Political Mirroring Volume III: The Return of Practical Justice

Political Mirroring Trinity: 

Volume III: The Return of Practical Justice

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

The Highlights of Abstract Mirroring Volume III:

•  Reminder: Belief acceptance + Context=Harmony.
• The Mirror Justice Equation: Cause – Means =Justice (Belief acceptance)
• Selfish Social Justice: The form of justice most commonly found in an unwanted political conversation.  Selfish people seek to beat debate opponents and call that “Justice.”  In conversations with those we mirror, “Justice” flows from the strongest debater whom mirrors should target to maximize harmony.     
• Mirror Courts:  Each discussion where mirroring is applicable is like a farcical court system.  Instead of due process (reasonably fair system for an accused under a law) or a rationally-guided jury of peers, instead, there is a personal and emotional system of the strongest debater made up of a court of logical inferiors in the context of a debate. 
• Combat Social Justice (CSJ): is the irrational idea that physical action creates “universal justice” when a person, a group, “the world,” or another abstraction is attacked beyond an existing justice system’s physical punishment. Users of this form see themselves as fighting for justice in ritual combat much like a would-be King of Wakanda in the “Black Panther” movie.  A pie to the face or a bat to an enemy’s stomach probably achieves some justice for these “warriors.” (Not).
• Avenger Justice (Confrontational) (AJ):  The punishment aspect of a justice system often using combat justice tactics.  These acts could be physical attacks, the confiscation of property, depriving one of the freedom of movement (imprisonment), or even execution.  However, any action of retribution in a conversation need not be mirrored especially during an act of violence. 
• Exonerative Justice (Defensive and Reputational) (EJ):  The restorative aspect of a justice system.  These acts involve returning physical objects (property) to other people or making others think differently about abstract ideas like a reputation, returning it to a perceived state, or to guilt judged by some legal standard.  Many conversations have some abstract restoration of a downtrodden group to some desired point in their version of history. Thus, many exonerative concepts are ones that can be mirrored.
• Mueller Exonerative Justice (M.E.J.):  A fairly new form of justice that is passive aggressive.  A charge is made without triggering the ability to respond to it (known as due process).  Named after Robert Mueller’s team’s inversion of hundreds of years of “Western justice” whereby a prosecutor can accuse without charging. This form almost definitely should be mirrored.
• 10 Areas of Concern where Obstruction of the Conversation May Take Place: Questioning or resisting a debate using logic is potential obstruction of Mueller Exonerative Justice as it is an obstruction of the conversation. 
• Mirrorable Justice:  The type of “Justice” most commonly encountered by mirrors, most similar to Retributive justice.  This form of “Justice” is a “Truth.”  The subject believes their wrong must be righted and correction is somehow to take place in the course of the conversation. 
• Infinity Social Justice War and the Six Stones: Never ending and all consuming Social Justice.  Each gem represents an increase in power for the debater, which combined will blast the mirror should they dare to resist. 

Table of Contents:

Volume III: Return of Practical Justice

I.                   Introduction

Part I:

The Selfish Social

II.                The Selfish Social

III.            Social Justice: Macrofaults; B*tching: Microfaults

(Social Justice is to Macrofaults as B*tching is to a Microfault)

      IV. The Ice-Cream Hearsay Social: Frozen Adventures in Using Social Evidence as “Truth”

V.               The Tapperist Conspiracies: Quid Pro Quo in Mirrorable Conversations

Part II:

Serves Juicy Justice

VI.               The Justice Equation

VII.               The Elements of Conversation Justice

VIII.            Robert Mueller Justice: Passive-aggressiveness without Consequences for the Accuser.

IX.         10 Areas of Concern where Obstruction of the Conversation May Take Place.

Part III:

In the Infinity Social Justice War

X.      The Six Stones of Social Justice

XI.            Combat Social Justice

XII.              Conclusion

XIII.  Glossary

Political Mirroring Trinity:

Volume III

Return of Practical Justice

I.                   Introduction

 

“Frank: I want a world where Frank Junior and all the Frank Juniors can sit under a shade tree, breathe the air, swim in the ocean, and go into a 7-Eleven without an interpreter. I want a world where I can eat a sea otter without getting sick! I want a world where the Democrats will put somebody up there worth voting for! I may not get there with you, but most of all, I want a world where I can wake up each morning with this woman, whom I love! (Frank Drebin grabs and kisses First Lady Barbara Bush)”

Naked Gun 2 ½ (1988)

After the powerhouse that was Volume II, this new tome is not some weighty slog, some weak follow-up on greatness.  Rather, it’s a fine breath of fresh written air, an offering for posterity.  Yet, Volume III is by no means petite, coy, abridged, nor does it suffer from the wretched artistic curse of threes as if it were some embarrassed black sheep of a sequel.  Instead, any third volume of any opus should be one of rectification, the completion of trinity and the absolution of those who ask for it.  At least I think so.  And no, rectification is not some dirty term used to draw in inappropriate readers just for meaningless views.  Justice is on the line and let’s not kid around, angels, I wouldn’t risk it for popularity if it wasn’t necessary.

