Gaslighting: How Statists Alienate Anarchists
Every anarchist encounters someone at some point who feigns concern over how "radical" and "negative" it is to be a proponent of anarchism. "I'm worried about the things you've been posting lately. You've got me a little concerned that you're taking such a radical stance. It seems like you're coming across as a little extreme."
These encounters can be extremely alienating, but don't despair. The fact that it's happening is an indication that a valid counter argument to your position can not be presented. Don't make the mistake of confusing it for empathy if someone tells you that they're "concerned" or "worried" about you for pointing out that taxation is theft or that government is nothing but a group of men and women forcing people to pay them. It's not empathy; it's projection.
If it was empathy, they'd acknowledge that it's COMPLETELY NATURAL to take issue with people who force complete strangers to pay them. If it was empathy, they wouldn't pretend that you're "being negative" or "extreme" or "unreasonable" for expressing legitimate moral outrage over credible threats of violence against you. If it was empathy, they wouldn't be attempting to get you to question the validity of your perceptions. If it was empathy, they wouldn't ignore you completely when they realize you can't be swayed into accepting theft and murder as morally acceptable.
It's not empathy; it's a projection of their own cognitive dissonance onto you. It's an attempt to drag you back into the stupor of uncritical thought. It's victim blaming. It's shooting the messenger. It's an attempt to cut you off from others. It's an attempt to shut you up. It's an attempt to make you second guess your perceptions. It's an attempt to diminish your credibility. It's an attempt to write you out of existence. When someone expresses concern and outrage over a credible threat of violence, being dismissive of it is the opposite of empathy; it's gaslighting. If being morally outraged by theft and murder makes you "negative", "extreme", "radical" and "unreasonable", what does being tolerant of it make you?
There's a fine line between Stockholm Syndrome and sociopathy.
I'm Jared Howe! I'm a Voluntaryist hip hop artist and professional technical editor/writer with a passion for Austrian economics and universal ethics. You can catch my podcast every Friday on the the Seeds of Liberty Podcast Network.
When an anarchist says murder, theft, and coercion are immoral regardless of who you are, statist often respond by saying that those ideas are utopian, impractical, and extreme. What they really mean to say is that they don't think civilization or any services provided by society could exist without somebody holding a gun to your head, but there is nothing civil about holding a gun to somebody's head to get what you want, in fact it is the opposite of civil.
Which always begs the question: under what circumstances would you hold a gun to my head for not doing what you say? If they're just going to initiate force to get what they want either way, how is it even a debate, right?
The only legitimate circumstance would be to stop another individual from INITIATING force as covered by the non-aggression principle which does not exclude defensive force. This is only a debate because a majority of the population still has a belief in "authority" due to roughly 15,000 hours of indoctrination that they are subjected to.
I think most statists would not hold a gun to your head personally, but they have no problem letting the government do it for them. They seem to believe everything the government does must be somehow morally right. Or they just don't think about it, because "that's the way it's always been".
I love your perspective, brother. Keep up the good work.
Great points. I never understood what "gaslighting" meant until now! :) I've had people do this many times in recent history. Family members and friends.
Very sensible analysis thank you!
Yes! You only ever hear of gaslighting with respect to psychological abuse. But it's also a logical fallacy masquerading as "debate" when people run out of opposing arguments.