Political Mirroring: A Sarcastic Political Philosophy

An Antidote to Today’s Political Troubles in November 2017

“'Cause I am, whatever you say I am

If I wasn't, then why would I say I am?”

By Eminemicus, 2000 c.e.

Philosopher, Poet, Political Historian & Recent Critic of D. Trump Since October 2017

Author’s Preface: The highlights are probably the minimal amount you’ll read.  Reading is hard for many, but if you don’t want to try, don’t bother asking me what I believe. 

Maxim:  “Avoid political discussions when “everyone’s society” cannot receive a guaranteed benefit.”

The Highlights of Abstract Mirroring:

• Political mirroring is the willing acceptance of political beliefs for expediency and only because of ones’ intellectual superiority in the context of a forced political conversation.
• The Mirror Equation: Belief Acceptance + Context = Harmony
•  Belief Acceptance:  Assent means you willingly accept a belief. This philosophy owes nothing to the unreason of the average 2017 political debate.  It applies to all ideologies when needed by its users. Belief acceptance is solely for the purpose of surviving the boorish political conversation. 
• Context: The people, place, and time of a political discussion are critical to mirroring.  If you’re not there and aware, it doesn’t count.  For our purposes, there are no “glorious pasts” or “progressive futures” other than what you should agree to in a conversation in context. 
•  Harmony: The purpose of this philosophy is to make debaters feel better and comforted that their flawed arguments are correct.  Harmony exists when committed debaters believe they are right. 
• This is a method more than an ideology as available facts and logical arguments mostly are not available when added to the simplistic abstractions offered today. 
• Mirroring is the most logical, moral, and rational way to approach the irrational context of current political debate.

Table of Contents:

Volume I: Part I

I.                    Introduction of Mirror Philosophy

II.                 What is Mirror Philosophy? 

III.               When does it apply?

IV.              Format Matters: Never Tie Yourself to Illogical Argument in a Permanent Format

Part II: The First Dilemmas

V.                The Flaws of Accepting an Historical Context:  Accepting One and Only One Idea from this Genius Dead White Person

VI.             The Slavery Non-Dilemma:  Freedom of speech and movement are essential to Assent

VII.         Mirroring Agents: Unacceptable Mirrors and the Societal Context Escape Hatch

VIII.        The Dictator’s Suicide Order

IX.            Conflicting Beliefs, Styles, and "Clash of the Titans Debates

X.            The Progressive Future and Microfaults:  Confessing Petty Problems is Like Therapy

 Part III: The Ethics of Mirroring

XI.             Mirroring and the Preservation of Reason:  A short commentary on GDWM Socrates  

XII.           Microethics:  Mirroring is The Most Ethical System for November 2017:  Maximizing the Good AND the Categorical Imperative principles

XIII.     An Early Conclusion to Volume I:  Altruism not Hedonism 

XIV. Glossary of Terms

Volume I: Part I

I.                    Introduction of Mirror Philosophy

A political philosophy is just a way of explaining the distribution of power.  People often ask of my political beliefs because they want to know how to approach opposing me.  I fretted that I couldn’t meet their expectations.  I also did not want to be considered ignorant because I refused to answer their leading questions.

 My search for a remedy to their problems was exhausting.  How should I communicate the fact that I consume innumerable pages of political news and history each day, yet at the same time resist the urge to crush the simplistic abstractions and numerous fallacies used in most debates?  In my deep and tumultuous struggle to conform to the emotional and argumentative desires of my fellow humans, I arrived at a method to maintain both my political intelligence and their emotional contented’ness. 

My realization was that it wasn’t about me, it was about them.  I was anomie for a short time this month because of their unhappiness.  Why despair?  Well, it was about their ideology; it was about the feedback loop they expected when we conversed about things that were important to them and that made them emotional.  It was about their perception of a world of supportive friends and evil outsiders who disagreed.  Their struggle has been to figure me out all along and how I fit into their bipolar world.  I am a Liberal or a Conservative?  Since it’s about you, yes I am with you.  

II.                 What is mirror philosophy?

“Yes, yes, yes, yes”

Jim Carrey in “Yesman”

Belief Acceptance + Context = Harmony

My current political philosophy is mirroring.  It is straightforward and simple in its explanation, but complicated in its implications.  Mirror philosophy is by definition the adaptation of the political, social, and economic beliefs of the most forceful person or persons you are conversing with in the moments of the conversation only.  It is the willing acceptance of political beliefs for expediency and only because of ones’ intellectual superiority in the context of a forced political conversation.