Rectification means to me an achievement of justice within the arc of this rational narrative, so far just three volumes long.  Good sounding ideas that no one should oppose, like “social justice,” are my purpose.  I want to stop the madness of political simplification, the same cause for which we mirrors seek actual improvement in the world and not our own soothed emotion in pursuit of a fruitless dream that any reasonably skeptical person would doubt.  I want to escape the glittering generalities of most justice talk for I seek actual solutions and not dumb propaganda slogans as bright, shining, and emotional as they’d be.  Auditing each conversation for logic is how we hope to make humanity a little better, though it remains a great and painful exercise.  However a boundless and unfortunate burden on us it is, “Yes, we can” do it!

Never-ending is our search, yet there are bright spots on our journey.  Be mindful, however, that mirrors are not medieval torturers looking for witches to burn as that would reflect badly upon ourselves.  We do not seek to purge all logical impurities wherever they are.  Spanning across every political conversation, it would be far too time consuming and devour any possible harmony from those who mostly converse politically with emotions.  Nor are we image scrubbers, out with our brushes to clean away every little slander and wrong in the world, spray-painted on the walls of our treasured social media profiles or on a hated rival’s so-called “fake news” article post.  Instead, our pursuit of “Justice” is guided for more truths, recognized as such by mirroring agents because of choice and not as some bewitched black magic, “social justice” event. 

What mirrors do isn’t magic, although this volume is surely just as magical to me as the two others.    I want practical and incremental wonders, namely by ignoring the petty injustices, the minor wrongs of everyday life that humans often irrationally connect to a greater unfairness.  A “wrong” is a broad concept, slightly mysterious, but one that I’ll use instead of the more narrow “crime” because a wrong can be a societal fault, an offense against someone according to “social standards,” but not necessarily criminal because it does not violate a law at the time of the incident.  Therefore, wrongs are more appropriate because they tap into any perceived state of injustice, whereby something happened that should not have according to the people of the time. 

Wrongs are undesirable and people want them put “right,” corrected, and the whole world re-balanced as the ultimate desire.  That righting of any wrong is what I refer to as a “justice.”  Our mirror concept of justice is much less mystical than some angel fire, less enrapturing than making some country greater again than no past person ever knew, or more productive than occupying some financial boulevard to punish its wealthy employees that no one seemingly cared about before screamers pointed them out.  To rebalance means how the problem group offends the victim group and how that problem is resolved.  Yet, how can a wrong that’s become a “fault” be diminished or eradicated?  How can the crying be consoled through a physical punishment of the wrongdoer?  How can the entire universe be purified if the enemy politician was simply slimed by a protester in the street?  The feelings are powerful, but the actual justice is horrifyingly lacking. 

“But Mr. Mirror Man, you write about absolution, you fret about humanity’s need for injustices as they push people forward to some brighter future because of the energy of hate or hero worship.  So, what can be done?” says every reasonably skeptical person ever.  Hats off to you on your rational thought by my hypothetically supposing you’d think that.  To answer the mystery questioner, it is no coincidence that I write about “justice” and that the term “exoneration” is also in the news a lot today (2019).  I like to define terms so that there is no misunderstanding as to what I mean.  Exoneration is neatly defined by Dictionary.com as “completely absolving from blame. Vindication.”  Yet in our conversations, we rarely achieve the removal of all blame, absolving a falsely accused offender of their accused sins, let alone is there ever an obliteration of the wrong.  Obliteration is total and absolute after all.  In fact, mirrors must maneuver through conversations with plenty of wrongful blame, little justice, and with the likelihood that nothing beneficial will come from it. 

To keep our subjects from “Leaning Forward” into the abyss of irrationality, superstition, and conversational injustice, we need to look at big concepts of justice philosophy and see how they can inform and improve the time management of our own rational endeavors.  Mirroring justice can be offensive or defensive, but it’s really not a binary situation as it’s often a complex mixture of both.  Yet, “Justice” cannot happen in the course of an average political conversation anyways, so grouping them as such will help us understand the often binary mind of those we’ll have to mirror.  The type of justice matters more to us in order to correctly identify the winning argument and align ourselves with the person or persons who can bring about the most “Justice” (harmony). 

As you will read, Avenger Justice (A.J.) is confrontational as it physically punishes the offender or abstractly demolishes a reputation through the feeling of shame or other desired emotional effects from the punishment. Our subjects want it to hurt when they seek to punish.  In contrast, Exoneration Justice (E.J.) is the defensive side and unlike its aggressive opposite, it’s mostly abstract and emotionally felt, yet also rarely realized in the world as it is.  It seeks to restore property, emotions, or immaterial qualities like reputation back to some perceived state. 

Passive aggressive justice is the final mirroring idea of approach even if it is somewhat rare to modern Western Civilization.  Mirrors call it (Robert) Mueller Exonerative Justice (M.E.J.) whereby there is an accusation without charges, but with no formal declaration of innocence.  It is passive aggressive unlike Avenger Justice because the accuser fails to act on the charge using the official process, but they still make it with a spiteful glee.  They will not allow a defensive response in the conversation any more than they would permit due process for the accused in some legal system after they make their passive accusation. Mind you, I am not charging that the former special prosecutor invented this justice schema, but as a person appointed indirectly by my ignorant opponents to make indictments or not, to have an opinion or not, I will eventually give ten speculative areas of concern where M.E.J. can be found in everyday political conversation.  This might sarcastically contradict the notions of proper justice systems regardless of the damage to the reputation of the not-directly accused and not-charged, but I feel compelled to accuse without any consequences for me.  Anyways…..       

