The F Word

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 20806
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The F Word

Post by JasonL » 23 Aug 2017, 13:40

I'm probably referring to the category of tubers people would categorize as influencers. Is it just tubers with north of 500k or a million followers?

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: The F Word

Post by Hugh Akston » 23 Aug 2017, 13:41

This is a good place to start figuring it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence ... nfluencers
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7381
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The F Word

Post by nicole » 23 Aug 2017, 14:15

JasonL wrote:
23 Aug 2017, 12:53
I'm get off my lawn don't get it about influencers and you tubers. I don't get what they are conveying that gets them all those eyeballs. This spans categories of influencers. They are non expert talkers with low production values who often express inane things. My lawn, guys.
Yeah, well, you know my opinion of internet video.

They are "authentic" so people like them.

100% do not relate.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7381
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The F Word

Post by nicole » 23 Aug 2017, 14:16

JasonL wrote:
23 Aug 2017, 13:40
I'm probably referring to the category of tubers people would categorize as influencers. Is it just tubers with north of 500k or a million followers?
No, "micro-influencers" are extremely a thing.

It's basically anyone who has a following and talks about products or like, "lifestyle" shit (e.g., the vanlife people). Including people who don't get paid.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7381
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The F Word

Post by nicole » 23 Aug 2017, 14:21

Dangerman wrote:
23 Aug 2017, 13:05
I think my take away is that (the article is saying) that women can more easily move from a connection based on subject interest, to a personal connection that can later be independent of the initial arena.

Like, I watch Hickok45 because of his mannerisms, and his knowledge and presentation style, but I'm (as a man, per this theory) less likely to develop personal feelings about Hickok45 The Human, and be less likely to be interested in videos of him talking about his dogs, or what he cooks.

Does that jive with anyone else's reading, or experience?
Well, I only excerpted part of the article, so I think the point of the article as a whole was about analyzing self-care marketing. I think the excerpted part is specifically suggesting that self-care is a marketable product to women because of the idealization of the self-knowing woman, and that beauty vloggers have been able to transition into it thanks to bedroom culture.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 14487
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The F Word

Post by lunchstealer » 27 Aug 2017, 21:09

Sandy wrote:
21 Aug 2017, 02:10
Also using his feminism to gaslight his wife is pretty anti feminist.
So is gaslight literally any self-serving lie? I still don't really get gaslight as it is used today. I get the idea in the film, basically intentional psychological torture by making the partner question reality, but just making up excuses to cover for your own misconduct is gaslighting in the modern parlance?
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"Repeated headdesk is dangerous yo." - JasonL

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 8757
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: The F Word

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 27 Aug 2017, 21:32

lunchstealer wrote:
27 Aug 2017, 21:09
Sandy wrote:
21 Aug 2017, 02:10
Also using his feminism to gaslight his wife is pretty anti feminist.
So is gaslight literally any self-serving lie? I still don't really get gaslight as it is used today. I get the idea in the film, basically intentional psychological torture by making the partner question reality, but just making up excuses to cover for your own misconduct is gaslighting in the modern parlance?
Both gaslighting and mansplaining have lost most of their original meaning.
Saudi Arabia is doing something potentially harmful to America? Oh, hell. Does that mean we're going to invade Iraq again? - Jennifer

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 14487
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The F Word

Post by lunchstealer » 27 Aug 2017, 21:51

So, anything that is not 100% incontrovertibly true is gaslighting if it in any way causes a woman distress (since I assume like racism it's a power-dominance defined thing, and the power/dominance isn't defined within the relationship based on the individuals, but within society as a whole based on identity?

Also incontrovertible truth is patriarchical so everything is gaslighting?
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"Repeated headdesk is dangerous yo." - JasonL

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9325
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: The F Word

Post by Sandy » 27 Aug 2017, 21:57

lunchstealer wrote:
27 Aug 2017, 21:09
Sandy wrote:
21 Aug 2017, 02:10
Also using his feminism to gaslight his wife is pretty anti feminist.
So is gaslight literally any self-serving lie? I still don't really get gaslight as it is used today. I get the idea in the film, basically intentional psychological torture by making the partner question reality, but just making up excuses to cover for your own misconduct is gaslighting in the modern parlance?
I think denying reality to make the partner question their own judgement is now gas lighting. Then again, it's used to cover any alternate interpretation given to a woman now, so yeah, it's been stretched. Language evolves.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 10828
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The F Word

Post by Eric the .5b » 27 Aug 2017, 22:03

lunchstealer wrote:
27 Aug 2017, 21:51
So, anything that is not 100% incontrovertibly true is gaslighting if it in any way causes a woman distress (since I assume like racism it's a power-dominance defined thing, and the power/dominance isn't defined within the relationship based on the individuals, but within society as a whole based on identity?

