Political Mirroring Volume II: Mirrors Strike Back Sarcastically

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

The Highlights of Mirroring Volume II:

• “Urgent” Need:  Dedicated to those who claim “political action is needed now more than ever.”
• Reminder: Political mirroring is the willing acceptance of political beliefs for expediency because of ones’ intellectual superiority in the context of a forced political conversation. 
• Mirror Equation: belief acceptance + context = harmony.
• Self-Selection:  Rational thinkers choose this method because they do not use irrational or emotional rhetoric to prove an argument.  Because a mirror knows what works better, they self-select to be rational.  Thus, they know when to shut up.
• Relative political truths lead to more solutions: We cannot create a Truth that applies to everything, everywhere, and every time, especially for our purposes during a boorish 2018 political conversation.  Belief feels like Truth, but it’s really an imperfect understanding of the world around us, not adding all information together to create perfection. 
• Pragmatism: Mirrors use arguments that work and are truthful, or perform belief acceptance when other stubborn people are wrong.  To increase harmony, mirrors use the best tools, the best language, and the best form of truths available for the unwanted situation. 
• Utility: A system of belief should have a moral purpose and a use for its ideas.  In a mirrored context, there are mostly universals and emotions.  Thus, utility is defined as the choice between mirroring or arguing to gain a societal benefit.  Society benefits when the mirrored individual is happy and when more rational people act.
• Emotion Flares: Flares are emotional signals given in a conversation. They are warning words meant to indicate an emotion that is part of an irrational argument that may be mirrored rather than argued against rationally. 
• Total Recall Fallacy:  No person has the ability to recall every event from the past.  To explain an event that’s not experienced and where facts are scarce, the people we mirror formulate their arguments based on a few facts, plenty of emotion, and lots of fantasy because of what they “think it should have been.”  Often, they see the past as “glorious” as they selectively recall it or bad and in need of “progressive” correction.  The truths may be in between those opposites.  Regardless, we mirror their historical or future fantasy.
• Contextual “truths” and Validation:  Remember, mirrors must accept no glorious past or progressive future.  Thus, the truths of the unwanted conversation are all that matters to make a judgement to stay or leave.  Regarding known falsities as truths makes our subjects happy.    
• Fossil Ideologies:  Our agents see beliefs as something that might require mirroring.  Most people cannot understand why or when they have come to believe what they do.  Ideas and beliefs packaged by “professionals” explain the world for the intellectually lazy.  Thus, prepackaged ideas are “fossils” that should be discovered by mirrors like the latest dinosaur and set aside to bring happiness as any stale display would in a museum.  Let them look and we’ll do the touching (of real problems).

Table of Contents:

Volume II: Mirrors Strike Back Sarcastically

             I.                   Introduction

Part I: Giving

The Truths

           II.             Thrusting of Ones’ Own Accord: Truths and the Self-Selection

          III.             Little Truths vs. Microfaults

          IV.            Debate Relativity: Self-Selection from Self-Verification

Part II: Taking

The False

           V.               Falsehood

         VI.            Delusion Care

        VII.         Total Recall Fallacy

       VIII.      Fossil Ideologies

          IX.            Dictator’s Paradox Continued:  Confidence and Leadership Does Not Ensure Truth

Part III: Abstaining

From Totems

           X.               The Props of Mirroring

          XI.            Placard Politics: Authority from Non-Adult Humans and Object

         XII.         The Kimmelians: The Limits of Democracy in America when Mirroring

        XIII.      The Logic Busters: Infantalism, Animism, and Supernaturalism

        XIV.     Conclusion

Political Mirroring:

Volume II

Mirrors Strike Back Sarcastically

             I.                   Introduction

A secular prayer to start us off:

 “Protect me from knowing what I don’t need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don’t know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.” 

Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams.

The purpose of the second volume of this work is to iron out the remaining doubt in the minds of the hidden mirroring skeptic.  Originally, I did not set out to purge the past, to bleach it out, nor to ignore the facts of today.  My goals are still positive and my intentions are moral.  I do not seek to darken the horizon of those with goals that might make the future better for a few more people.  And I am not some culture combatant, some feckless anchor dragging down a rickety boat of civilization.  Instead, I act as a realist looking to bring a little more logic to the here and now. 

Volume II is not some gloomy sequel to a sarcastic political philosophy just because there is unfinished business and I want to further scare my opponents into ignoring my proposal.  Instead, even the critics will surely love this work if they can read because it is the better part of a trilogy and many dramatic elements are sure to come.  If they don’t like this work, they probably have made the right choice to snipe at it from the shadows (I’m mirroring an argument of course).    

Truths are the object of this volume.  They hurt especially when in conflict with people’s deeply held beliefs.  If confronted by them, truths would smash into our subject’s faces, prompting them to reach for the comfort memes, troll knee-jerks, or protest therapy to which they have become attached.  It is in that sense that mirrors make “truths strike back!”

To find truths, one cannot simply relax, confident that ideology will solve the world’s problems.  Believing so, we’d fall into the faith trap of the persons we are trying to harmonize.  After all, ideologies are not thoughts fluttered down from heaven.  This philosophy certainly is not and as a human, I certainly am open to a challenge unlike the Almighty.  Therefore, our beliefs cannot be purged from our minds unless the objective is some political extermination of the people themselves, which who knows if the heavens would approve of that.  And truths cannot easily be separated into past and future beliefs as even this work is now old as you read it, but still sparkly clean like a fresh autumn morning to the one who created it. 

How then do I find a truth amongst such political clamor?  Well, Volume II reinforces belief acceptance plus context equals harmony in order to yank more “truths” from society.  Yet, I specify no right and wrong, hard or easy, best or worst, or left or right for every conversation.  There is only  the clarion call to proceed logically in pursuit of truths. That means I model rational considerations based on my experience, but not the right or best one available for every situation. 

Thus, one must understand the influences on this method.  Mirroring is grounded in Pragmatism, a 19^th century American philosophy invented by American geniuses who sought truths through what works.  However, I do not blindly accept 19^th century American truths for reasons explained in Volume I.  Historical context does not work in this philosophy because our subjects do not understand it and often conflate the past in a smeared mush of present understanding.  Yet, I still accept the pragmatist’s reasoning skills and methods.  They did mental work while many today do not. 

Since I cannot yet experience everything, I do not and cannot limit who, when, or where mirroring can take place.  In a typical conversation, I am feisty enough to defend my skepticism and to practice my beliefs in the real world and not some Socratic utopia where the truth always wins.  Although no one at any time is/was universally truthful, I also abhor the other extreme, the emotional rush of a feel-good, stylish argument, the push towards the ad populum.  I reject the self-satisfying smugness of the mass conformist, another body moaning and mewing with the other faceless torchbearers. 

And I stubbornly refuse to be judged by a standard of dead people or their ideas that most people cannot properly reference or the futurists who prophesize rather than rationalize.  Today, passivity defines this practice only when confronted with some inconsolable irrationality in a discussion.