To simplify, it is belief acceptance plus context equals harmony.  My superior skills dictate that I mirror what you want politically in a conversation that I willingly accept.  I believe what you think you would want me to believe so that you know I would have no argument against what you know you believe with 100% certainty.  Then you are happy and I am happy because I am not being opposed.  I retain my independent thought and ability to act thereby retaining my significantly larger body of knowledge without the corruption of your ignorant arguments.  Thus, I retain my superior power. 

I write this philosophical tract not to simplify complex political discussions in ways that most people do when they have them.  Instead, mirroring is actually an incredibly complex antiseptic for the flawed debates of this decade.  Instead of being equivocal, reductionist, immoral, delusional, or enabling, mirroring is actually the most moral, ethical, and independent way of approaching politics in November of 2017.  Would I support Trump and the Republicans now or Clinton or whoever else opposes him?  Only you will care when you make forceful statements and ad hominems that I’ll gladly mirror. 

III.               When Does Mirrorism apply?

Mirrorism applies only with intentionality and rationality.  One must willingly accept a political conversation.  One should accept only the political argument of those talking or writing.  Thus, one should “mirror” others in those formats to maintain social happiness.  Violence, physical activity, or commands need not be accepted.  Mirrored acceptance does not mean belief that an argument is truth, merely that society will benefit from happier, emotionally-supported debaters.  Independence of thought and action are key. 

Mirrors retain independent, rational thought and are in control of their own mirroring strategy in the context of each conversation.  Most people argue today through pictures or memes as they consider them valid totems of arguments.  Totems (memes) stand in the place of actual arguments and represent important ideas that most will not take the few seconds time to research and explain in their own words.  How do we sort through a virtual totemic world where reason fails?  Again, choosing a true debate is the hallmark of rational individuals and mirroring marks that differentiation.  Mirrors understand that memes have greater emotional value over logical or factual arguments.  Memes are emotional stabilizers for those who want to represent their beliefs in ways that they otherwise cannot.  Thus, mirrors may emotionally support meme-makers when they are forceful, or by ignoring them, bring about substantive change by doing things their creators don’t understand.

IV.              Format Matters: Don’t Tie Yourself to Illogical Arguments in a Permanent Format

Conversations are the context in which political debate happens.  That includes people, place, and time.  Understand that conversations might be subjective, but debaters also strive for objective truth under which only they and their allied combatants will find happiness.  Placated debaters will rest easier while you may go about realistic, rational changes. 

Verbal: When speaking to others unrecorded, you have the ability to change later on because the political memory of most individuals is about as long as it takes to type a tweet.  In November 2017, memory is weak; therefore, unrecorded speech is the most potent form of mirroring.  They won’t remember what was agreed if it no longer exists on their phones.   If you suspect your voice will be recorded, avoid political conversation and carefully nod your head to assent in a way that they cannot record by stating to their own audio recorder “mmmmm” or “mmmmmhmm” or “oh yeah?”

Written: Be careful what you write as everything can be held against you in the court of Facebook.  Rather than typing words, it is best to use thumbs up to the strongest, most active, most successfully emotional posters rather than to be tied permanently to their opinions by typing words.  Literally, the rule of thumb is to avoid posting any controversial opinions on social media as it will only create a hidden group of hateful conspirers.  That goes against the ideal of mirror harmony.  Instead, maintain a generally positive official attitude that ties you down to no opinions. 

Recorded: This is political damnation for all!  Assume that all audio and visual recordings are the equivalent of evil in this system.  Words can and will be taken out of context in audio.  All recordings may be manipulated by the stupid to destroy the emotional context of a mirrored debate. 

Part II: The Dilemmas

V.                A Guide to the Flaws of Accepting an Historical Context:  Accepting One and Only One Idea from this Genius Dead White Person (GDWP)

“The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished”

(Dead White Man) James Madison Federalist Paper #10 on The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
 

Non-partisanship:  Now let me refer to one old document first….rather a series of documents.  The Federalist Papers, like the US Constitution, are largely worthless for our mirroring purposes because they are out of context.  Though James Madison, a genius dead white man (GDWM), attempted historical context when analyzing the role of partisanship in destroying other older republics, his views on the potential destruction of the early American Republic are only important in one regard.  In order to come to these conclusions about mirroring, I borrowed an idea from the tenth of these trash pieces of paper: non-partisanship.  Most will find this nonpartisan concept offensive because it implies that their individual ideas are not correct and that a middle ground exists between good and bad ideas.  This is not my intention in using this concept.     

