoo? or Cockatiel was that?

frustrated hairs shake on my head,

i dream of noam chomsky’s bed.

i mean truly, what was really said?

when past my ears those feathers spread,

unnoticed by my eyes, possessed,

with categorizing how they were dressed.



a voice cries out, so faint so pure,

in offerings of a poet’s cure,

my malady held still, a dare,

to not pick beauty apart and bare.

for what if those leaves i did digress

left me in end with just a mess.

just shreds of chlorophyll and less,

a stem if lucky, participle of twig,

an adverb of bark, a dangling sprig.



cerebrally reduced forests to splinter,

formerly of spring’s grin and glimmer,

gone to persephone’s industrial winter,

but at least my words are thin and trimmer.

 

[cytg111]

Someone should really consider an addendum or two to that chapter about supply demand and market equilibrium, cause I swear to god (and this is the same across all sectors, finance, whatever) when the market demands price cuts cause supply tips the other way back again these corporations may not literally be shaking hands and making verbal deals, cartels, to keep prices high and profit flowing but they ARE communicating by not blinking. These bitches *are* communicating to collude and manipulate the market. They just found a way to do it you cant track.
I guess we really should hold the media responsible for this bullshit.

And here it fucking is

 

[nakedfrog]

And here it fucking is

Got a non-YouTube source?

 

[cytg111]

....

Just wondering. How often do you get into an argument with your therapist? You know when he is wrong about something? And how often does he come around?

Just curious .

 

[cytg111]

Got a non-YouTube source?

Hmmm ...

This maybe

'People Need to Go to Jail for This Sh*t': Video Shows How US Meat Industry Colludes to Boost Prices | Common Dreams

"This is probably one of the top five food scandals of the 21st Century," a former grocery industry executive told More Perfect Union.

www.commondreams.org

 

[MrSquished]

Just wondering. How often do you get into an argument with your therapist? You know when he is wrong about something? And how often does he come around?

Just curious .

We don't argue at all really, can't remember a single one. In three dimensional land I have made a lot of changes in my life, especially with my current therapist of the last two years - she is also trained in DBT as well as CBT.

Also, she doesn't try to gaslight me about things though. That helps a ton. Sure sometimes I've been rough around the edges here and there, sometimes unnecessarily or in poor form - but it doesn't make me de facto wrong, and especially not about all the shitting I took for trying to explain the reality of the Biden candidacy to a certain group, while they continued to create a totally false narrative, gaslight and lie about insane things. I mean the proof is in the pudding now, and their quotes are here for posterity. And certainly not now when they are literally arguing against the established rules of language by academia well above any of our expertise, which I have posted repeatedly. These people are a bit off.

But it's easy to just be like - well that guy has been mean, so he must be wrong, and who wants to defend him anyway.

 

[NWRMidnight]

First you completely agree that words can change/evolve over time to take on additional meanings and that dictionaries get updated because of this - literally one of my main points.

But by the end you make some other statement that these updates are not right, slang this, or something. Nothing that really makes sense besides, well, I have to be wrong about this so let's just shit on academia. So it's all a bit convoluted.

Anyways, you are completely wrong about language that as it changes those changes are not valid which is somehow where you end up contradicting your opening - but how the hell would language work if it it did not change sometimes? I literally posted proof of this in an article about linguistics. There are a million academic sources you can find on this. It's like you guys just want to disagree so bad you are gaslighting about a well established academic fact. It's weird.

Also, btw, if something is slang, it is notated as such in the dictionary by that definition - it literally says 'slang', I think possibly in italics but not sure. These nerdy academics have thought of everything! And the 2. definition of gaslighting is not recognized as slang.

I find language quite interesting. I was an English writing major. In fact I wrote a fun and playful poem about linguistics and language and finding the right words for things, evolution of words.



linguist’s prisons



i sat in a tree of rustic brown.

or was that more like a tobacco beige?

leaves so brilliantly staccato green,

hammered to antelope branches,

which, i should have you know,

antelope is a shade of brown.

staccato green, i just made that up.

plucked it with my pen from cup.



what to do,

what to do,

if one leaf there is more civette,

and his neighbour has went with cress,

(all shades of green; no more, no less)



i dare say this tree has some panache,

to think i will not reach and catch

her devious drops of palette’s verve,

from horse’s blinders i will not swerve.



hushed amber wings squeal, whip, distract,

a Cockatoo? or Cockatiel was that?

frustrated hairs shake on my head,

i dream of noam chomsky’s bed.

i mean truly, what was really said?

when past my ears those feathers spread,

unnoticed by my eyes, possessed,

with categorizing how they were dressed.



a voice cries out, so faint so pure,

in offerings of a poet’s cure,

my malady held still, a dare,

to not pick beauty apart and bare.

for what if those leaves i did digress

left me in end with just a mess.

just shreds of chlorophyll and less,

a stem if lucky, participle of twig,

an adverb of bark, a dangling sprig.



cerebrally reduced forests to splinter,

formerly of spring’s grin and glimmer,

gone to persephone’s industrial winter,

but at least my words are thin and trimmer.

Obvoiusly the comprhension of what I said is way over your head, which shows why you started arguing with @{DHT]Osiris about the definition of Gaslighting in the first place. Hell, you own rebutal to his definition, proves he was correct, giving you the true original intended meaning of the word. But you even missed that. You somehow believe that new added definitions, which the majority of the time are derived for slang usage of society, and then added to a dictionary, somehow makes him wrong and not you.. I will say it again, becausae yoiu some how missed it.. Just because the added definitions are added to a dictionary, because of society redefining it, again usually derived from slang usage, doens't make it a correct and accurate definition of the word. The orginal true original meaning will always be the correct definition and trumps all added definitions. So no, I am not agreeing with you one bit, I was telling you in a respectful way, you are fucking wrong!

I will give you another great example since the one in my orginal post was also over your head, the word Gotten.. it is considfered poor grammer, slang usage of get, aka not a word. it never use to be in the dictionary for that reason.. guess what, it's in dictionaries now. Does that change the fact that it's poor grammer, slang usage, and was never intended to be a real word? Fuck no!

So you can stop with your bullshit.. you where wrong about gaslighting, and you are wrong now. Is that clear enought for you?

 

[hal2kilo]

Any connection between the gaslight and dog whistle?

No.

 

[manly]

For the record, it wasn't just Nancy Pelosi. It was more or less a full court press that ultimately helped convince Joe Biden that he was done.

NYT - How Biden’s Senate Allies Helped Push Him From the Race

 

[APU_Fusion]

For the record, it wasn't just Nancy Pelosi. It was more or less a full court press that ultimately helped convince Joe Biden that he was done.

NYT - How Biden’s Senate Allies Helped Push Him From the Race

I have to say it feels like President Biden has disappeared from national consciousness instantly. Amazing to watch and I think the 500 million Harris raised in a month is proof he made right call. Trump’s ongoing meltdown is another sign