Volume II will demonstrate that true mirrors self-select.  One CHOOSES to be rational because a mirror recognizes some standard of “enough” false arguments to stop the conversation because of its futility.  Thus, self-selection means the positive ability to stop arguing and to use the mirror tools to extract ones’ self from a worthless argument. 

Finally, truths cannot be discussed without reference to the powerful objects and words used to represent them.   This blog is called “The Politics of Mass Abstraction” for a reason.  Power and governance exist because of the reverence people have for symbols.  Duh.  In every blog post, I demonstrate that, if not explicitly state it.  These symbols can be any number of objects, ideas, or people that are alive, dead, or abstracted into some imaginary state.  What matters is what people believe about the living and nonliving stuff around them.  Those are the abstractions that matter in Political Mirroring.

Therefore, to successfully mirror, one must understand the potency of totems.  A third grade reader would recall from Volume I that totems act as stand-ins for arguments.  They are tribal because people erect them to represent what they want to understand and share among a group of people who agree.  I am certainly not the first to point out this observation.  More important for us is the role of these objects in our activity as mirrors. 

Totems might be physical objects like signs waved around, hashtags meant to symbolize some impossible unity, emblematic physical actions like lying down to fake death, or shouting “shame” at an incestuous Game of Thrones queen or some politician that is barely comparable.  Only the actor and the receptive crowd knows what they mean by the symbolism.  Yet, mirrors do not have to accept it totally.  We just have to understand it and decide if it is in our best interest to follow along.

Why should we be interested in totems if we should avoid worshipping them with the political tribe?  Well, we need to be aware of our subjects and the potent influences on them.  People use totems to group themselves together for comfort with those that support their views and they expect non-enemies to reflect those ideas back at them.  Thus bound together, people form imperfect ideologies because of these similar visions, though never identical beliefs as you shall soon read. 

Props like posters, visuals, and signs add to this union and those who use them expect reinforcement.  To act otherwise causes dissonance, disharmony, and emotional instability.  To defy deeply held beliefs in an irrational debate would be futile.  To argue against the comfort objects brought to show these arguments would amount to talking to paper, paint, and signs.

Why then does one choose symbolic action over rational arguments?  In an imperfect world, it would be futile to waste time trying to group the mostly logical and mostly illogical together in such an imperfect way.  Instead, discretion is the better part of valor for mirrors.  Mirrors are the persons in the context of the conversation.  Ultimately, should the conversation take an irrational and unproductive turn, they should be the ones to leave. 

Thus, the foundation of this philosophy is to reflect back the words and ideas of those who cannot accept reason.  Their objects are therefore the most challenging part of our practice.  As the pragmatist would correctly envision, political objects show nothing about a universal Truth.  Merely, they are “true” only as us humans understand them, not as the universe determines them.  Those who bring political props to an “argument” see their objects as representations of experienced truths, something that will not be changed in their minds unless they experience a mental change towards more “reason.”  Yet, mirroring is not meant to root out deeply held beliefs that have reached an emotional and irrational level.   

Instead, we sooth emotions and look elsewhere for solutions.  And what internet graphic with a few horribly misspelled words can provide a solution, let alone a cogent argument?  One may try to argue past the meme poster, the placard thruster, or the jingle screamer in the street, but one cannot argue with a deeply felt emotion nor the comfort object angrily used to batter opponents.  Therefore, it is of vital importance for the betterment of the whole world for the true mirror agent to know when it is the appropriate time to be the taker or the thruster.  What will you choose?   

Part I: Giving

The Truth 

  II. Thrusting of Ones’ Own Accord: Truths and the Smallness of Truths”

“The Truth is out there.”

X-Files

(Not really)

Wow, what an introduction!  There is so much to achieve in this volume, and despite what the naysayers might believe, I know we can achieve it.  Watching from their dark places, critics might accuse me of setting up a false contrast because they believe I create an abstract world where there are the “purely rational” individuals, the mirroring agents, who manage the “purely irrational” individuals, the subjects.  That criticism would be false, intentionally misleading, and serious evidence of an inability to read at an acceptable level for an advanced civilization like the audience that successfully reads this.  Instead, I want better interactions in as many conversations as possible. I want our words to be more truthful, but most importantly, I want more success and harmony.

First, let’s clear the internet air and distinguish the difference between truths and Truth.  Mirrors seek more of the former and sooth those who believe in the later.  Mirrorism is an ideology of sorts because its sole purpose to increase the time of rational people and end irrational political conversations.  Yet, neither the mirrors nor the mirrored are perfectly rational or irrational, nor is the context of discussion a hermetically sealed environment where only truths or falsities can be divined. 

Rather, truths are relative to the conversation.  Some exchanges have more truths than others, while some possess little more than emotions and interjections.  If a debater was privileged enough to receive an argument that "the Republicans voted against the cloture vote that would allow increases in Department of Human Services funding for fiscal year 2019," a mirror may engage in a factual and reasonable debate.  However, were the argument to be simplified to "Republicans are taking away women's healthcare in 2019," then red flags should be raised about the argument.  The mirror can better distinguish between quality or poor arguments and decide to argue or leave.

What makes Mirrorism different from political ideologies is the unknown, yet probably better outcome of leaving a conversation versus staying in an irrational one.  I value more unknown outcomes independent of the irrational conversation, but made with the rational choice to acknowledge and leave the irrational over staying and suffering through one.  

What then are we to do with the small truths if many have their Truth determined for them?  It is important to note that ideologies rest on Truth, which is a comprehensive vision of the universe based on assumptions that are viewed as completely true.  Bear witness to the slogans “Make America Great Again” or Obama’s “Hope and Change.”  In both cases, the faithful see the slogan’s proponent as a truth-speaker, restoring the country from some dark period.  The assumption is that the country, a massively complex abstraction, is not great or hopeful at the time of their candidacies, but it could be again if one person were given presidential power. 

To disagree with these two similar visions of “Truth” would amount to questioning the faith of those that buy these slogans.  Packaged together, there are many experienced truths like experienced acts of racism, of government officials abusing their authority against citizens, of war and recession ruining people and their families.  All true experiences, yet in the hands of people seeking power, all baits cast out to the citizen fishes waiting to latch on and be hooked towards the heaven that only they, the proverbial camels passed through the eye of the needle could understand.

Yet, America wins when individuals do what works logically, not what feels better or what is told for us to believe in order to give power away.  Bodies filing into this country did not make it “great” just because they moved with their cultures any more than English settlers massacring natives made everyone wholesale “evil.”  Americans dominated the 20^th century because of their acceptance of practical ideas, filling their civilization with what works, with what fit the situation and allowed them to get ahead.  When they abandoned questioning and reason for faith traps, there was much suffering.  America was best when as many citizens realized the value of facts, truth, and reason.  That is how they dragged the civilization to the top of the world.  

III.           Little Truths v. Microfaults

"While petty truths are essential to correct petty faults, big Truth does not always correct big faults." 

Mirrorism's "Fault Maxim." 