So, how do we set up a system of “Justice” whereby the accused is afforded a fair process and whereby the optimal outcome is for the right amount of some punishment meted out against those actually guilty and the innocent have restored as much as possible?  That is the question for the ages.  Pragmatic justice would determine that the best possible outcome results from using experience in the case of each wrong.  Mirroring would add in the spice of the categorical imperative.  If all persons were judged under the means described by the laws making up a justice system, the result would be the same for all concerned based on the evidence at hand, if and only if the meaningful experiences of the same wrong are identical.  Since all wrongs are not equal as not all facts are discernable about all wrongs equally, then mirrors, like pragmatists, must give the best possible judgement of the scenario with the experiences available and they must use the means given by existing laws and from their more logical approaches to the problems of the world.  Mirror Justice thus combines best possible outcomes and a universal rule that can be applied to each justice scenario available at the time of the wrong.  It’s simply a fairy-tale wedding made for heaven!

Finally, we must turn to the Justice Equation and the broader implications of using words to describe some fabled concept of “Justice.”  This equation is not something universal that solves an eternal conundrum.  Instead, like everything we do, it’s a problem solving device to aid in making a decision whether to mirror or not.  The Justice Equation is cause minus means equals “Justice.”  The solution, the “Justice,” is the belief the mirror should temporarily accept because it brings the most harmony.  To debaters, it is the greatest right over wrong in the conversation.  Basically, it is meant to help mirrors decide if the costs of the debaters pursuing some “Justice” are greater than the cause.  Mirror justice maximizes truths and minimizes falsehoods, while the mirrored justice maximizes our subject’s happiness so long as their way of reaching bliss doesn’t denigrate a rational person’s reputation or victimize other people in the process of their irrational pursuit.  The subject’s “Justice” is whatever the conversation’s “cause” is, what correction, what exoneration they demand from the people they are talking to that certainly cannot bring about any rectification whilst they are annoyingly chittering about. 

 In order to figure this out in the context of a political conversation, mirrors must decide if the proposed actions in a conversation would promote a more rational and thus just outcome or if the results would be unjust, illogical, and most worthy of mirroring.  So, we have a lot to cover in this work if we are going to describe the best and most realistic justice system available in a political conversation while ensuring that the most and best outcomes result from its creation.  Justice will prevail!  (probably not for all though)

Part I:

The Selfish Social:

II.                The Selfish Social

“…why is it that when one man builds a wall, the next man immediately needs to know what’s on the other side?  You do want to know what’s on the other side, don’t you?” 

Tyrion Lannister to Jon Snow on the Wall in “Game of Thrones”

          The Selfish Social is a term that describes our subject’s selfish interests in pursuing a conversation, the walls they build to protect their own argument, and the open borders they demand from their opponents.  They might look for self-aggrandizement while scorning the person with a Bernie sticker on their lapel.  Whatever genuine interest, dare I say “passion,” they have for the political issue is wrapped up in the show, the spectacle of winning a discussion subjects have no intention of having rationally.  They are Selfishly Social, driven to dominate their fellow man-I mean persons- and not there to learn and arrive at truthful conclusions. 

Yet, our subjects are neither universally social nor universally independent from each other.  By universally social, I refer to the school of philosophy that sees human interactions as more positive in outcome and that individual thoughts are reflections of or reactions against society.  I do not propose this view.  To the other extreme, some see “the Social” as a hindrance on the individual, or that basically society is a corrupting influence on the individual when society is unbalanced (ala the Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and other social contract theories). 

Mirrors follow neither oversimplified extremes nor was my straw man a plethora of all philosophies just for me to attack.  Weakened arguments or not, it doesn’t really matter for mirrors as most of us can find out about Enlightenment, Pragmatist, or American Founding philosophy on our own.  It’s not as if our subjects will actually reference the material accurately.  All we need do is to simply mirror that one quote from the know-it-all in the conversation or follow along on that quixotic path through some false history. 

  But mirrors are thinkers, we care about truths and for us, they’re strung together logically.  Some might see a contradiction in the idea that mirrors are logic auditors of conversations, meaning there is absolute subjectivity, thus individualism is the driving element to this philosophy.  In that mode of critique, one would assume that mirrors are somehow always more logical and they are hindered by the illogic of society around them, namely the poor political conversation they are checking.  It might be true that I feel hindered by the illogic of society around me and my explanation thus far has been concerned with the means of mirroring in order to get to the endgame of having less illogical political arguments.    

Yet in Volume II, we clearly established that mirrors are not somehow inherently more logical or illogical than any other people around them.  The context of each political conversation is fluid as are the possibilities that any person can be illogical.  In fact, the entire social aspect of mirroring is the critical knife in the heart of the individualist critique of my philosophy.  Mirrorism cannot be a purely subjective (individualist) philosophy because the only action required of a mirror is not that they are more logical just because of who they are, thus they should rule over others, but BECAUSE they are more logical and just in seeking truthful outcomes in the conversation, they choose to mirror and leave in order to better those they BELIEVE are less logical and unjust.  I am giving mirrors the means, not the imposition of my judgement of their logical capabilities nor the capabilities of the people they audit.  I explain ways to better identify logical thinking and give mirrors a solution to stop the perpetuation of emotional discussions and the harm I see arising from having more of them.