Also incontrovertible truth is patriarchical so everything is gaslighting?
I'm not actually seeing a lot of SJW-types buying into the "gaslighting" angle. Most I've seen are going, "Wait, that's not what that means." They're tending to harp more on the allegation he was banging actresses on his show.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6729
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: The F Word

Post by fyodor » 28 Aug 2017, 00:03

Sandy wrote:
27 Aug 2017, 21:57
lunchstealer wrote:
27 Aug 2017, 21:09
Sandy wrote:
21 Aug 2017, 02:10
Also using his feminism to gaslight his wife is pretty anti feminist.
So is gaslight literally any self-serving lie? I still don't really get gaslight as it is used today. I get the idea in the film, basically intentional psychological torture by making the partner question reality, but just making up excuses to cover for your own misconduct is gaslighting in the modern parlance?
I think denying reality to make the partner question their own judgement is now gas lighting. Then again, it's used to cover any alternate interpretation given to a woman now, so yeah, it's been stretched. Language evolves.
True, language evolves. But if you're using a "new" meaning to convey an old connotation, you're stealing a base. IOW, if you're using gaslighting to refer to any old ass-covering lying (which is all I can see here), it seems your only reason to call it that is to associate it with something more sinister than it is. Yeah, ass-covering lying is, y'know, bad, but the connotation of gaslighting goes a fair ways beyond that.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9325
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: The F Word

Post by Sandy » 28 Aug 2017, 01:49

fyodor wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 00:03
Sandy wrote:
27 Aug 2017, 21:57
lunchstealer wrote:
27 Aug 2017, 21:09
Sandy wrote:
21 Aug 2017, 02:10
Also using his feminism to gaslight his wife is pretty anti feminist.
So is gaslight literally any self-serving lie? I still don't really get gaslight as it is used today. I get the idea in the film, basically intentional psychological torture by making the partner question reality, but just making up excuses to cover for your own misconduct is gaslighting in the modern parlance?
I think denying reality to make the partner question their own judgement is now gas lighting. Then again, it's used to cover any alternate interpretation given to a woman now, so yeah, it's been stretched. Language evolves.
True, language evolves. But if you're using a "new" meaning to convey an old connotation, you're stealing a base. IOW, if you're using gaslighting to refer to any old ass-covering lying (which is all I can see here), it seems your only reason to call it that is to associate it with something more sinister than it is. Yeah, ass-covering lying is, y'know, bad, but the connotation of gaslighting goes a fair ways beyond that.
It's different from ass-covering, in the sense that it is a constant effort to reframe behavior in a harmless way rather than straight up lying about it. But if you have a problem with that use of "gas lighting," you need to go talk to Twitter feminists, not me.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6729
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: The F Word

Post by fyodor » 28 Aug 2017, 02:19

Sandy wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 01:49
fyodor wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 00:03
Sandy wrote:
27 Aug 2017, 21:57
lunchstealer wrote:
27 Aug 2017, 21:09
Sandy wrote:
21 Aug 2017, 02:10
Also using his feminism to gaslight his wife is pretty anti feminist.
So is gaslight literally any self-serving lie? I still don't really get gaslight as it is used today. I get the idea in the film, basically intentional psychological torture by making the partner question reality, but just making up excuses to cover for your own misconduct is gaslighting in the modern parlance?
I think denying reality to make the partner question their own judgement is now gas lighting. Then again, it's used to cover any alternate interpretation given to a woman now, so yeah, it's been stretched. Language evolves.
True, language evolves. But if you're using a "new" meaning to convey an old connotation, you're stealing a base. IOW, if you're using gaslighting to refer to any old ass-covering lying (which is all I can see here), it seems your only reason to call it that is to associate it with something more sinister than it is. Yeah, ass-covering lying is, y'know, bad, but the connotation of gaslighting goes a fair ways beyond that.
It's different from ass-covering, in the sense that it is a constant effort to reframe behavior in a harmless way rather than straight up lying about it.
Is that based on the linked thingy or something else? All I saw from the linked piece was he kept saying he loved her while he was shtupping actresses and was lying about it for 15 years and then claimed the women were throwing themselves at him. *shrug*
But if you have a problem with that use of "gas lighting," you need to go talk to Twitter feminists, not me.
Dude, you're the one who used it. I don't give a shit who else has used it. My point is that when you (or anyone) use a term to mean something different from what it used to mean, well that's okay unless it's also intended to carry the same moral weight it gained when it was used for its previous meaning. Racism is used that way a lot too. Ayn Randian accused Jennifer and myself of racism cause we thought it would be nice to have a black president. See, if that's "racism", then I'd have to conclude that racism just isn't always such a terrible thing anymore, not like when it was used only to mean thinking some people weren't fully human and such.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 20802
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The F Word