How then do we continue to stay atop the world?  For our purposes, mirrors seek to use the tools of success, to identify rationality and to streamline the nation one conversation at a time so that more is achieved and less time is wasted.  It is in this sense that mirroring is not a small-minded, atomized philosophy, as some critics might suggest.  They might argue that I lack “big ideas” that when put into action can truly improve people’s lives.  They might complain I focus merely on the mundane political conversations that are relatively harmless compared to something like the “homelessness rate in America.” 

However, as one would recall in Volume I, the accumulation of small problems, so-called Microfaults, become Macrofaults.  They are complex problems, but are understood on a simple level.  Without identifying the small problems that matter to people, I do not believe the typical political conversation can truly solve big problems.  And until there are more truths in our everyday political conversations, I do not believe that even the smallest problems can be solved without practical, rational people to solve them. 

I readily admit that I offer no way to improve the drinking water of poor communities like those in Detroit, Michigan.   I do not offer a simple scheme to make the rich poorer and the poor richer, and I do not offer a wondrous vision of a society that is truly “happy.”  Why?  Well, I do not believe that prophetic visions or strict ideological positions can provide the sort of utopia that such ideologues would prefer.  Those utopias exist because of macrofaults, which are massive abstractions describing complex problems.  Thus, macrofaults are such because they are seen as true depictions of the world around us, even though the infinite number of microfaults added together are really an abstraction, and that vast abstraction is divorced from individual reality.   

Take the macrofault of poverty.  It is “true” in the sense that individual experience led people to identify the homeless persons they see in their community as part of a “larger problem.”  It is a real problem on the individual level, but the macrofault “poverty in America” is decidedly abstract in that it does little to describe all persons living in the US without a home.  Being a macrofault, it is even harder to address the problem with a veritably perfect solution. 

But, do not tell that to ideologues!  Bernie Sanders zealots would tell you to punish tax the "1% of society," itself an absurd abstraction of people based on income levels.  What makes the Sanders’ macrofault a “Truth”?  It is taken on faith that a percentage of human beings in a “country” are a problem.  And if a person disagrees with a vision of Truth, what will ideologues do with those labeled “existential threats” to American society?   I do not want to wait around to find out nor give power to those believers.

 I argue that one should not buy into his so-called perfect solution to correct the abstraction he made up from his experiences.  Instead, mirrors derive truths from individual experience and proceed skeptically in the face of all micro and macrofaults. Really, mirrors do not HAVE to buy any of that nonsense argument.  They simply should recognize the role of abstractions in a political debate.  A brave debater might even support the Sanders argument in a rational way, carefully avoiding supposedly moral catchall phrases like “poorest of the poor,” “woke,” or the “underprivileged” and instead provide facts strung together using reason.  In that case, a rational debate may take place and there would be no reason for mirroring.

Yet those sorts of visions, like the “Sanders Truth,” is precisely what holds back practical progress in America today.  If we can no longer discern facts, true pieces of information from falsehoods, how correctly can human beings identify the problems, let alone the solutions, if the facts do not support a narrative like the Sanders’ “1%” abstraction," his Truth?  Instead, our subjects are likely to discard them in favor of faithful belief.  I believe the pursuit of Truth, an all-encompassing vision of the universe that is perfectly true in every regard, is the true barrier to a forever imperfect, but at least happier, less violent society. 

Finally, a critic might also suggest that I am actually encouraging further political disagreement by ending a debate, which apparently shows my lack of confidence that conversation can solve problems.  These critics are what I call the rosy pacifists.  As idealists, they might argue that humans have to interact with each other or problems can never be solved.  If we simply had more conversations, regardless of whether they “work” or not, are “rational” or not, then we’d have less conflict and war in this world.  Those naïve assumptions about this philosophy also make for a wrong-headed criticism.  I propose that rational debaters CAN achieve results through conversation and even debating.  However, irrational debaters by definition believe and feel their arguments in such a way that reason cannot reach them.  It is up to the mirrors to apply “belief acceptance plus context equals harmony” to their conversation.  They can judge whether or not that conversation can bridge ideological differences or whether it is hopeless.  Therefore, I do not stifle conversation; I only seek to crush illogical ones.   

Thus, Mirroring Philosophy stimulates a self-limiting group because one must choose to be rational in order to acknowledge a false or emotional argument.  It is an action that I cannot force.  After all, this is not Jurassic Park, whereby mirrors manage the irrational dinosaurs after nature has gone wild.  Instead, we make our subjects feel better by accepting their arguments in the context of the conversation.  Then we choose to leave the conversation of our own volition.  It is not as if we run free with a pack velociraptors hunting for MAGA flesh.   

 

IV.             Debate Relativity: Self-Selection from Self-Verification

“I think, therefore I am”

Renee Descartes, GDWM,

(Mostly right, but wrong on the separation of mental and physical states)

I have no ideological control over which arguments, nor which variety are rejected and mirrored.  Debates are always relative to the context involved.  It depends on the people, place, time, and topics discussed as to whether a conversation reaches the mirrorable threshold where solutions cannot be reached.  That is why context is so essential to the mirroring equation. 

One may ask how I know that a person who leaves an irrational argument is truly rational.  Instead of a superior intellect, perhaps they are having an emotional reaction to the other person?  I do not and cannot know exactly what happens in any other person’s head.   Yet, choosing to depart an irrational conversation is a win-win because if a person determines they cannot convince the other person of what they subjectively view as a rational argument, they still do not engage in a fruitless debate.  Furthermore, leaving ends the possibility of increased disharmony or even violence.  As the other debater cannot be convinced, no irrational debate takes place.  If the one leaving the conversation purports to be the mirror, but is actually irrational, they still serve the purpose of limiting the disharmony by the act of leaving.  More practical benefit comes from avoiding fruitless political discussion than by having them and trying to achieve some universal benefit and “Truth.”  Therefore, it is about being able to distinguish the wrong and to silence ones’ self willingly that makes a rational mirror.  It is not a permanent designation because it requires constant vigilance to identify rational arguments.  Thus, self-selection is a constant choice that must be made in the context of each conversation. 

Critics might argue that if the choice to leave a conversation occurs, would that  not simply increase the number of irrational people because the mirrored person will continue their beliefs?  No.  Mirror agents have to reach the decision to mirror because they have rationally determined that there can be no further discussion with the subject.  Thus, it is wrong to assume that the subject will spread irrationality because no further progress can be made in the context of the conversation to convince them of their error.  Humans cannot change the thoughts and minds of the entire world simply by trying.  The subject has emotional beliefs that are inconsolable and thus have an equal potential to spread.  Instead, work may be done to logically discredit those ideas outside of the context of the irrational conversation.  

What then of a person who may have been convinced of their error, but remained illogical because the mirror preemptively determined that no progress could be made by the discussion?   The answer to this hypothetical aligns with the rest of this belief system.  I can no more determine when conversations will be successful anymore than I control all of the events of history.  If the subject may have been convinced despite the premature departure, one could equally argue the opposite could occur.  By continuing the argument in order to succeed, there could be a greater likelihood that the subject resorts to violence.  The point of mirroring is to err on the side of not having the illogical conversation as less irrational disagreement is better than more. 