Thus, mirroring is a fundamentally social act, with individualistic and skeptical motivations.  It is the suppression of the individual urge to crush a debater and to accept the arguments in the context of the conversation and leave when the pacific job is completed.  Group happiness is thus the antidote to the purely individualist argument, the selfish, hedonistic desire (ala Volume I) to crush another.  True individualists would not feel the need to placate emotional people.  They would demolish at will and simply retire to the mountains and stay in a state of nature, naked and unafraid of the beasts around them, content in the concrete and absolute correctness of their logic and understanding of the world.  That fantasy world is not for us mirrors!

 

III.             Social Justice: Macrofaults;

B*tching: Microfaults

(Analogy Translation: Social Justice is to Macrofaults as B*tching is to a Microfault)

 “When the vines freeze in my village, my priest infers that the wrath of God is upon the human race.  Seeing our civil wars, who does not exclaim that the system is topsy turvey and judgement is at hand, reflecting that many worse things have happened and that 10,000 parts of the world to our one are having a jolly time.”

Montaigne, “On Educating Children” (1588) found in From Dawn to Decadence by Jacques Barzun

Now you might be wondering why I decided to discuss “wrongs” after writing about microfaults for two volumes.  They are connected of course, but different.  One would recall that a microfault is a petty grievance that is not solvable in a conversation.  Essentially, it’s a complaint with no path towards rectification while the conversation is ongoing.  Macrofaults are large, sometimes national or universal problems that originate from petty complaints and are built up and so oversimplified that they are also impossible to resolve (like Social Justice).  So how does a wrong connect to micro and macrofaults?

The answer is simply that faults are problem-oriented complaining and the debaters are never capable of bringing about a “justice.”  A “wrong” as previously stated is an actual injustice.  A drunk driver plows into another car killing the victim.  A nation engages in deliberate ethnic cleansing.  Those are both small and big wrongs that unfortunately occur all too often with humanity.  Wrongs can even form the basis of a micro or macro fault.  A conversation about the drunk driver could devolve into emotional appeals and calls to ban all alcohol because of the wrong.  A conversation about the genocide could devolve into comparing any leader who does not want immediate war with the ethnic cleansers as the same as Hitler or some other racist because an action isn’t taking place.  Because the irrational debater guesses alcohol or skin color were the motivations for a complex scenario, they are emotionally connected to labeling their opponents.  Therefore, both micro and macro faults likely have some injustice at the core.  What makes them a fault instead of a wrong is the inability to remedy it when the complaint is made.  There is no ability to bring about justice in the irrational conversation itself.  It’s not an informational session where ideas are shared and truths emerge as in a Socratic dialogue.  In this case, there are no studies properly cited, no peer-reviewed facts presented effectively, nor little attempt to connect the proof using reason.  Instead, micro/macrofaults are just little and big b*tching about problems without any intent on doing something about it.

One might also be wondering why faults build unfixable injustices, yet they are not in the justice section of this work.  The reason is that like hearsay, wrongs and faults are fundamentally social creations.  Both rely on the winning morality of the political conversation, but also the mentality of the mirror prior to their moral decision to accept the argument in context and leave. They are a focus solely on the problem, the emotional high felt when complaining to another person who more often than not already agrees with the grievance and wants the emotions reflected back.  Mirrors only reflect back enough to get out of a conversation.  Remember, as humans we might empathize and come extremely close to feeling similar emotions to another, but there is no way to ever 100% accurately verify the emotions between two distinct human beings until as mentioned in Volume I, we can directly meld our brains in universal emotional understanding.  And mirrors are trained to look with skepticism at all political arguments, especially those dripping with emotions.

You’ll also recall that in Volume II, I compared confessing micro or macrofaults as something akin to receiving therapy or talking to a priest.  It’s a comforting feeling when whining about problems and not rolling up one’s sleeves to do the nitty gritty work to actually solve them.  Our subjects would much rather have the brief emotional high of complaining, instead of devoting a lifetime to studying the topic, developing critical skills, and then applying them in a systematic way to tackle something like DWI homicide rates or the complex social, cultural, and historical issues related to ethnic cleansing in that one specific country.  People often choose the quick and easy path and not the deliberate and rational one most likely to solve a problem. 

IV.            The Ice-Cream Hearsay Social: Frozen Adventures in Using Social Evidence as “Truth”

“Gossip Girl here, your one and only source into the scandalous lives of Manhattan’s elite.  Who am I?  That’s one secret I’ll never tell.  You know you love me.  XOXO”

Gossip Girl

One might think that even with the wacky subheading, I’m merely going to reference the legal term of hearsay and bore you with a one flavor kind of mirror-sundae symbolism.  But like every good ice cream party, I am going to let the flavors of this homemade concept sink in, delivered of course with a cherry on top by the end.  You won’t be disappointed!

