Estamos cansados—tired of the gaslighting. But silence lets misinformation win. This breakdown helps you recognize manipulation tactics corrupting our industry. Naming them is professional accountability, not personal attack.
Tactic: Scapegoating Tools
“Ideally, standard naming should make communication simpler. But I get how challenging it is to maintain clarity while evolving the standards themselves. What I really take issue with is when manufacturers invent their own vague or misleading terminology, it only adds to the confusion.” – Daniel Bañuelos Cuéllar
Why this is gaslighting:
1. The “Evolving Standards” Deception
Bañuelos frames standards as fluid—yet every specification (Rec.2020, P3, sRGB) he misrepresents has been set in stone for over a decade per SMPTE/ITU.
2. The “Manufacturers Are To Blame” Smokescreen:
His falsehoods (e.g., “Rec.2020 = BT.1886 + gamut”) aren’t just inaccurate; they’re absurdities, equivalent to calling a bicycle “a toaster on wheels.”
The Damage
- Global Workflows Fracture: LATAM artists taught these myths deliver broken HDR masters.
- Knowledge Sabotage: Students learn folklore, not standards. This is exacerbated when myths are taught by certified Master Trainers (DaVinci Resolve), ICA/LinkedIn Instructors, and supervisors.
- Accountability Evasion: Benefitting from chaos he brands “manufacturer-induced.”
Tactic: Doubling Down on Deflection
“Conversations are coopted by manufacturers… disguised as professional opinions.” – Daniel Bañuelos Cuéllar
Rebuttal:
Zero evidence supports this conspiracy theory.
Tactic: False Equivalence + Othering (The “Outsider” Smear)
“…The techniques used are the same as those from recent examples we’ve seen from Cambridge Analytica. The weirdest thing is to see someone from outside the industry arguing with an established professional. Sometimes, even with people involved in the technology development. The arguments often involve simplification of terminology and fallacies, presented as a conversation, when the real objective is to create confusion and destabilise the interlocutor.” – Cassiano Zoboli
Rebuttal:
Comparing corrections to psychological warfare isn’t just farfetched – it’s a dangerous and unhinged false equivalence. Labeling critics “outsiders” implies truth is tribal, not evidence-based.
Tactic: Weaponized ‘Niceness’
“Using education to divide… is never the way.” – Diego Yhamá
Rebuttal:
Framing corrections as “divisive” demands silence to preserve false harmony – LATAM artists need the same accurate terms as L.A. colorists.
Tactic: False Framing
“The most important quality of a teacher is to know how to transmit technical knowledge in simple and accurate language. Technicalities used disproportionately become an arrogant act. Work quality speaks more.” – Nicolas Reyes Hernández
Rebuttal:
Conflating accuracy with “arrogance” is intellectual surrender. Clear terms aren’t vanity – they’re safeguards against workflow disasters.
Tactic: Hypocritical Exceptionalism
“I correct students, not peers—correcting colleagues builds walls.” – Daniel Bañuelos Cuéllar
This double standard shields his errors. If educators can’t model accepting peer correction, they teach ego—not growth.
The Pattern
Gaslighting distorts reality to evade accountability. These tactics:
- Scapegoat tools/manufacturers
- Smear critics as “outsiders” + false equivalence
- Demand “niceness” over accuracy
- Frame accountability as arrogance
… share one goal: Shield misinformation from correction.
The Daejeon Chronicles 
Leave a Reply