Therefore, those who choose to use mirroring belief as a tool, and this work as a manual, self-select themselves to be rational by NOT engaging in irrational discussion.  Naturally, they would be well practiced in logical thought and be literate, intellectually busy people.  They would use logic and reasoning in order to weigh the societal value of more emotional harmony over their own truths.  They choose assent over speaking the truth and thus have rationally acted in that one instance.  One must self-select to be a mirror if one is asked to freely sacrifice. 

Self-selection is also why this mirroring tool is so effective because one can choose to engage in irrational discussions, which thereby makes the agent a person to be mirrored rather than the rational mirroring agent.  The choice is up to the individual to be the mirrorer or the mirrored, the rational or the irrational.  The only requirement of this philosophy is that the choice of rationality be freely given.  Therefore, I set up no dichotomy other than one between choosing or rejecting rationality. 

 

Part II:Taking

The False  

V.          Falsehood

“It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence.”  William James, GDWM, What Pragmatism Means, 1907, rather, what’s the point?

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all conversations are not equal, endowed by their irrational creators, and that falsehoods are strewn amongst them like taxes upon unrepresented patriots.  I cannot know what those aforementioned falsehoods might be, perhaps historical confusions placing Lincoln at the head of the abolitionist movement or Jimmy Carter at the head of some successful presidency. But self-selecting individuals will surely be forced to take many crappy falsehoods in the pursuit of their craft. 

     As mirrors, our purpose is to "take the false," which means we absorb wrong information, wrong reasoning, and wrong communication.  We watch as the debate monster steps forward to give the most forceful performance, causing the other sheep to bleat away in agreement.  We must stand aside while a questionable parent pushes their child in front of the camera to cry about a mature political issue.  And we must walk away from a confrontation where a Hollywood celebrity is cited as an expert on a complex policy issue.  
     Often, complex ideas are rejected simply because one person claims to have found truth over falseness.  The problem with many arguments is that they are arguments in totality.  Meaning, one inaccuracy is evidence of total wrong.  That is not the way False works.  As discussed in “Truth,” there is no comprehensive Truth that applies to all situations at all times that humans are capable of knowing.  That being said, there is also no converse of falsity, a False, that applies to all ideas of something.  If we cannot add up all of the truths in the universe, and get Truth just because we want that abstraction to fit together nicely, conversely we cannot do the same with falsities and Falseness. 

Here is an example of the complexities of a word's meaning and deriving a falsity from the context of a political conversation.  The truth of the word “dog,” even if it refers to the same creature across languages, does not add up to some Truth, just because it has a common understanding for those speaking English.  The word “dog” (belief acceptance) plus “running in the park” (context) does not necessarily equal Truth.  There is no innate truth coming from speaking the sound “dog” that shows its meaning.  There is no acquired knowledge of the universe from knowing a bit more about it either.  We do not increase the harmony of the universe by knowing the truth of objects or even by relating a common understanding of those objects or concepts to other people.  There is no common meaning from taking two different of linguistic expressions of the same “thing,” like “dog” and “chienne” combining the sounds together to reach some golden mean, some great Truth achieved just because humans can communicate using sounds that are heard.  Combining “Dog + Chienne” does not equal “harmony”, rather it might earn you a slap on the face from an offended French woman.   Therefore, words have no inherent meaning to them other than the meaning we experience and attach to them.

Logically, arguments also have no meaning unless by experience we know to reject the ones that do not work.  As we experience the activity in the park, we understand “the dog running for a ball in the park” to mean something different than “Biden on the prowl for votes.”  One is a true statement based on my and probably your experience, our understanding of the language.  The second statement we know to be false as we see the creature running not for votes, but for a ball thrown in the park.  To follow the Pragmatic maxim, we need to trace a concrete consequence from this knowledge and from a philosophic debate.  We could argue that it was in fact “Biden on the prowl for votes,” despite the hairy four-legged perception reached by our senses, but our actions as a result of that would spark consequences for the other members of society.  We could run up to the “Biden on the prowl” (a dog) and attempt to get its autograph.  The consequence is that society may doubt your sanity should you choose to alter the experience of the meaning that most people share about that creature, its object, and action. 

Therefore, the essential point is that words and language itself have no meaning other than the individual experience (belief acceptance) and the shared meaning (context) we give to it.  Arguments act as compound structures of proof with shared grammatical meaning.  They reinforce the shared meaning of the words.  The only way to judge the harmony provided during a conversation is to recognize from your own experience whether the shared meaning the group has is contrary to your own knowledge of the facts that comprise it.  Because you are in the conversation with them, if you deem the shared meaning to be false compared to your own experience of the truth, you should consider mirroring. 

Remember, “true” and “false” are absolutes.  They are totally right or totally wrong.  If you recognize nuances in the argument, like for example “the dog runs in the park at the same time as Biden is on the prowl for votes” then you may consider arguing the truth of what the viewer experiences.  If the argument is corrupted because they state “the dog is on the prowl for votes and Biden runs in the park,” we may choose to reject the argument as false and mirror the individual because their construction of facts has no use unless further context is added (as perhaps the dog is used a cute prop for votes and Biden staged a photo op and cutely chases after him).   As always, context is key!

Why does this unsupported argument possess no potential utility? Let’s assume we want to stop Biden from hunting for votes in a place where it’s illegal, like inside a polling place, yet we run after the dog who we falsely believe is the one seeking the votes.  If we chased the wrong subject, we lose the purpose of stopping illegal vote getting.  Therefore, mirroring is the same way.  It stops the “illegal chase,” it ends the false arguments that lead down false and illogical paths. 

In that sense, this a metaphor for the work of mirroring.  We chose the context of our logical choices.  Only mirrors self-select to ferret out irrationality, to stop a misguided hunt.  No true mirror would engage in the false chase.  No mirror would accept the false language and illogical conclusions and waste their otherwise productive time chasing after a dog who violated campaign finance laws.     

      

VI. Delusion Care:

“The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.” Voltaire.

At the crux of this volume is the uncontrollable, whether it be feelings or objects acting as walls to represent and block attacks to ones’ feelings.  Emotional arguers cannot mirror because one cannot exactly mirror another person’s emotions.  Thus, delusion care is defined as the managing of an emotional person in order to make them feel better.  In that sense, mirrors are like mental health professionals who sooth the tempers of their patients and merely listen as the person goes through their political episode, letting it play out until they are done.  Because it is an emotion, there is nothing to mirror. Then the mirror tools should be used to extract ones’ self from the conversation

One might question why emotions qualify an individual for mirroring if they are critical parts of our humanity.  And why are emotions found in the False part of this work if emotions are true to the persons feeling them?  They surely are true, but not in the form of political arguments.  Remember, our function is reduce emotional arguments.  Stating that does not deny that emotion drives politics, instead, we view it as a hindrance to truths and better solutions.  This system also does not purport to eliminate passion or hatred from the world as that is not even possible.  Instead, we seek to limit the stimulants for it and to care for those who are most likely for a psyche-political breakdown. 

