ugh don’t even bother

i didn’t say your original definition was bad. but maybe you should read it more carefully.

it’s only gaslighting if it’s

1. false
2. deliberate
3. ongoing

the alleged gaslighting was over a handful of days of a con, which the accuser himself says he remembers poorly, and which are corroborated by other people who were there.

merely saying “you have a bad memory” is not gaslighting. especially if it’s true.

Quit trying to discredit their entire post with “I, an unmentioned party who is in a positive relationship with the accused, believe you are not capable of properly recounting events you actually experienced, even when evidence is provided showing that you do in fact remember these events.” You question his ability to perceive events and recall them accurately, as opposed to just saying “I don’t believe you.” You are specifically doubting their reality and trying to poke holes in it to make it seem as though their experiences are unreal.

an unmentioned party? are you sure you read the post?

the whole point is that i don’t even need to question his ability to recall events accurately, because he himself questions it.

In context the line seems to be used to explain away why PK may have been using abuse tactics. It looks and feels like an excuse for PK’s abusive actions. There was no other reason to state this.

he condemns mel for disregarding his prior abuse, in an extremely long post that fails to mention mel’s prior abuse. i found it curious.

Yes, mental health issues have negative impacts on people, which he openly admitted to. You don’t use that to discredit someone’s recounts of abuse. You don’t assume someone needs/is not getting help for problems that still actively affect them, because even with help it takes literal years to overcome and learn to cope properly with damaging things [like PTSD and Anxiety disorders, for example].

this is an awkward and delicate case, but i humbly propose that perhaps paranoia is a mental health issue that should encourage a reader to reserve judgment about tales of tragedy. just a smidgen.

someone with a problem that is still an active detriment would clearly benefit from further help with it? at least by my understanding of what “problem” and “help” mean.

You completely dismiss that PK, someone who is trusted, in a position of closeness and even power over this person, made him feel unsafe and dismissed his personal issues, despite having the context to understand and respect/help him with said issues. PK was not interested in making the environment more comfortable or consoling someone who is said to be close to them. They dismissed his personal needs and you don’t seem to particularly care. That is pretty ableist, imo, as someone who has mental health issues.

and you completely dismiss that mel was also deeply upset by what happened during the con, and felt she did her best to compensate. you paint her as this great and powerful figure who failed to use her power to help those in need, but she’s just a squishy human like the rest of us. the accuser has some deep issues, and mel was unable to foresee just how much impact they would have or how much in over her head she would be.

it was a shame, that much is true. but misunderstandings and personal incompatibilities are not abuse. and a genuine inability to deal with someone else’s problems is not ableism.

to be fair, you’re right, I was being a bit of a cherry picker myself in my initial post. I was tired and uninterested in copying/pasting your entire post, as it was lengthy. Sorry about that.

in that case perhaps you can forgive me for not giving a point-by-point rebuttal to 86 pages

What bothers me most about both your response to the original post and your response to me is a focus on how this has negatively impacted mel/PK and discrediting the source of this information, rather than bringing forth concrete evidence discounting both the suggested sexual harassment/abuse brought up in the post and on the tumblog the post is located on that marl allegedly participated in as well as PK’s blatant dismissal of a neurodivergent person’s comfort and safety, as well as neglective in the aide and comfort of a person who is said to be underage (16) and therefore in their and naki’s care at the time. At the very least if these allegations are all true, this suggests both Marl and PK participated in the abuse of multiple people, sexually and through neglect, respectively.

of course i am interested in how this negatively impacted mel; she is my partner and it continues to negatively impact her right now. having witnessed much of the aftermath unfold, i am absolutely confident that the vast majority of the allegations are exaggerated to ridiculous proportions, outright false, or just plain irrelevant.

the “sexual harassment” allegation is actually the most outlandish of all, for reasons that are not my place to say, and that i deeply hope no one brings up.

why are the comfort of the accuser and his friend paramount? why is it not nearly so severe when mel and marl are made uncomfortable? since when is allowing discomfort such an egregious sin in the first place?

you seem to be gradually eliminating the accuser’s agency: implying that because he has mental issues, he is incapable of controlling his own environment in any way. i have no other explanation for why you are putting the burden of responsibility on other people. that is ableist.

and by the way, none of them were taking care of a 16-year-old. the only 16yo mentioned was some kid who deliberately jumped into a pool right in front of naki while she was on her phone, which justifiably pissed naki off — details which did not make it into the accuser’s retelling.

and just to drive this point home: you are misremembering things from a post you just read yesterday, and yet you have complete faith in a detailed recounting of events from last summer, when in the very same post the author repeatedly mentions he has problems with paranoia and cannot remember many of the details of the very event he’s talking about.

i fucking hate being put in the awkward position of questioning the memory of an alleged abuse survivor. it is a terrible and common kneejerk reaction and i hate to think i am setting any kind of precedent. but as luck would have it, in this very rare case, to the best of my judgment and using all information at my disposal, his memory is faulty, and we have known as much for over a year. this is like some cosmic joke. what would you have me do? make up some other reason that sounds good?