Post by Mo » 28 Aug 2017, 09:18

Sandy wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 01:49
It's different from ass-covering, in the sense that it is a constant effort to reframe behavior in a harmless way rather than straight up lying about it. But if you have a problem with that use of "gas lighting," you need to go talk to Twitter feminists, not me.
Isn't that just lying? Like the whole difficulty of lying in general is that you end up having to tell a dozen more lies as supporting evidence.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9325
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: The F Word

Post by Sandy » 28 Aug 2017, 09:34

Mo wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 09:18
Sandy wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 01:49
It's different from ass-covering, in the sense that it is a constant effort to reframe behavior in a harmless way rather than straight up lying about it. But if you have a problem with that use of "gas lighting," you need to go talk to Twitter feminists, not me.
Isn't that just lying? Like the whole difficulty of lying in general is that you end up having to tell a dozen more lies as supporting evidence.
No, it's different from just saying "I didn't do that" or "I was working late." In this case, he was specifically taking the true information about how he was surrounding himself with these women and using feminism as the excuse for why he should do it, and how she was misperceiving it because she wasn't feminist enough. It's more like the abusive form in that it basically reverses guilt and tries to make her feel like she's not perceiving reality because something is wrong with her, and it's consistent over time rather than a different excuse for each individual event. It's that reversal that separates it from mere denial or trying to explain things away as "having to work late."
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21507
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: The F Word

Post by Warren » 28 Aug 2017, 10:10

Ass covering is lying? Since when? Ass covering has always been truthful documentation as far as I know.
Women with strollers are legitimately the worst people, and should, like motorcyclists, not be considered people for liability and criminal purposes. - lunchstealer

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7381
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The F Word

Post by nicole » 28 Aug 2017, 10:20

Sandy wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 09:34
Mo wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 09:18
Sandy wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 01:49
It's different from ass-covering, in the sense that it is a constant effort to reframe behavior in a harmless way rather than straight up lying about it. But if you have a problem with that use of "gas lighting," you need to go talk to Twitter feminists, not me.
Isn't that just lying? Like the whole difficulty of lying in general is that you end up having to tell a dozen more lies as supporting evidence.
No, it's different from just saying "I didn't do that" or "I was working late." In this case, he was specifically taking the true information about how he was surrounding himself with these women and using feminism as the excuse for why he should do it, and how she was misperceiving it because she wasn't feminist enough. It's more like the abusive form in that it basically reverses guilt and tries to make her feel like she's not perceiving reality because something is wrong with her, and it's consistent over time rather than a different excuse for each individual event. It's that reversal that separates it from mere denial or trying to explain things away as "having to work late."
My personal bar for "gaslighting" is denial of "objective" reality by the gaslighter, e.g., saying, "No, the lamps aren't flickering" when they are. Trying to persuade someone that "actually, me spending time with other hot women is fine because it's feminist" seems much more like trying to persuade someone that "actually, forcing you to babysit is fine because we're a family and we love each other." I.e., persuasion/manipulation rather than trying to get someone to question their sensory perception.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 20806
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The F Word

Post by JasonL » 28 Aug 2017, 10:33

Agree, it has to be denial of some kind of empirically analyzable fact about the world. I hate this thing where we act like your feelings about your experience of a thing are on similar epistemological footing with "the light is on". That way lies madness and people taking their feelings too seriously.

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9325
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: The F Word

Post by Sandy » 28 Aug 2017, 11:19

JasonL wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 10:33
Agree, it has to be denial of some kind of empirically analyzable fact about the world. I hate this thing where we act like your feelings about your experience of a thing are on similar epistemological footing with "the light is on". That way lies madness and people taking their feelings too seriously.
Hello, I'd like to welcome you to modern social justice.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 20802
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The F Word

Post by Mo » 28 Aug 2017, 11:26

Sandy wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 11:19
JasonL wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 10:33
Agree, it has to be denial of some kind of empirically analyzable fact about the world. I hate this thing where we act like your feelings about your experience of a thing are on similar epistemological footing with "the light is on". That way lies madness and people taking their feelings too seriously.
Hello, I'd like to welcome you to modern social justice.
When you adopt their terminology and usage, you validate and propagate it
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6729
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: The F Word