Making an argument in order to persuade others should not consist of emotional appeals where those arguments cannot be tested.  We need not test empathy, we need not test love for others or sympathy for the deceased.  And it should be apparent by now that mind warping is impossible.  It is a key assumption of this philosophy and fundamental to the concept that we cannot control the minds of other debaters.  Until we can thought-transplant in some dark future, we must use our senses and experience to give the best judgement possible of another person’s thoughts and emotions. 

Thus, true emotional mirroring is delusional, or the deliberate acceptance of falsehood despite all evidence to the contrary.  We lie to ourselves if we believe that screaming anti-gun slogans or crying that “our country is lost” are solutions to complex problems simply because we feel emotional about the issue.  Tragedy and hate are powerful motivators because all humans experience them.  Yet, even if our subjects have not directly been affected, they feel attached to the emotion and the cause.  They fuel their irrational arguments with those emotions and demand that we copy what they feel. 

It is important to understand the concept of emotional flares and how they connect to Delusion Care.  They are the fleeting totems of irrefutability because they pass by, they are only experienced by the individual, and they cannot be verified.  Flares are warning signs, signal flags flashed in a conversation that the person is undergoing an emotional episode.    For ex. “I hate Trump” or “Democrats kill babies,” neither of which can solicit a rational response as their intent is emotional and therefore incontrovertible.  One cannot disagree with a strong emotion.  Disagreeing with a flare leads to a negative emotional response, as emotions can only be felt or not, but not contested rationally.  Emotions are as real as any of part of experience.  Yet, mirroring separates what we can reflect back and what cannot. 

Therefore, one must realize that I do not ignore the role of emotion.  It is a vital part of the human experience.  However, emotional political arguments do not have to be.  To disregard the power and impact of emotion on discourse is also foolish.  The difference lies with productivity!  If the conversation is so emotional that no rational solution or productive result, one can only join the yelling or the crying, feel the emotional reaction to some issue, or reject the emotion and become the enemy of the group.

One might also think that the mirrors are the delusional group because they are supposed to offer belief acceptance to false beliefs.  Yet, that is also false.  Belief acceptance is only in the context of the conversation and expires once you are out of the forced political conversation.  The mirror knows the truth that the argument is false, chooses to mirror the belief only in the conversation, and then escapes to use the truth to do something productive.   One cannot be delusional if one is trapped in an irrational and illogical conversation and cannot get out safely without affirming the views of the strongest. 

Thus, mirroring limits the emotionality in the world by its practitioners choosing to avoid engagement of it and instead by expending limited human energy and time on more productive actions.  By choosing to not rationally engage irrational arguments, you are not blessing yourself with a holy light that enables you to do as you please.  Instead, you choose to sacrifice the experience of agreeing with the mirrored, all purposefully in order to do something more rational.  It is the act of choosing rationality that makes you more rational, but not perfectly rational.  

 

     VII.       Total Recall and the Impossibility of Knowing 100% Rationality or Irrationality in an argument

“Kuato: What do you want, Mr. Quaid?

Douglas Quaid: The same as you, to remember.

Kuato: But why?

Douglas Quaid: To be myself again.

Kuato: You are what you do. A man is defined by his actions, not his memory.”

Total Recall (1990)

I want to address the fallacy of “total recall” in a way different from the science fiction movie.  There are many parallels, however, to the extent to which people believe that memories and beliefs represent the world.  It would be a waste of time to try to separate beliefs and memories.  It is hard to deny that both have an impact on each other.   I also will not cover cognitive distortion of memories not because I do or do not argue they are important.  Rather, should the memories of an individual mirrorer be distorted, all that matters for our purposes is that they choose to leave the unwanted and unproductive conversation.  Therefore, any psychological episode that inhibits the ability of a person to have a rational episode is consequential for us only if they CHOOSE to leave.  As mentioned previously, society benefits when less psychologically disturbed persons enter into political discussions. 

Therefore, since I am not referring to the flaws in memory recall, what exactly do I mean by “total recall?”  In this case, I am referring to the inability to combine all truths together in totality.  Memories do matter in this case because they inform our beliefs.  Microfaults shape the ideological directions we take.  We twist and turn as we hear a politician’s snarling speech, as we see protesters bleating like goats during an important interview,  or see a highway blocked for no apparent reason that any motorist would care about.  Those memories matter to people.  It does not matter if they are found on a YouTube video or they were experienced first hand.  They undoubtedly shape our political opinions as well.

Mirroring is not about adjudicating proper opinions in totality nor to verify the memories of individuals.  In fact it has been my contention all along that there is no way to verify another’s memory.  We have evidence to back up the general account of a specific anecdote.  We might even reach near certainty that it occurred the way it occurred.  But you have learned nothing from Volume II if you do not realize that there is no way to verify the experience of the individual involved in the making of the memory.  It is that corner of doubt that mirrors must take into consideration when they make their decisions.  

We do not have “Total Recall” over all the spoken or written words in a conversation.  And Kuato is somewhat right in his conversation with Quaid, but only in the sense that the action is rational.  Since his  memories are wrong, acting irrational regardless is not the preferred outcome.  Instead, Quaid recognized the flaws in his memories and acted rationally to find out what happened.  His rational search for truths was the right kind of action.  We can draw a lesson from this as well.  Just as we should avoid the false pursuit, we should also avoid the urge to add up all facts together and try to create a abstract reality, the elusive Truth.   Quaid was able to restore more truths from his past and he eliminated false paths created by the movie’s villains.  Follow the truths and not the blond bombshell!

VIII.    Fossil Ideologies:  Pragmatism over Worshiping False Idols

       "Truth independent; truth that we find merely; truth no longer malleable to human need…then it means only the dead heart of the living tree; and its being there means only that truth also has its paleontology and its ‘prescription,’ and may grow stiff with years of veteran service and petrified in men’s regard by sheer antiquity” 

William James, What Pragmatism Means.

The irony of this section title was not ignored when I chose it.  What pragmatists intended was to connect our ideas, our concepts of truths, and our morality to experience rather than to let its meaning drift away and people to follow blindly the objects of the past.  They refer to past philosophies that have little experiential bearing as fossils, as concepts that have become so encrusted that their original purpose and connection to reality has been lost.  

 Indeed, Pragmatism is a relic, a fossil of a past world that few can understand in a 2018 political conversation.  In 19th century America, pragmatists struggled to find a Truth steeped in a crude understanding of evolution.  Some of their contemporaries even believed that races of people fit into what are now unscientific categories of evolved homo sapiens.  Evolution was applied also to ideas as socialists, communists, and fascists would show to great horror.   Even with the founders of Pragmatism itself, there is a danger of detaching ideas from tangible experiences around us and assuming that some are evolutionarily better than others.   Certainly different from Pragmatism, the Nazis and the Communist-Socialists still used Truth and evolution to discern false belief and eradicate the wrong-minded.  They believed they could divorce truth from reality and use their abstractions to kill millions. 