Because old things are not really important anymore when mirroring, I want to base my philosophy on the aged idea of non-partisanship in order to ensure that ideas are successfully mirrored.  Again, all that matters is the context of the conversation, not the past and its impact on accuracy, nor the future and the likelihood that goals can be achieved.  History is merely the verification of past knowledge for current use, something that is very rare in a 2017 debate unless for example, great great grandpa's civil war diary is pulled out and incontrovertible proof is offered for a sticking point during an actual rational discussion.  That would be incredibly rare!    
     So accuracy is unimportant because all that matters is that ideological strength is mirrored.  To do that, one must be nonpartisan.  Taking an individual stand on issues would be partisan, but by acting nonpartisan outwardly, we would escape the trap of being labelled evil for having opposing ideas.  Partisanship equals disagreement with the most forceful and emotional debaters. By accepting the beliefs of the good person’s ideology, we would also not form a middle ground in the battle between good and evil.  Therefore, nonpartisanship is acceptance of only the good person you are mirroring without adopting the ideas personally.  Because 2017 political discussions always involve individuals who see their opinions as good, by mirroring the good, you also become good thereby transferring it from the context of the conversation.   A successfully mirrored debater is moral and good.  When I mirror, I also become good.  Thus, I am nonpartisan because I stand with the person who always speaks the good truth.  To disagree with the good would be partisan, illogical, and evil. 

VI.              The Slavery Non-Dilemma:  Freedom of speech and movement are essential to Assent

Historical context is a flawed way to argue when successfully mirroring.  Bringing up past events takes the debater out of the current context as they attempt to show understanding for moments that have already passed that they probably know nothing or care little about.  Therefore, the mirrored can never know the context of the political decisions made at the founding of the country, all they will understand are the simplistic abstractions that were left behind by people who see them in a binary, good and bad way. 

If you cannot freely assent to an argument, you need not mirror.  If your treatment violates the 13^th amendment, and you understand what that means, then you need not act against your own safety.  For the purposes of the stupid modern debate and because of most people’s oversimplified understanding about history, the country was full of slave owners in the 1780s and the Constitution is a slavery document with little application for a modern context without legalized slavery.  Others probably think that it was the opposite;  it was a glorious era where nothing was ever wrong.  I do not care about this bipolar and simplistic form of historical argument.  Most debaters have little concept as to what history is about and why it is important.  They recognize fallacious or sensational things as truth from their uncritical sources in the media op-ed pages.

Therefore, there is no way to mirror the beliefs of those founding slave owners because one cannot be in the same context with them to discuss politics.  Accepting the historical context of the 1780s means you MUST accept slavery and every negative action or belief from the era.   Mirroring requires affirmation of all of your debater’s beliefs.  You would violate the principles of mirroring if you accepted 1780s slavery because November 2017 slavery exists in a different context and that is only acceptably mirrored as a belief if you are affirming the beliefs of human traffickers in a discussion with them and were trying to preserve your own independence of movement from the enslavers.  

Self-preservation:  Accepting slavery is only suitable in mirroring if you are affirming the beliefs of a slaver in a conversation and must assent to save your own life.  See the flaws of using historical context for current political discourse or from ignoring freedom of speech, will, and movement?  How many of you will willingly enter into a discussion with human traffickers about slavery?

Assenting to self-harm or breaking current laws violates the mirror philosophy as we shall see in a few moments.  Mirroring is verbal/written only, physical action is not part of mirroring.  Therefore, slavery takes away the ability to act freely, which takes away the requirement that you freely assent to the discussion.  If you are tied up and/or gagged, you need not assent to anything until you feel that your freedom to agree is restored. 

The Freedom of Speech is totally verbal/written in the context of a discussion.  You are not required to assent by using body movements or nonwritten or nonverbal communication even if they use elements of a language you understand.  If you are blind or visually impaired, you not need to assent to that which you cannot see.  If you are deaf, you need not assent to that which you cannot hear.  If you are a millionaire football player and you are not concerned with the debate over racial oppression, you need not be required to bend a knee during a musical jingle or to place your hands over a vital organ when a cloth flaps in the breeze. 

Again, there are no requirements for you to assent to languages that you cannot understand or to undertake symbolic action as mirroring is only verbal or written acceptance of arguments.  If the topic comes up among the millionaire privileged football players, then of course you should agree in the conversation with whatever symbolic activity the strongest debaters discuss as solving all of the racial problems of the country.  Stand with the strongest pack of debaters, and then leave the locker room.  Use your superior abilities and start mentoring inner-city youth so something is actually achieved.  Assent during a discussion, not through physical activity.  You are under no requirements to act physically because you have an unalienable freedom of movement. 

VII.           Mirroring Agents: Unacceptable Mirrors and the Societal Context Escape Hatch

Should one assent to unjust beliefs because the conversational benefits to the mirrored person's emotions are less than the stigma?  Again, I would refer you back to the Mirror Equation.  To properly approach beliefs that you personally believe to be unjust, you should input the belief into belief acceptance plus context equals harmony.  If the belief is so outrageous that accepting it would lead to a negative context, use the societal escape hatch.  That is defined by accepting society's overwhelming views on the topic.  No harmony comes from destroying your personal reputation as the superior intellect in the conversation by accepting socially outrageous beliefs.  
          When in doubt, the values and beliefs of the Mirroring Agent are a priority over the social harmony supposed to be gained from mirroring the ignorant.  You, the Mirroring Agent, are the rational decision-maker who willingly accepts a belief and grants harmony to lesser intellects.  Remember, that you are the responsible, intelligent, and rational party in the conversation.  You are only mirroring their beliefs in order to ensure that they feel a little better during their day and so that real work can be achieved by people like you. 
     Let me address then what I assume to be the major criticism of this philosophy.  What would be the value in mirroring the uneven and unjust distribution of power so that the individual is oppressed and loses his or her perceived rights?  For example, why should we mirror the racist beliefs of white supremacists if we are in a conversation with them? 

First, the label must 100% apply to the person before you question your loyalty to mirroring.  You must have total confidence in your research and knowledge before you voluntarily enter into the conversation.  Second, if the individual has no other beliefs than white supremacist beliefs, and you still have chosen to enter the discussion context about race with them, and you are confronted with assenting to their only belief which is racist, then you have two options.  First, you need NOT assent to any belief that promises self-harm.  So, if you are black and you have chosen to enter into a discussion with a 100% certified white supremacist about race, then you need not assent to their one and only belief because that would decontextualize you and potentially lead to harm.  You grant yourself a free pass not to assent. 

Second, for the second lesser class of people who have never experienced any form of discrimination, you do not have the excuse of not having to assent to self-harm due to past oppression.  Therefore, you must assent to societal context, which is an unfortunate and inescapable effect of you never being oppressed.  Societal escape hatches only work if the discussion is one that will earn you a label that society considers bad at least as you perceive it while entering the discussion.  Remember, the context of the conversation is the only one that matters, but because you have a superior intellect to the ignorant person you are mirroring, you may use the knowledge of the potential effects of assenting to a 100% certified racist.  Because one should never assent to beliefs that lead to self-harm, and because you know that race is an abstraction describing physical characteristics that the subject has ignorant beliefs about, even though you have no history of oppression or oppressing, you will be given the stigma of oppressor if you assent to racist beliefs.  The benefit of mirroring those beliefs is next to nothing when compared to the stigma of supporting 100% certified racist views.  You may use the Societal Escape Hatch and freely assent to society’s views on racial equality instead of the ignoramus’ racist beliefs in your discussion context.  

VIII.  The Dictator’s Suicide Order

 “Dead men tell no tales”

Pirates of the Caribbean

When confronted with a conversational “Dictator,” that is a person who dominates and forces others to their side of a debate through emotion and volume level, temporarily mirror the strong for the weak will give you no succor.   That is, if you are required to agree in a discussion with a dictator or murderer, couldn’t you be forced to assent to their order for you to die?  It could be suicidal to mirror a dictator’s beliefs that you should die.  Not so! 

Political mirroring is about the power of individual decision to assent in the context of an ongoing political discussion.  If you are not in the context of the discussion, you can’t assent to what’s being mirrored.  If violence occurs, you cannot assent because violence is not a discussion.  If you are in the middle of warrior’s battle, and continue a political discussion in the midst of the combat, you may assent to the political discussion as per mirroring, but you need not assent to the violence being perpetrated against you.  Therefore, assent is verbal/written in context, physicality is not part of mirroring.  You must willingly assent to mirror, if you dissent by dying, it is not mirroring!

Making a decision that accepts your destruction is unethical in this system because the act of mirroring requires the context of the discussion, therefore, you can’t decide to decontextualize yourself if you are making the decision and you can never assent to a discussion where you agree to your destruction.  If you cannot continually mirror the other persons’ beliefs while in the discussion because you are dead, then you are not mirroring them.  Suicide is irrelevant in this philosophy.  