For the vanilla side of things, yes, hearsay in mirroring fits the general legal standard of the concept in that it is rarely admissible evidence of a truth.  Contrary to a prominent congressman on the Intelligence Committee (2019), it is not better nor more accepted to use it over direct evidence and testimony.  And it should fit into the justice side of this post, but really, hearsay is all about the social.  As always, LegalDictionary.com comes through for us with a better definition.  It defines hearsay in three ways, all of which are useful for us and which progressively fall apart from potentially useful information as the definitions dangle away towards our target range of monitoring irrational political conversations.  Though rarely admissible in court, the third definition (gossip) is what is mostly used in unwanted political conversations.  So hearsay is:

 “1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule. 3) scuttlebutt or gossip.”

          One might question why information might still be useful even if that person did not directly hear the information?  Our subjects use what I’ll call the “Blowwhistle Scale,” or BS for short, which is essentially about the frozen qualifications, trustworthiness (real or supposed), ideology, or popularity of the hearsayer.  Their preconceptions are icy and unmovable without serious warming to a rational argument.  In fact, all humans filter hearsay and make complex decisions about the meaning of the information, often ordering or eliminating what doesn’t fit their preconceptions at the time of the hearing.    Few people are perfectly logical, honest, and directly knowledgeable enough to know all of the facts of a case to be totally truth-seeking, the pursuit of which I might remind readers is the critical aspect of a true justice system. 

How then does the hearsay concept apply to mirrors?  Take the example of a best friend who might say they heard someone else talking trash about them in the hallways.  The recipient of the gossip might suppose that the intentions of the friend are true and that they are looking out for their best interests by telling them inflammatory information.  A more skeptical victim might question why the friend is telling them the information, especially if the friend was especially aggressive and gossipy in the past.  After all, the information might lead to violent confrontation or worse.  The point is that people filter out the information given to them by their evaluation of a person or persons providing the information in the context of the Blowwhistle event. 

Thus, mirrors must be cognizant of ad hominems, but beyond simply the insult fallacy used in a conversation.  Our use of ad hominems refers to the person that in any way replaces a logical argument. To our subjects, it’s a perfectly acceptable description not in the pejorative, insult sense, but instead as a determining factor in our subject’s credibility.  Our subjects might trust persons with a similar background to them (gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.).  They certainly are more likely to filter in those who are from the same ideological background, especially if they are active registered Republicans or Democrats.  And the most points scored for credibility come when the person has an occupation or profession that would lend them credence as an expert on a subject, even if that expert wasn’t there to witness the specific situation.  So they are expert and command authority, thus, they probably speak truth.  Mirrors move beyond the speculation and the gossip.  Even a State Department official’s testimony can be useless if it produces no direct evidence to support an accusation other than water cooler blather or ex-employee policy b*tching. 

          So if hearsay information is rarely acceptable in court, yet we use it all of the time, why can’t mirrors find a balance between the unwitnessed, the unprovable and something that actually took place?  Context has been the cornerstone of the philosophy of Mirroring.  We will almost never use hearsay evidence because we prioritize the witnesses of the incident rather than uncritically accepting the testimony of someone else who wasn’t there, especially when the mirror agent wasn’t there either.  We can’t mirror situations we are not in and we can’t evaluate the truths of the conversation if we don’t see or hear them.  Therefore, hearsay is anathema to the whole concept of adding more truths to the conversation because there is no way to evaluate and verify the testimony if we’re not there or have no evidence of it (like a transcript). 

          Broiling in the weak and sputtering critic’s mind right now is the question of how any mirror could accept science, history, math, or any other body of knowledge if hearsay cannot be used because mirrors weren’t there to directly witness the fact collection directly.  Setting aside for a moment the fact that the people we mirror really don’t use science or history or any other rational, intellectual discipline correctly, mirrors understand that we must eliminate any possibility of a double standard and leave the Jerry Garcia flavors of acid ice cream to those who want to waste their time and money on such things. 

Once again, the critics spike their own critique because they have yet to understand that hearsay is not acceptable in the context of a rational conversation, but it certainly is acceptable to our subjects who’ll use it at every suitable time.  Those intellectual disciplines and philosophies are testable and people can argue against them rationally.  Doubting them is certainly healthy IF done rationally, but otherwise, attacking the facts as unknowable is conspiratorial.  A body of time-tested knowledge, while never perfectly settled, is much better than accepting ALL information uncritically, especially when there is no way to test it.  And there won’t be enough science, history, math, or any other knowledge base in that conversation if the mirror chooses to play along with the conversation only long enough to get out of it because it is deemed “irrational.”  Why equate less factual hearsay with reasonably, rationally tested knowledge that isn’t going to be used in the average political conversation anyways?  We can test acquired knowledge, we can’t test an angry debater who only cares about winning. 

So if it’s not apparent by now, the world works differently for the people we seek to harmonize.  To them, scuttlebutt is reality.  To them, hearsay is admissible evidence in the court of public media.  To them, a second-hand Blowwhistle speaks truth because of their evil target, the value supporters give to their reputation, and of cherry-topping concern, because their ideology certainly doesn’t matter when they gossip in a formal written complaint composed in a lawyerly way by a team of fault-gossipers.  We might reject Blowwhistles for being out of context, but for our subjects in these conversations, hearsay is the Neapolitan ice cream, a gold standard of irrationality with the little evidence they’ll bring. 