Mirrorable ideas cannot really be divorced from reality because to our subjects they are real and true.  Yet, we need not delve deep into history to understand revisionism because one can assume that the those engaging in an historical debate are not really arguing about history at all.  Instead, they trotting out their museum piece arguments about what they think history is about.  There does not have to be factual or logical basis for the evidence they supply.  Instead, they already believe.  A rational debater would be able to weigh the better facts and the more logical construction of the facts and arrive at a more logical, though not totally comprehensive understanding of the past.

Mirroring seeks to restore logic to conversations and put the shiny fossil ideologies in museums for those believers who cannot let go.  Safely encased in a window, preserved for all eternity, those who cannot see any logic about the fossil can worship contently, their emotions not challenged by the facts.  Mirrors target fossil worshipers to keep them happy, to keep their plethora of objects from tainting substantial arguments.  The struggle is real to expand logic and rational argument in American society. The sacrifice of mirroring a fossil argument is great.  But, the benefit of actual achievement is much greater when the energy is better used on real action. 

The ancient Chinese often looked towards old documents and family traditions as the only way to define the Truth.  Errors made in the past were informational, but the historical record and the whole idea of Chinese society was perfect.  Deviants brutalized the people, partied too much, and ignored the nation’s security.  It was the deviants that were instructive for the future, not the fact that society itself was flawed and need of correction.  Yet, the Confucian texts that ruled these bureaucrats were fossils, not always wrong, but acting objects of Truth that any powerful interpreter could use in order to shut out opposition.  The skill became not the use of logic to limit the amount of irrationality in the world, but the rhetoric of interpreting objects in the context of the times to confirm contemporary belief.

Like the Confucian texts, fossil ideologies act like casing and shields to cover over uncomfortable ideas that spark emotions.  Socrates would shatter these protections with his reason while unfortunately destroying himself through suicide for an idea.  As stated previously, no person should have to die for a fossil, to perish from the earth and deny others their skills because of some old book or fossil system. Yet, the flaw of many of the progressive and conservative ideologies is the extent to which they glorify past knowledge, whether as a guide to preserve that which might be lost or to lose what should be lost. 

Take the fossil ideology of anarchism, which I discussed in another blog post.  The irony is that revolutionary ideas can become fossils.  They are taken out context (space and time) and applied to unfitting situations.  For an anti-globalization protester to use words from Emma Goldman, an American anarchism nonsense writer, to justify the destruction of real objects and people is just as nonsensical, though much less violent as suicide bombers dying for a holy book.  Objects do not confer special powers unless one believes they do.  Knowledge written on objects does not contain special powers unless one believes they do.  What practical purpose is achieved by using objects as causes for destruction unless the book in question is the all-knowing codex of information that has heretofore not been discovered? 

IX. Dictator’s Paradox Continued:  Confidence and Leadership Does Not Ensure Truth

Mirroring also rejects the conversational dictator and asserts the right to self-preservation when faced with harmful orders, thus allowing them to immediately leave the debate.  Therefore, truths cannot be divorced from the conversation.  The ideas spurted forth from the mouths of irrational arguers are not heavenly truths sent to benefit mankind.      

 Dictators increase our urgency because they hypothetically test our powers to fight for truths under the worst conditions and to avoid accepting their false arguments conveyed through force of will.  To answer the inevitable question, yes, mirrors are silent logic auditors of everything in a conversation even when a debater dominates all others in a conversation.  That is part of the sacrifice of being intelligent, logical, but still willing to give back to society through suffering an idiocy.  As more experienced arguers, mirrors are faster at recognizing even the false meaning of words in the sentence.  They can recognize when “Biden” does not mean “dog” and when the lofty construction of arguments based on this unstable foundation of words is worthy of argument.  Mirrors understand that these false edifices, these monuments to ignorance cannot safely be constructed nor will they be when a committed individual sees their totem as good and those attempting to chip away at it as evil.  Therefore, for the time that you are in the presence of the steaming pile of crap argument, you sacrifice your own olfactory senses and go through the motions of worship. 

Part III:Abstaining 

from Totems  

X.               The Props of Mirroring

“Be ready to attack Rock Ridge at noon tomorrow. Here’s your badge.”

       Garcia throws the badge away and sneers: “Badges? We don’t need no stinking badges!”

“Blazing Saddles” 1974

Props can be held up.  Many are physical.  They expose our senses to visuals, which are more basic to the senses than any other form of argument.  In the 21^st century, auditory skills have given way to blasting headphones, quick click games, and the texting, hashtag, and troll world.  Prop Totems from the past twenty years or so are are the keys to understanding the mindset of the average irrational individual worthy of mirroring in 2018.  It is important to briefly rehash the role of the communications revolution sparked by the internet.  What the pony express did for anonymous newspaper trolls in the 18^th century gave way to clicked patterns on a telegraph and faster transportation.  Now, we have instantaneous communication, with feedback almost certain when challenging beliefs on social media.  Anonymity has not disappeared because there is more connection, instead human communication evolved with the medium available.  No longer relying on communication delays for the ass to survive delivery with its rider and letter, trolls evolved new ways to use invective without the consequences.

Some might argue that Mirrorism is the result of a fallen culture that suffers from political irrationality because there was some historic period that was somehow more rational and truthful.  That is not at all what I am writing.  Instead, the virtual world, one full of memes, has altered our forms of communication and affected how we use information in arguments.  The communication effect of this revolution was great as more irrational individuals could mass produce their views and hook others into their faiths.  Watch your average “speak truth” Youtube videos to see a sermon from some intense, camera friendly individual who makes arguments for the “common person.”  There does not have to be a refutation of each and every point in the video.  Like the video's content, any observation of the comments section will show a mixture of valid and invalid, mostly ad hominem criticisms.  These opinions are hermetically sealed within themselves.  There is little challenge to the Youtube poster, nor is there reconciliation of the falsehoods.  It is not an ideal conversation, not even a useful one for the fact that it does little to sway the irrational individual who opposes its message.  And despite the effort of the video poster, there is no great movement towards some Truth as a result of posting ones’ opinions on a video website.

Mirrors should abstain from props and all totems.  They are used by our subjects in the place of arguments.  They comfort our subjects and make them feel better by posting for example a video of a cow defecating on a picture of Nancy Pelosi.  Recall for a moment that you are not REQUIRED to mirror symbolic activity just as you cannot mirror a protest sign.  In Volume I, the football kneeler and the anthem screamer were both examples of persons that you need not mirror.  However, the main prescribed forms for mirroring as laid out in the first wonderful volume are all forms of communication where words are used.  There are varying degrees of caution that one should have when using traceable statements where your mirroring strategy might be called into question.   

Let the computer scientists derive the origin of the illogical political meme.  Its origins are of no concern to us.  Instead, memes represent the fruition of irrational communication from the internet revolution.  Most are of unknown origin, yet their words offer truths to those who post them and our social media walls are the places to put them up in smug satisfaction.  Political memes are virtual human taunts, not items “placed here to spark a discussion.” 

They offer cover for ideas because it is harder to dispute the physical objects that we can see as we hold them up in our hands.  How can one contest a strongly worded sign held up at a protest?  One cannot argue rationally with an object.  It does not talk back.  Yet, the words printed on it are permanent so long as the object remains intact.  