 

IX. Conflicting Beliefs, Styles, and "Clash of the Titans" Debates

 "A Titan for a Titan.  Release the Kraken" 
Clash of the Titans, 1981

 Mirror those who bring the most harmony: As already stated, it is up to the superior intellect of the rational Mirroring Agent to determine which belief is best to mirror in the context of the ongoing conversation.  It can be a difficult prospect considering the equal opportunity of ignorance found today.  Remember, your motive in mirroring is to maximize harmony for the victors.  Therefore, one should mirror the strongest individual who will gain more harmony upon their victory. 

Strength does not refer to physical strength, only the strength of their performance.  A mirrored subject might be small and seemingly helpless, but because of their emotional and crying display in the face of lurching bully, they could end up being the better mirroring target because of their sympathetic display.  It is up to the Mirroring Agent to determine if gender, race, or economic background are important to mirroring one debater over the other. 

The Debate of the Familiars: If you know the individuals, you certainly can use your knowledge of their past abilities and debate tendencies before deciding who to mirror.  Of all people, your closest friends and family are known quantities, their button-pushing skills are greater in your group context than in probably any other.  These debates present the most danger in any format because harmony already exists if your friendships are reasonably healthy.  Therefore, political debates can often do more damage than good.  In particular, if you are in the middle of a family debate, only damage will result as you cannot change your genetic links and get a more rational replacement.  Avoid these at all costs!      

Aggressors and Passives:  If the debate starts off with a clear aggressor, you might wish to be patient with the course of the debate to see if it will continue or simply peeter off like most everyone probably hopes.  If it does not, do not automatically assume the aggressor is the one you should mirror.  Using the Mirror Equation, be aware of the context of the conversation as one unhinged debater might spring forth to smite the aggressor because of their provocation.  Remember, Genius Dead Chinese Man Sun Tzu's ideas about when to strike,  not necessarily in defense of the victim debater; instead, strike towards one side only when you know the conditions are logically right for the mirroring to begin.  You, being the rational individual, will make the right choice and pick the strongest of the debaters.

As in all political discussions, and in this philosophy in general, the purpose is to maximize individual discretion in applying this method.  Beware however of Debate Monsters, that is those individuals who are the bane of every conversation.  They have mastered the art of rude body language or internet invective.  They might snicker or snort, make an off-color joke, use ad hominem or fallacious statements designed to silence any debate.  They know how to trigger their opponent's most emotional responses.  They are not having a rational debate, their purpose is strictly emotional pleasure derived from another's displeasure. 

In rare cases, two DM's may have polar opposite views and find themselves in a debate.  These are so-called "Clash of the Titans" debates, which involve strong, diametrically opposed debaters.  No societal benefit can come from this exchange because of their equal claims to righteousness.  Remain silent for your safety, attempt to raise another nonpolitical subject, or leave.  You need not mirror anything as no good and bad can objectively be established by mirroring opposite forces.  Let yin and yang duke it out!

X. The Progressive Future and Microfaults:  Confessing Petty Problems is Like Therapy

“I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!”

Howard Beale, Network, 1976

Forget the idiocy of micro-aggressions for a moment, which are really the application of abstractions to body language and the subjective interpretation of supposedly “coded” speech.  Let us refer instead to “microfaults.”  For mirroring purposes, they are defined as tiny errors in the way the world works that are "discovered" in the course of a political debate.  In a progressive way, those being mirrored see these errors as fixable so the future is perfect.  Many Americans look towards these microfaults as both correctable in a usually undefined way --“if only they were fixed”-- or as ticks on a jury ballot sheet directed towards the general condemnation of all of society.  The little faults act as a means to convict society as flawed and often as the perfect opportunity to bring up their simplistic perception of the proper correction--"throw all the bumbs out."  Of course no individual, not even you the Mirroring Agent, can understand all reality and all that it takes to change it in ways that intentional beings could or should want. 

In a way, microfaults form a kind of striving for perfection that is natural and at times even beneficial.  Like our need to have facts, our historical impulse, the progressive impulse is our way of motivating ourselves to action.  Everyone wants to live in a better world and many would also like to be the ones to point that “brilliant idea” out to the air, the water, the trees, and the small group of conversationalists listening.  Few if anything practical will come from talking to the elements or to other people worthy of mirroring.  Who wouldn’t want to be the one to correct society through their complaining?  You can at least simulate that feeling by mirroring their political beliefs. 

In the real world, microfaults as expressed in debates are out of reach for correctability because of mirrored context.  Instead, we need only mirror their spoken or written thoughts and suggested actions.   In a conversation, the Mirroring Agent’s main job is to listen to as many of the microfaults that control their world as the ignorant mirrored conceives them rather than seeking to understand the way the world actually is.  These problems are exactly why context is so important to the Mirroring Equation.  Without being in the conversation, you would never hear the grievances no matter how petty or large from those you seek to bring to contented’ness.  Harmony will not exist until you hear the petty causes for their disruption and their turmoil. 

In a mirrored conversation, mirrored persons could complain about the sidewalks in their hometown never being paved.  This petty microfault cannot be fixed in the conversation they are having, but talking about these petty problems opens up other avenues of conversation.  It is unlikely that the complainers would be willing to give the resources themselves to directly pave the sidewalk nor would they or could they do it if the means were provided.  Instead of complaining, they aren’t likely to act in the context of your debate.  Instead, the microfault is indicative of a “Party to a Blame” (PABs).  They are those abstract groupings of people that are responsible for the microfault.  So, the local “politicians” could not be allocating the money correctly or “corrupt businessmen” or “union bosses” of some unknown, abstract conspiracy are responsible because they siphoned money for their glistening headquarters down the road.  Notice that some evidence of a real world problem is present, the unpaved sidewalks, but the PABs become the abstraction and the source of the distress.

  They could blame the microfaults on the public officials or they could make broad leaps in logic to blame the problems on a group of political ideologues.  Now the refusal to pave the sidewalk becomes the fault of a particular ideology, itself a complex group of abstractions that have no impact directly on the physical action of the pavement of the roads or the allocation of resources and time in order to make it happen.  These microfaults then are exact reasons why context is required because there will never be a context you must agree to that will result in the ACTUAL achievement of a microfault's correction.   If you are at a side-walk paving party and you are discussing the subject while participating with the debaters, it's a rational conversation void of microfaults and mirroring is not necessary.     

Again, microfaults are not the problems in of themselves.  Instead, they represent a focus solely on the problem.  That is also the reason why most political debates and discussions end with only hurt feelings or anger.  If one really wanted the local sidewalks paved, but didn't have the skills or resources to ensure its completion, they would have to be persistent about it and do it the slow democratic way and complain in every public forum possible and applicable.  Of course this campaign would have to be a rational, well-researched argument, one that is ready to show the calculating politician you are as smart as they are to grasp all of the complexities of city road management.

Finally, microfaults really are just totems of their own, just like memes are for internet debates.  They represent macro-problems oftentimes too difficult for the single mind to comprehend let alone do something about.  For example during a healthcare discussion, one mirrored individual could relate an anecdote about a hospital experience that is subjective, because they went through the experience and are emotional about it.  It becomes a macrofault during the discussion when it achieves the abstract stratosphere.  If it was in Canada and the experience was poor, the microfault was that "socialized" medicine, now universal in the context of the conversation and as they understand it, is corrupt and inefficient.  Or if the event took place in the US, the individual could condemn the American system for exhoribitant hospital bills as a result of not fulfilling the promise of "Obamacare."  The Microfault started as a real life experience, a fact, and morphed with emotion into a universal Macrofault and Macroblame. 
        As a result, Mirroring these beliefs provides some of the most satisfying feelings of harmony because you have validated their actual experience and the tremendous logical leap to abstract outer-space.  You have listened or read their micofaults and confirmed their PABs.  Saying "yes" to their abstractions confirms their emotions and leads to greater harmony.  

Part III: The Ethics of Mirroring

  XI. Mirroring and the Preservation of Abstract Reason:  A short commentary on GDWMen Plato and Socrates

“An Unexamined Life is not Worth Living”

Plato quoting Socrates, 4^th century b.c.e., who died because of his rational beliefs at the hands of irrational mobs.

Another series of GDWMen left behind some important concepts for us to use when defending mirroring from its critics.  Like Federalist 10, under no circumstances should these be used in the debate context.  According to dead men Plato and Socrates, "an unexamined life is not worth living."  This quote is used merely for structural guidance for you during your mirroring merriment.  I agree with it in principle and strongly disagree in the action taken to uphold the principles at least in terms of its application today.  