V.               The Tapperist Conspiracies: Quid Pro Quo in Mirrorable Conversations

“Meredith: I'll go. Have you guys ever met Bruce Meyers, the Scranton rep for Hammermill?

Michael: Bruuuuuuuuuce.

Meredith: Well for the past six years I have been sleeping with him in exchange for discounts on our supplies and Outback Steakhouse gift certificates.

Jim: Jackpot.

Michael: Ach! Wuh---

Holly: Meredith, that is serious. I mean not only that a conflict of interests, there's also an exchange of goods.

Meredith: Exchange of steak. Have you ever had sirloin steak, honey?”

The Office, “Business Ethics”

          The final social category seems again like another part of a justice discussion.  After all, quid pro quo is also a legal term to designate illegal benefit from an agreement that abuses an official position.  We need not go into a complex legal discussion about cases where it could be applied, nor whether that illicit benefit must be strictly a tangible benefit or something decidedly more abstract, but let me at least reference the legal term.  According to Legal Dictionary.com,

“In politics quid quo pro can refer to the use of political office for personal benefit. For instance, an elected official might promise favorable governmental treatment to a person in exchange for something of value. This form of quid pro quo would be a violation of the law. On the federal level, the Hobbs Act makes it a felony for a public official to extort property under color of office. Trading campaign contributions for promises of official actions or inactions are also prohibited under the act.”

          Mirrors should view quid pro quo as an essential part of the human experience, something anthropologists spend lifetimes studying, but in most cases not criminal as it is simply the moral judgement of a transaction as a wrong.  People trade based on the concept of giving something of value for something else. The same goes for the irrational conversation where the supposed wrong behavior and/or transaction is being pointed out.  Thus, quid pro quo is definitely a social aspect because it follows the prevailing morality in the context of the conversation as to which “this for that’s” are acceptable or which are immoral and worthy of prosecution.  Other than another bastardized legal term used frequently in our monitored conversations, how then should we approach this concept when eminent legal scholars/followers of Jake Tapper, Don Lemon, Jimmy Kimmel, and Trevor Noah bring it up?

          First, we must note that our conversations are not actual courtrooms where ideally a law and a fair process would apply.  So any supposition about a political figure or issue could already be tainted by ideological corruption, which in of itself is not a cause for mirroring.  Instead, it’s pre-bias in the conversation that may warrant targeting.  Warning signs could be statements like “the man’s a crook” or “you know he has shady business dealings with (insert supposedly universally corrupt place or people).”  Rather than legally proving a quid pro quo took place in violation of US law, especially using the Hobbs Act (which made it a crime to use a political office for personal gain), instead, the crime has already been committed and everyone is just supposed to know about it because of the pre-bias and emotional feelings of the individual towards the accused. 

          Therefore, mirror quid pro quo is actually when our subjects believe “bad” people engaging in a “this for that” with other “bad” people.  There is a judgement of the persons involved in the exchange.  To our subjects, there can never be a double standard as that blind spot of contradiction would merely confirm their own wrongness.  And our conversations filled with the debaters such as they are would almost never admit their faults when they believe their “Truth” is on the line.  So pointing out similar quid pro quo’s would be seen by the mirrored as red herrings at minimum.  But if the double standard of quid pro quo is so damning that it jeopardizes the entire argument or even mindset of the hypocrite, then mirrors will note the appearance of what I call Tapperist Conspiracies, named after opinion journalist Jake Tapper, which refer to the complete dismissal of evidence of a potential “this for that” if the target is of an incorrect ideology.  This type of debater uses Tapperist Conspiracies to blot out any logical equivalency that could be made between two seemingly similar transactions and then to obliterate their debate opponents by labeling them as conspiratorial. 

This is of course a logical fallacy, as each transaction must be taken independently of the others if there is no logical connection between them.  Yet, if the alleged second wrong transaction’s origins derive from investigating the alleged first wrong transaction, then the second could be deemed just and not a quid pro quo.  But if one uses Tapperist Conspiracies to fallaciously deny any similar quid pro quo in the first transaction, then the second transaction appears to be wrong and thus the Tapperist user feels validated by demolishing what they see as a conspiracy theory.  No other words can be used to defend to the second transaction against the Tapperist because it merely creates a connection they believe is immoral and crazy.  If the quid pro quo double standard is pointed out, mirrors can expect to see telling signs of irrationality!  Look for smug laughter, a loud begging of the question, plenty of “do you REALLY believe that?” rhetorical questions, and much irrational condescension.  There isn’t much more of an inharmonious action than to be ridiculed by a high paid talking head and his TV studio gallery of sycophants! 

Part II:

Serves Juicy Justice

VI.            The Justice Equation

Belief acceptance + Context= Harmony

                                                     ▼

   Cause – Means = Justice (Belief Acceptance)

The people we mirror derive justice from two sources: a desired place of happiness (harmony) and a cause, a purpose which drives them to action.  The means are the ways, the actions by which a person seeks justice.  As a derivative of the Mirroring Equation, the Justice Equation is cause minus means equals “Justice,” which is the desired output of every conversation we mirror.  The cause is the reason or issue at stake in the conversation.  To achieve “Justice,” our subjects have a reason for believing the wrong committed occurred as they believe it did.  They have means as well, which are the costs, the ways in which they will achieve this “Justice.”