If we cannot find the Truth in signs and chants, we cannot also reject them as being false.  If there is no ability to determine truth and falsity because we cannot process them together in a logical statement, then the situation should be mirrored.  Remember, that props are stationary objects, yet they do not represent a truth or falsity.  They simply represent objects and human words are used to both describe them, and human arguments are then used in order to give them meaning. 

For example, a Trump doll has no meaning to persons unless it is used as a prop totem.  A dollmaker could enjoy the sublimated rage and poke pins in the doll.  They might immolate the doll in effigy.  But in terms of politics, what truth is there to the emotional display?  If taken as a string of truths, which means literally, a group of human beings start a fire using available supplies.  They find a place to start their inferno.  They take an object (a doll made to look like a real human) and then they move around—some might call it dance—they chant repetitious words to a few musical notes, most of the group hitting those sounds off rhythm and off pitch, and then throw the object into the fire.  To them the cacophony is harmony, the symbolism paramount.  The object burns in a few minutes and not much is left, but a few pieces of ash.  The movements and the repetitious sounds continue throughout the immolation.  Then the group is there like a bunch of jackasses with a burnt object and no more truth in the world.    

Symbolic activity is only useful to those who find it meaningful.  According to the pragmatist, if you have not experienced the meaning, it is meaningless. If one fiercely burns an object, they have given it emotional meaning because it is important to them.  Then, they increased the emotional power by immolating a doll with a group.  But they have not argued rationally, nor has anything been achieved. And they look like idiots. 

          XII.          The Kimmelians and Donlemonites: The Limits of Democracy in America when Mirroring the Celebrity Obsessed

“If you don’t think we need to do something about it, you’re obviously mentally ill.”

Jimmie Kimmel, "psychiatrist," Truth Comedian, and totally mirrorable

            Let us start off first by defining the Kimmelians and Donlemonites.   They are persons who seek authority from non-qualified individuals.  They are celebrity totems, the Don Lemonites who by saying something emotional and thoughtful to a certain group makes them the personification of Truth.  To them, Jimmie Kimmel offers Truth or CNN anchor Don Lemon exemplifies journalism's Truth because of his conventional and predictable criticisms of Donald Trump.  

            Though anyone can be used as an uninformed authority, thus making that person a Kimmelian, the group most often chosen is celebrities because they are in the public spotlight.  Our subjects feel inspired, they get worked up when they listen to the political views of their favorite celebrity.  Thus, any conversation that includes a celebrity quote or a video clip of an emotional news anchor should be a red flag to the mirroring agent.  It is natural that they also confer extra weight to the celebrities who they choose to see.

          Mirrors are about breaking away from illogical argument and any person who confers authority on a person because they are popular.  Invocation of a Kimmelian is a sign that the conversation will be unproductive.  Were you to question the totem, you would be questioning their emotional connection to the celebrity stranger.  Therefore, beware because Kimmelians are props when put in physical or meme form.  As totems, you should abstain from ever using a quote from a person just because they are popular as it does not add truth to the argument, only an example of your fall into a faith trap. 

XIII. Logic Busters: Infantilism, Animalism, & Natural/Supernaturalism

 

“Grown-ups never understand anything by themselves, and it is tiresome for children to be always and forever explaining things to them”

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince

           Props are like a costume closet.  The mirrored people pick out their props as one would a dress in a showy display against an opponent.  Therefore, a mirror must be observant to the objects and ideas thrown in an unwilling face, a strut meant to do something in an argument that words otherwise could not.   

             Humans often confer authority on individuals, objects, or abstractions despite the facts that may or may not back up the argument.  The public could be wowed by celebrities that play a potent role in American culture.  Instead of the “Man Show’s Jimmie Kimmel,” the change factor could be a cute puppy that growls at a politician’s voice.  Nonhuman actors like dogs, cats, or birds are given human or even supernatural powers when used as props in arguments.  That is political Animism.  The political point is supposed to be so obvious even a puppy could understand the "Truth" that the debater believes. 

            People also use whatever they can to demonstrate that their political faith is correct.  God itself could intervene in politics by sending a thunderstorm to show displeasure over a change in environmental policy.  If nature itself rejects a politician, who could argue against that irrational view?  That is supernaturalism, a natural force used for human political purposes. Yet for mirrors, truth from authority only matters when it comes from the most powerful member of a forced political conversation.  Natural or supernatural forces are given political weight because a causality cannot be determined with the facts provided and/or the person worthy of mirroring is incapable of stringing them together rationally.  In English class, this would be called personification.  They signal that the argument is not rational and arguing may lead to no societal benefit.  Thus, animism and supernaturalism are common totems used in an argument.  They are indisputable because they are not human, but they are potent because they offer a Truth that even a nonhuman could understand. Therefore, they are logic busters, meaning they are offered up as perfect objects that cannot be argued against in a logical manner. Who can argue with a non-responsive God? 

 Yet, Prop totems do not have to be non-human.  All they need be is something that inhibits the ability to argue against it.  I would argue that the most prevalent and potent prop totem is the child.  Thus, Infantilism is not only acting like a child, but in this case the childish actions of their parents who believe “the immature” hold truth beyond their ability to reason.   

            Children are valued in American culture in many ways.  We want them fed, we do not want them roaming the streets begging for some slop meal, and we sure as heck do not want them crying because of some trauma.  It is important that a society protects the immature.  With that platitude, that commonplace, common sense waste of time expression written, I can move on now that I have virtue signaled ahead of time that I do not want children or teenagers hurt.  Who would not want the best universal childcare environment possible, the Truth that no skeptical person could disagree with?   Who would not want them to grow and act as future citizens of America, the Truth that sets the best possible, brightest future that no one could disagree?  Yet, argumentation with stupid children is another story. 

The young may invoke the most emotional reaction for some people, but that does not mean they provide the most truth.  If a child is the one to bring the most tears to a group, then they are the superior moral force and should be mirrored.  No rational person would actually argue that gun policy and laws should be made by children who would use stickers and finger-paints to label good and bad men who they think should be judged.  Yet, if a child cries over gun policy, what societal benefit could come from arguing against a young human that is emotional?  The only result would be stigma, which increases your personal disharmony in mirroring.  The mirror’s personal state of mind is as critical to the success of this process as having the stigma of arguing with a child would only decrease the amount of harmony you can bring to society and the number of beneficial actions you could bring through your more rational approach to politics.  When in doubt, mirrors should infantilize the parent and the child.  A simple “Oooh” “Aw!” or “Isn’t that nice?”  Serve infantilism and “goo-goo gagas” to the cowardly parents who use unreasonable young minds to do their arguing for them. 