Mirror Agents are the intellectual children of Greek rationalism, or that truth can be discovered here on earth.  In that sense, the quote “the unexamined life is not worth living” is fulfilled because in order to maintain an examining lifestyle one must maintain rational thought in the midst of such potential for irrational political conversations.  Therefore, to continue with the vitriol at its currents levels would lead to a purposeless lifestyle, where shouting, anger, and horrible ideas would make society unbearable and highly illogical.  Mirroring seeks to directly limit the number of anomie individuals due to distress over social issues.  That is why mirroring is so critical to harmonizing society through selective agreement engineered by Mirroring Agents. 

Each Mirroring Agent stands like Socrates did.  Unlike that man, you will not be required to decontextualize yourself by drinking poison hemlock just to prove a point.  Instead of confronting irrational thinking  in irrational times in Ancient Athens as he did by killing himself, we seek to preserve rational thought.   Socrates and Plato did not have to worry about social media tarring them before they took their togas to the street to corrupt the youth.  Their beliefs might not even survive the Photoshop treatment or Youtube edits of today.  Again, we cannot react as they did because the context of mirroring requires that the flame of reason not be snuffed out by the virtual world.  What martyrs to reason will be accepted in these dark times if every rational argument was "just got destroyed" by some pants-less twerp sitting in its darkened cave?  Instead, by working through society's problems and sedating the ignorant masses with acceptance of their values, the real heroes will do real work and they won't know the difference until they wake themselves up to actual reason and rational thought.   No suicide for reason here!

      XII.           Microethics:  Mirroring is The Most Ethical System for November 2017:  Maximizing the Good AND the Categorical Imperative principles 

 

“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

GDWM, Immanuel Kant, 1785

Ethics is the study of right and wrong.  Any political philosophy should address when decisions of power are morally justifiable or not.  We need not rehash the fact that mirroring the strongest debater, the likely winner, is the most moral decision possible because the group will weigh its conception of right and wrong based on who sways their circle with the better performance.  The winner becomes good and siding with them becomes the right and moral decision.  Yet, we must still address two seemingly opposite impulses in ethics if we want a truly moral system regardless of the ethics philosophy chosen.  They are between the greatest good (maximizing political ends) and the categorical imperative or the individual need to conform to right decisions at every time and in every context (political ends are a duty to act in of themselves).  Yet, mirroring may be one of the few philosophies that is both rational and ethical 100% all of the time.

Once again, context is key.  Microethics is the right and wrong of a political discussion in the context of a group.  It does not discover universal principles that leap out of the group in the air or into cyberspace.  Again, few debates reach global contexts unless they are recorded or are on social media.  Remember, one need not mirror global discussion because ones’ rational voice will not likely count anyways and one should always avoid recording your rational views in irrational settings.  Instead, you possess equal power to share rational views and provide actual solutions. 

Let us discuss first the maxim at the beginning of this work and compare it to Kant’s maxim starting off this section.  Both work quite well together.  Earlier, I wrote “Avoid political discussions when “everyone’s society” cannot receive a guaranteed benefit.”  The purpose of this maxim is to reduce the number of political discussions because most are not worthy of the participation of rational persons.  The maxim is also an imperative, an order for true Mirroring Agents to maximize happiness, but only by obeying the rule that mirrored subjects should always be brought to harmony by affirming their fixed beliefs.  By avoiding a discussion and saying “yes,” you affirm that society’s greater benefit comes from rational decisionmakers and happiness comes from mirrored irrational debaters who are happy.

Mirroring leads to a “Kingdom of Ends” for those mirrored subjects, which is full of irrational actors who are harmonious in their emotional beliefs. As rational beings knowing right from wrong, reason from unreason, we know that we should only engage in discussions using facts and reason to convey them in ways that guarantee a result that all of society can benefit from.  The maxim also eliminates most political discussions that lack rational arguments because they are unable to rise above their own individual emotions and desires.  For example, logical fallacies, memes, or other argument totems like PABs automatically disqualify rational argument and therefore open the discussion to mirroring correction.  If a discussion is not reasonable with rational actors, you have no need to subject yourself to the rule that all society should be based on rational thought.  Instead, the maxim that all irrational debaters should be mirrored so society is happier should be applied.  Mirrors should not enter these discussions as per the categorical maxim and instead should apply corrective mirroring therapy. 

This fits well with Kant’s categorical imperative because my maxim also demands that the rule being tested must be one that ALL persons in society should act upon.  Because we use mirroring in the real world, we have a choice of two potential universals when applying the categorical imperative.  We could have all of society act rationally in a way that all would want or we could have a society act emotionally in a way that all would want.  Clearly, we would want all to act rationally because all could recognize that the political actions taken are universally good.  Acting so that all political decisions are emotional and irrational is less desirable because the categorical imperative does not work in an irrational context.  Rational action may lead to death, but the action would not fit the imperative because all persons would not find the decision rational, especially those that the rational leaders decided must die.  Oppositely, emotions are always subjective for those experiencing them, meaning we could never universally apply them in a way that would make everyone accept the outcome.  And emotions cause violence whereas the categorical imperative forbids violence as irrational and something that ALL society should not do.  All would not benefit if the victim of the emotional violence dies as a result of it.  Therefore, mirroring is the most logical universal solution for those political discussions where all of society cannot benefit from its irrational nature.   

XIII.     An Early Conclusion to Volume I:  Altruism not Hedonism

One final note.  Many will interpret this philosophic tract as enabling a focus on selfishness or hedonism.  By not engaging in illogical debates or by not somehow shutting down the emotions that go into the irrational thoughts, I am somehow being selfish because I cannot feel the same emotions.  Not so!

Hedonism is by definition the principle that what is right is what is good for oneself.  Humans will not undertake harmful activities because they are bad for them.  If all people acted towards other people the way they would want others to act towards them, like Christ said, then society would be better off.  In a way, this concept does apply, at least in the Christian form.  I  avoid actually accepting irrational political beliefs because my rationality will not allow me to suffer them.  Yet, it is not selfishness that drives this philosophy. 

Instead, I ask true mirroring agents to cast aside their intellectual desires to not only engage with irrational people, but to accept their beliefs so that they can feel better.  In fact, this is the ultimate form of altruism or the casting aside of ones’ desires for others.  Why?  Because you are being asked to cast aside the willing urge, the hedonistic desire, to crush the simple arguments that you are asked to mirror.  To suffer through such argumentation is truly the ultimate altruism,  You sacrifice your rational thought, which Socrates and Plato valued above even life itself, in order to bolster the emotions of the mirrored.  There can be no greater political sacrifice when mirroring because you sacrifice rationality itself to mirror the ignorant. 

Thank you for reading along and happy hunting!  I am confident that the world will be a better place when Mirrorism spreads outside of this Blog context. 

XIV. Glossary of Terms 

(thanks for the help Merriam Webster's Dictionary)

Abstraction: the nonphysical

Altruism: making moral decisions that put others above self.

ad hominems: "of the person", meaning an illogical attack about the person.   

Anomie: a feeling of separation, unhappiness, and alienation from society. 

Assent: To agree to something.

Categorical imperative:  A decision must be made so that all rational decision-makers would make the same moral choice. 

Clash of the Titans Debates: Two equally forceful debaters arguing.

Context: the persons, places, and times of a debate.

Debate Monsters (Trolls): Persons who only argue to get an emotional response from others.

Debate of the Familiars: A political discussion among friends and family.

Decontexualize: Taking oneself out of a context, in this case a conversation.  

Dilemma:  a problem that is difficult to decide.

Ethics: deciding what is good and bad.

Fallacy: a false idea.

Federalist Papers: series of documents written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison that justified the US Constitution. 

GDWM: Genius Dead White Man: a term designating intellect, but with a racial warning label so that no one is offended when they find out they were white.

Intentionality: doing something purposefully.

Hedonism: what is good for me is what is good for all.

Kingdom of Ends: all rational people would make the same ethical choice.  In mirroring, all irrational people feel the same emotion about a topic, thus making their choice ethical. 

Macroblame: negative individual experiences are blamed on large groups of people or beliefs.

meme: an interesting or funny item on the internet. 

Microethics: Decisions of right and wrong in a small group context.

Microfaults: Tiny social wrongs that are not solvable in a conversation. 

Mirrorism: Like a mirror, it's the reflection of emotional arguments back on the arguer. 

Mirror Agents: the people mirroring irrational political discussions.  

PABs: Person of a Blame: Persons or abstractions that are blamed for a fault.   

Rationality: the use of reason and logic to discover truth.

Reason:  Justifying belief using facts.

Societal Escape Hatch: an excuse to use society's values in a debate rather than the debaters' values. 

Thirteenth Amendment: Amendment to the US Constitution that bans slavery and involuntary servitude other than for punishment for a crime. 

Totems: objects acting as symbols.  

Yin and Yang: In Taoism, they are the light and dark elements that are harmonious and keep the universe in balance.