So to a debater, Trump could be the evil Cause.  The conversation could be with a Trump supporter who by the nature of their beliefs is evil incarnate.  The means in this case would be any argument or action taken in order to show they believe the cause is wrong.  They could throw rocks at the supporter, they could chant repetitively, or whatever else they “feel” works in their case.  The reason the means are subtracted from the cause is because if they go further than the wrong, the cause, then the debater could create sympathy for the devil (Trump supporters).  Therefore, this tool is useful in trying to identify which person will come out on top in a political conversation.  If the costs are greater than the cause, then you may have to align yourself with the Trump supporters in the conversation to avoid decreasing harmony because if an innocent supporter is beaten, sympathy and emotion rest with them instead of a rational argument about their views.  Flip it around and make Elizebeth Warren or Bernie Sanders as your villains to expand your possible conversational demons.

Harmony and cause are essential for the Justice Equation.  The former is the feeling of success resulting from seeking justice.  It could be a desire for retribution, a need to punish those who disagree with the Truth.  Means are the way in which justice is sought, it is the action, the cost of trying to achieve justice.    Also remember that our Mirror Justice Equation has no burden of proof.  It can and will be made up as the debaters go along.  That is not to say that conversation where some evidence is presented is automatically rational and thus not mirrorable.  Rather, there is no established standard of burden of proof for every conversation nor is there any required or even preset level of evidence required to prove something. 

Context will determine what action mirrors take.  What matters is the “who” of the conversation and the “what.”  The “who” refers to who can claim injustice and that right often rests on historical events beyond the time of the individuals in the conversation, but believed to directly affect them.  The “what” is also important for our consideration because that the issue at hand must be powerful enough for the debate monster to seize the focus of the conversation for their own emotional satisfaction.

VII.         Elements of Conversation Justice

“The Precogs are never wrong. But, occasionally... they do disagree.” 

On Judging Pre-crime from “Minority Report”

Without getting into the weeds of the American justice system, I want to indicate the differences between a rational due process whereby the elements of a crime are added together on a rational basis and a political conversation where there is mostly speculation, third hand information (gossip), and a speculative act in the past or future that no witnesses can directly corroborate.  These elements are instructive for our political conversations because of how they are bastardized, how the lack of rationality and a fair process corrupt the argument and lead to less justice as an output.  First:

The original elements of crime:

“Mens rea (intent) + Actus Reus (illegal act) + Concurrence + causation = Crime”

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_criminal-law/

BECOMES:

The Mirroring Elements of Conversational Crime: 

“Implied guilty mindset + speculative act + one or a few elements of context (but not a concurrence) = Mirror Injustice”

The original elements of crime are: mens rea (or guilty mindset), which is the intent to commit the crime, the act (the crime as completed or where significant steps were taken to complete it), concurrence (must occur at the same time), and causation (the person caused it).  Those elements are normally required in order to prove the crime was perpetrated by the individual or individuals.  Yet in the mirroring world, we do not work in settings where static principles like the elements of crime are observed.  We are instead focused on the wrongs and injustices the debaters find morally objectionable.  For us, the Mirror Elements of Conversational Crime predetermine the guilty person and when punished by our subjects, then “justice” will prevail.  Yet like politics in general, it’s often a perception issue, one that is faked or lied about in order to achieve the result (power).

So we must use a modified elements of crime for Mirroring.  Mens rea (intent/guilty mindset) is unprovable in almost every mirrorable conversation because there is almost never a rigorous presentation of evidence concerning the mindset of the criminal.  Normally, one would be labeled “accused” until the charges are filed, the suspect processed, and then a court comprised of a judge and/or jury determines them guilty or not guilty of a specific crime.  Not guilty of course means exoneration, the obliteration of the accusation, as does failing to charge a person with a crime.  Logically, a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and without being charged or convicted, they are innocent and legally, the slate is wiped clean.    

However, our subjects have already deemed their target as criminal, so no such niceties are necessary to them.  So, a guilty mindset is already presumed especially by America’s conversational pop-psychologists.  So “Trump is mentally unbalanced, narcissistic, and not well” therefore he must be guilty of (insert crime).  His mindset has been determined despite the lacking psychology credentials of the accuser, the lacking professional, clinical hours with the aforementioned criminal patient, and the serious lack of observation of doctor-patient rules to protect medical records of (insert disorder) from being made public.  So with all scientific and professional standards potentially absent, all forms of pop analysis are perfectly acceptable evidence to our subjects of the criminal mental state of the guilty.

What’s amusing (and scary) about the “act” portion of mirror justice is that some wrong must have occurred, a fantasy projection blasted in the faces of fellow debaters.  For actual justice systems in America, people are generally prosecuted based on their actions or their provable intention to commit actions that violate laws established at the time of the crime.  There is rarely the construction of laws in the moment just to judge targeted persons nor is there often the invention of standards to just punish despite all evidence to the contrary. 

