For anybody interested in this stuff (protests, politics, etc), there's a simple explanation. That explanation is "personal," in terms of interpretation.
The question to chew on is simple enough:
What's the difference between "disinformation," and "gaslighting?" When and how should each be used -- if necessary?
So, say, as an example: You apply the above question to being in a leadership role (of any country, large or small, meek or powerful, doesn't matter). Obviously there are things you can say, and things you can't say, at any given time. (For example, if an investigation is ongoing, you can't say anything, but questions might still be asked -- in which case, what do you say? Sometimes it is not as simple as: "The investigation is ongoing, no comment." Part of the reason for this is that if you say nothing, people get suspicious. If you say something, those on either side of whatever interpretation then become suspicious. Without transparency, which isn't always possible if you want to get to the truth of things without disclosing too much information so as to allow people to corrupt an investigative process, ... without transparency, things become mucked-up by "conspiracy" theorists.)
The biggest problem with this is the belief that most people are intelligent enough to put a stint or shunt in place to stop themselves from running to conclusions on incomplete information, or where they haven't performed this basic exercise. (More clearly stated: Most people are not intelligent enough to grasp the context and concept of the above mentioned exercise in THINKING, and, thus, we end-up in a world of hurt.)
But, more pointedly, this starts somewhere. It can start with an idiot (Trump), or it can start with someone who does things like this just to profit from the chaos (Putin).
How an individual answers the above question, the thoughts and considerations, is only symbolically representative. Trying to explain it to others can fail horribly. And, of course, then there's "mob rule" -- the "mob" is not always right; and, like everyone else seeking to take advantage of chaos, protesters descend into mob rule when people look to take advantage of the disorganized aspects of mobs -- BUT for the fact that when it comes to large-scale mobs and protests, there's already been enough injustice to (seemingly, possibly) justify the fall-out and ramifications of such matters (both legitimate, and illegitimate).
That's how I simplify everything into one big ball of "WTF!"
Oh, and then I start laughing. (Good luck with that. Pffft!)
The question to chew on is simple enough:
What's the difference between "disinformation," and "gaslighting?" When and how should each be used -- if necessary?
So, say, as an example: You apply the above question to being in a leadership role (of any country, large or small, meek or powerful, doesn't matter). Obviously there are things you can say, and things you can't say, at any given time. (For example, if an investigation is ongoing, you can't say anything, but questions might still be asked -- in which case, what do you say? Sometimes it is not as simple as: "The investigation is ongoing, no comment." Part of the reason for this is that if you say nothing, people get suspicious. If you say something, those on either side of whatever interpretation then become suspicious. Without transparency, which isn't always possible if you want to get to the truth of things without disclosing too much information so as to allow people to corrupt an investigative process, ... without transparency, things become mucked-up by "conspiracy" theorists.)
The biggest problem with this is the belief that most people are intelligent enough to put a stint or shunt in place to stop themselves from running to conclusions on incomplete information, or where they haven't performed this basic exercise. (More clearly stated: Most people are not intelligent enough to grasp the context and concept of the above mentioned exercise in THINKING, and, thus, we end-up in a world of hurt.)
But, more pointedly, this starts somewhere. It can start with an idiot (Trump), or it can start with someone who does things like this just to profit from the chaos (Putin).
How an individual answers the above question, the thoughts and considerations, is only symbolically representative. Trying to explain it to others can fail horribly. And, of course, then there's "mob rule" -- the "mob" is not always right; and, like everyone else seeking to take advantage of chaos, protesters descend into mob rule when people look to take advantage of the disorganized aspects of mobs -- BUT for the fact that when it comes to large-scale mobs and protests, there's already been enough injustice to (seemingly, possibly) justify the fall-out and ramifications of such matters (both legitimate, and illegitimate).
That's how I simplify everything into one big ball of "WTF!"
Oh, and then I start laughing. (Good luck with that. Pffft!)