Post by fyodor » 28 Aug 2017, 13:15

Sandy wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 09:34
Mo wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 09:18
Sandy wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 01:49
It's different from ass-covering, in the sense that it is a constant effort to reframe behavior in a harmless way rather than straight up lying about it. But if you have a problem with that use of "gas lighting," you need to go talk to Twitter feminists, not me.
Isn't that just lying? Like the whole difficulty of lying in general is that you end up having to tell a dozen more lies as supporting evidence.
No, it's different from just saying "I didn't do that" or "I was working late." In this case, he was specifically taking the true information about how he was surrounding himself with these women and using feminism as the excuse for why he should do it, and how she was misperceiving it because she wasn't feminist enough.
Not that I really care about the details of this shlameil's behavior, but can you cite where you get this from, just out of curiosity?
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6729
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: The F Word

Post by fyodor » 28 Aug 2017, 13:24

Mo wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 11:26
Sandy wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 11:19
JasonL wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 10:33
Agree, it has to be denial of some kind of empirically analyzable fact about the world. I hate this thing where we act like your feelings about your experience of a thing are on similar epistemological footing with "the light is on". That way lies madness and people taking their feelings too seriously.
Hello, I'd like to welcome you to modern social justice.
When you adopt their terminology and usage, you validate and propagate it
Thank you.

I mean, if Sandy's saying this is what somebody else is saying, that's one thing, but he seems to be using this terminology (in the way that he is) for his own expression on the matter and then blaming feminists for his doing so? WTF, dude....
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6729
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: The F Word

Post by fyodor » 28 Aug 2017, 14:11

Warren wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 10:10
Ass covering is lying? Since when? Ass covering has always been truthful documentation as far as I know.
Okay, maybe this is more about ass saving than covering. It's the basic denial of wrong doing when wrong has been done.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6729
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: The F Word

Post by fyodor » 28 Aug 2017, 14:45

nicole wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 10:20
Sandy wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 09:34
Mo wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 09:18
Sandy wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 01:49
It's different from ass-covering, in the sense that it is a constant effort to reframe behavior in a harmless way rather than straight up lying about it. But if you have a problem with that use of "gas lighting," you need to go talk to Twitter feminists, not me.
Isn't that just lying? Like the whole difficulty of lying in general is that you end up having to tell a dozen more lies as supporting evidence.
No, it's different from just saying "I didn't do that" or "I was working late." In this case, he was specifically taking the true information about how he was surrounding himself with these women and using feminism as the excuse for why he should do it, and how she was misperceiving it because she wasn't feminist enough. It's more like the abusive form in that it basically reverses guilt and tries to make her feel like she's not perceiving reality because something is wrong with her, and it's consistent over time rather than a different excuse for each individual event. It's that reversal that separates it from mere denial or trying to explain things away as "having to work late."
My personal bar for "gaslighting" is denial of "objective" reality by the gaslighter, e.g., saying, "No, the lamps aren't flickering" when they are. Trying to persuade someone that "actually, me spending time with other hot women is fine because it's feminist" seems much more like trying to persuade someone that "actually, forcing you to babysit is fine because we're a family and we love each other." I.e., persuasion/manipulation rather than trying to get someone to question their sensory perception.
I still don't know where she says he did that, but if everyone says she did, l musta missed it.

I'd be willing to go with the GS thing if he was all about citing bogus sources supporting this contention, especially personal word of mouth kinda stuff that she wouldn't be able to verify herself, like everyone knows this is feminist behavior, why don't you know it? Or maybe it's more so if she *can* verify it, like here's an article all about how feminist wives always trust their husbands, what do you mean you don't see that in there?

In league with Hugh's earlier objection, I don't know if just any slimy behavior that has as its victim a woman is ipso facto anti-feminist, but I'm sure some feminist somewhere would argue it is....

(I would think passing up women for promotion or ignoring their opinions would be more my idea of a hypocrite than shtupping and bullshitting to cover it up....)
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 14487
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The F Word

Post by lunchstealer » 28 Aug 2017, 19:43

Yeah, this sounds like he's making excuses. "Uh, you're getting awful flirty with all these hot women you are around, and it's bothering me." "No, baby, I'm just super-feminist and so I like women better than men. You got nothin' to worry about." He's excusing the behavior she's noticing, not denying that it's there.

Maybe that's a misread.

Gaslighting would be more like, "You keep working late every day and you're spending more time with your hot female cast than you are with me!" "No, baby, I was home early three times last week, I even cooked dinner twice, don't you remember?"

One is a counterfactual explanation for observed facts. The other is denying observed facts in such a way that you have to question your memory. This is more the former than the latter.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"Repeated headdesk is dangerous yo." - JasonL

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests