Sociopath Community

 sociopaths are not the only ones to employ the technique of gaslighting. narcs like you do it too, but probably convince yourself you are beyond all this silliness ;)

Hell they're better at it, because they can find the means far more easily to justify their own behavior.

by Turncoat

It makes them feel powerful, validated, and gets them what they want. That is a purpose being served. It's not like all behavior needs to befit a Greater Good. It sucks for the one being targetted (believe me), but with how you're framing your point, you almost imply there is a uniform purpose that is within everyone, that by gaslighting they end up ignoring.

 I guess I really am a Kantian as far as ethics go:  I do believe in a universalism when it comes to morality, rights, and duties.  This is not to say that I and those like me are in any way sentimental,  sniveling,  saccharine, clueless prudes, or lovers of mush-culture.  We are often more aloof,  more disdainful,  more independent in our likes and dislikes,  than the "cool" sociopaths.

 I think this author has turned me against sociopaths once and for all.  I do believe this sort of predatory gaslighting is akin to a cancer:  If a cancer is growing within a healthy body,  a man of science has no trouble at all in distinguishing what should be cut out,  and that which should remain.  To make no distinctions at all is not a bold nihilism (which Nietzsche insisted was only a soil out of which new values and ethics must grow):  It is death. And not in a cool,  Dracula way, either.

Which one are you against then, the gaslighter, or the victim of it? Or both?

You also bring up the author a lot. How many people here do you think actually read her book?

 Turncoat, please raise your awareness.

I'm trying to, it's why I am asking questions. Smkov claims Kantian views, then says:

"This is not to say that I and those like me are in any way sentimental, sniveling, saccharine, clueless prudes, or lovers of mush-culture.  We are often more aloof,  more disdainful,  more independent in our likes and dislikes,  than the "cool" sociopaths."

With this, there are differences between Smkov's views and possible Kantian ones. Not sentimental, not saccharine, and more disdainful. She could argue that the victim is enabling, and as such is unworthy of her consideration.

by Turncoat

Which one are you against then, the gaslighter, or the victim of it? Or both?

You also bring up the author a lot. How many people here do you think actually read her book?

 I see the target (victim) as the host (the strong one)  and the gaslighter (parasite) as the weak one.  The skeleton eats up the flesh around it.

 If none of you has read the book,  that speaks loudly.  Loudly. 

There was a forum on this site before there was a book. Some lost interest in M.E. before the book was even out.

I've read it and a few others have, but going here doesn't mean there's much of a connection to M.E.'s media.

 The reason why I said no one was concerned was to illustrate my point. No one is concerned because I'm not concerned.

How do you view yourself in terms of your own ego?

by Turncoat

There was a forum on this site before there was a book. Some lost interest in M.E. before the book was even out.

I've read it and a few others have, but going here doesn't mean there's much of a connection to M.E.'s media.

 OK, gotcha.  That is where we were sticking:  I thought this was a forum for people who had read MET's book and wanted to discuss it's themes.  No wonder I was lost.  And no wonder all that is said here seems to run counter to ME's own thesis.  Usually,  an author's forum is just that.  Apparently,  she sent out a siren call to those who she assumed (?)  were kin to her.  Very odd.