Laugh at the parent who brings their children to rallies so they can “expose them early to what America really looks like!” What is the Truth from that experience?  Walk away to look down the alley of a ghetto and see if it is true.  Are the babies left crawling in the street experiencing the same “what America looks like” as the political stroller child, or is it a fantasy concocted to represent a political argument that barely exists?  Did you experience “what America really looks like” when you grew up, and how are you prepared to handle their Truth if you did not?  All children do not participate in rallies, yet some children are raised to believe the protest experience is the Truth.  Such parents raise delusional children who may no longer need strollers and to be lifted up to be kissed by their politicians, but who kissed much of their reason goodbye when they were pushed forth as a political totem.  Thus, the Truth cannot be constructed from the rallying, protesting, youth experience.  Instead, the children are political props who are used for their parent's weak argumentative abilities and who have erected them as a totem that is so sweet and innocent that no argument should be presented to counter it.

Turning a logic problem over to an immature youth would work less rather than more.  I cannot argue for all of people throughout history who cannot control their teenagers or any other age class of people.  What then is the value of using children and teenagers to convey a message?  One thing is for certain, youth are given weight because of their innocence and their potential for victimization from the abstract forces of evil in a society.  They are seen as “logic busters” because the adult groups are having arguments, a deadlock forms because there is not enough agreement to change, and thus the logical sides cannot achieve a breakthrough.  Emotion is meant to steamroll, “to change the national conversation,” to finally “do something” about this sudden issue that is more emotional and less rational than ever before. 

Put a weapon in the hand of a child and showing them using it responsibly to ward off the bad guys and the pro-gun argument feels vindicated in its support for owning inanimate objects that represent freedom to them.  However, just because an argument is given emotional weight by a distraught teen or sniper child, does not mean the argument is factually true or that the best action can result from this discussion. 

What is the value then of listening to children?  Is it the moral clarity that youth offers us?  If youth confers truth, then what about the child who strangles an animal because they know no better, but at the same time calls the obviously evil murderer a bad man?  Certainly, we would not want to have idiot babies or murderous teens as policymakers for rational adults.  Will society really spend the time to sort through the right and wrong children based on the emotional response we expect of them when a political issue is put before them?  Doubtful. 

 Instead, we look to children to validate adult ideas because they are useful props to help make our arguments for adults.  Few rational people would have the courage to confront the saddened teenager and say they are wrong and that their plan will be ineffective.  Therefore, human props exist as emotional totems of Truth because they represent the most unassailable human prop for an argument.  They are props because most lack the rational reasoning abilities of adults.  Really, the adults who involve their children in political arguments are just as weak as those shout and scream at their debate opponents.  In general, parents have more experience with Truth and those can use that experience to bring about more rational choices for society.  As stated before more rational choices are better and more moral for society because they increase the amount of just decisions possible in a society.  However, if we base a society and its morals on even the average innocence and morality of children, then less rational choices will be made because the average child is less rational than the average adult, and certainly less capable than the mirroring agent who knows when to leave an irrational debate.  

“The Truth is so simple a child could recognize it” vs.“Kids say the darnedest things” 

            Take for example Saint-Exupery’s quote from Le Petit Prince.  This story is meant to show children that their thoughts are valid too, that their parents are not always right, and that their thoughts should be considered.  In a way, Saint-Exupery is correct.  Logic and rational thinking knows no bounds.  It is not age-based.  This is essential for assessing the arguments of children or adults as truth is a truth regardless of the age of the person involved.  One might criticize the fact that emotional children could catch on to truths because they experienced them.  That would disregard the entire point of this post.  Rational students know to reject emotional arguments and leave a conversation where no benefit can be reached.  Therefore, any student who argues using their emotions risks becoming the mirrored rather than the mirror.  It is important then that we separate the rational thought of youths as opposed to the emotional arguments that validate other people’s emotional arguments. 

Adults offer no more truths merely because of their older age than children do because of their youth and inexperience.  Instead, it is the physiological abilities of the two generalized age groups to process the truth that matters. As stated previously, arguing using totems is irrational because they act as replacements for arguments rather than logical arguments constructed using reason.  If one critiques a policy, first explaining it as truthfully as possible, then critiquing it using known facts about the issue, one has created a logical argument.  Facts strung together is reasoning, reasoning is logical if the conclusions can be supported by the truthful information put into the system.  

The child does not need to have a complex grasp of the effects of building a border wall, establishing high tariffs possibly provoking a trade war, or the effects of using constantly degrading and offensive language about some in a society.  Instead, a video of a baby crying over a Trump photo and smiling at an Obama one is sufficient argument enough for the person most worthy of being mirrored.  The emotions of the child cannot be understood.  A bright orange monster might have been something that the child was previously scared of and thus he reacted to Trump’s hair and cried.  Instead of rationally trying to explain the emotional reaction as a scientifically-minded developmental psychologist would, the baby has been granted political powers because it cries at an object the parents have given great negative value.  A seemingly funny and harmless moment has been granted political meaning by the parents, who stooped low enough in order to allow a child’s crying to represent their political argument for them.  If one is willing to use a baby prop, how much headway can you make in a rational argument with them?  I fear for the future if rely on infants and teenagers to make our decisions for us. 

XIV. Conclusion

“But if this ever changin' world
In which we live in
Makes you give in and cry
Say live and let die
Live and let die”

Paul McCartney, Political Theorist and Passive Aggressivist

 We have done some great work in this, the second Volume of mirroring.  I pray that there is no need for a third volume of this work, that truths are more used than a Truth dictated for us in the average political conversation.  Alas, 2018 is a difficult time for us mirrors.  It is wishful thinking that the works of the Pragmatists will be more closely observed and used in our daily lives.  But I would not have written this work if I thought that realistic change could not occur or that society cannot be made just a little better.  I hope this work leads to more conversions to a logical lifestyle.  I hope that my readers put down their protest signs, stop watching outraged Youtube rants, and reject using memes as arguments.  Maybe by 2019 or hopefully by 3019 we will have a slightly better society void of logic busters and prop totems.  Keep hope alive!  Thank you for reading and happy hunting my mirroring friends! 

Glossary

Abstraction: the nonphysical

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

ad populum: an argument that is popular or given by a popular person.    

Animism: Using nonhuman creatures as props in a political argument.

Assent: To agree to something.

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

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

Emotion Flares: Warning signals that a person is emotional during a debate

Infantalism: A totem belief that the innocent members of society possess truth.

Faith trap:  Beliefs requiring trust rather than reason to justify an argument

Fallacy: a false idea.

Fossil Ideology: beliefs that act as Truth and believed without question like a museum piece.

Kimmelians: People who derive authority from celebrity and popularity.

meme: an interesting or funny item on the internet.  

Logic busters: arguments or objects that cannot be argued against.

Macrofaults: large abstract and complex problems that are approached simplistically.

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.   

Pragmatism: 19th century American Philosophy that sought truth through what works.

Prop totems: objects used to convey arguments so that no argument can be given in response.

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

Reason:  Justifying belief using facts.

Self-Selection: A rational choice to become a mirror because of an irrational debate

Supernaturalism: Using natural or supernatural forces or events in a political argument.  

Total Recall Fallacy: the false presumption that all of reality can be recalled. 

Totems: objects acting as symbols.  

Utility: the choice between mirroring or arguing to gain a societal benefit