But our mirror world is different because it’s based on suppositions, the possibility that our subjects THINK the person did it.  Now a rational person would immediately recognize that “action” in mirroring is basically conspiracy.  Even in the worst conspiracies (Trump colluded with Russia or the Clintons planned the Epstein murder), there are crimes or at least elements of a crime (Russian interference in the election and the bizarre circumstances of sex-offender Epstein’s murder while being connected to the rich and powerful).  Yet in the mirror realm, the crime happened because of who the supposed criminal is and speculation as to their involvement, not because the act is connected to an accused using evidence, investigation, and direct testimony.  

So Trump is guilty of the act of collusion (not an actual crime) not because the Mueller Report details specific acts of him directly colluding with a foreign government to rig an election (it and he didn’t), but merely because of who Trump is and the insistence that he “must’ve done it” because Trump said he wanted anyone, even Russia to get at Hillary’s missing emails in a snide joke. Note the elements of a conspiracy theory as data is connected into meaningful patterns to our subjects in order to show a pre-determined outcome where something was done intentionally. 

Here’s where the Mirror Justice System gets interesting and frankly fantastical.  Mirror always judge the context of information presented to them and try to determine as rationally as possible any connection.  However, our subjects do not care about context unless it serves what they are arguing.  Concurrence normally requires the crime or wrong to be committed at the same time as the person or persons could have committed it.  All alibis, all exculpatory (helpful) evidence that they were not in the context of the crime must be absent.  They had to have possibly been there and capable.  A prosecutor then could charge the accused with committing the crime because under the fairest and most just circumstances, they ruled out any chance that the accused didn’t do it.  But things change in Mirror Courts, the prosecution vapid, stone-minded, and ready to rumble, and the defense, powerless and devoid of any rights of due process or to respond.   

So context is basically concurrence and it is essential to prove a person guilty of a crime.  But when it comes to wrongs instead of crimes, there is fluidity.  Time is of little concern to our subjects when their narrative requires it not be.  For them time can be fluid, days, months, even hundreds of years can appear or disappear in order to fit the narrative.  Adam Schiff can invent new discurrent phone conversations between Trump and the President of Ukraine.  Like Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and extreme right-wing Nationalists, historical information is malleable as long as it suits ideological purposes, which in the conversation means the determination of guilt for the criminal.  

VIII.      "Mueller Exonerative Justice"

Factual justice should involve logical, fair, and tested due process, but it often is not in a typical political talk.  "Mueller Exonerative Justice" (MEJ) is named after his team’s inversion of hundreds of years of “Western justice” to a new system whereby a prosecutor can accuse without charging. It is aggressive like Ronin from Guardians of the Galaxy because the Accuser is "expressly" stating something while going after their concept of justice. They are saying/writing it strongly and refusing to qualify anything from their statements, which means they refuse to back off from any of their comfortable accusations. Yet, it is also brilliantly passive because they require insinuations in order to advance the informal accusation, but in a way that removes any future burdens of a fair process to decide actual guilt or innocence of that accused.

MEJ is no longer based on the binary “charged” (accused) or “not charged” (exoneration by declination to charge). The Cause for the failure to charge no longer matters, instead Mueller Exoneratives (MEs) can simply level the accusation, provide all of the evidence that led to the ME without actually formally accusing and triggering the justice system’s due process rights. This applies to actual "prosecutors" or "prosecutor debaters" in a typical political conversation. In this system, a prosecutor or debater expressly declares a person was not, not guilty. That’s right, I didn’t write “innocent” or “guilty” because I think it's important to emphasize the nature of what can also be called "double negative accusatives" or as I explained earlier, "expressly stating" someone is "not, not guilty" of a crime. Because they are expressly stating a double negative, they can accuse without formally accusing. They are not yet formally accused because charges are not filed, thus due process rights are not provided. MEs are thus discretionary accusations without any required level of evidence and are prior to due process being triggered.

Mirrors like me need to carefully assess the credibility of the debate prosecutor and look for any ME beliefs in a political conversation and then avoid any subject that will conflict with the inferred and near directly leveled accusations of guilt from our mirrored subjects. There will be no factual justice in the conversation because the process to determine that factually does not have to be anything other than a circular protection that justifies the MEs in the first place. To argue against the process of the MEs would only obstruct the leveling of the MEs. Thus, the ME is inferred guilt without due process rights, which in a conversation means defending yourself, ideas, or others.

They use the protective shield of "circular justice" to label any questions of the MEJ process as obstructive and therefore unjust. This is a useful concept for mirrors to identify in pursuit of having more logical and just political conversations. Mirrors are often trapped in conversations where aggressive prosecutor debaters attack and circle the wagons around their arguments, labeling any question not as a pursuit towards more truth and as exercises of reason, but as unjust, immoral, and from what is to them clearly indefensible positions. We seek greater "justice" in political conversations if we're going to bother having them at all.

As a mirror I refuse to definitively associate with any particular political party or ideology unless doing so temporarily will allow me to escape an unwanted political verbal solicitation. To actually accept such packaged concepts would violate my pragmatic practices, thus implying Truth can only be found within that ideological system. Yet, something I heard today was very similar to my thoughts from a few months ago.

I am speaking of course about the dreamy abstraction of an Exoneration Society (ES), a (fictional) place where any person can appeal to for relief from unsubstantiated accusations, be they gossipy, reputational, judicial, or any other form of negative personal argument against another. This majestic and fictional entity acts as a never-reached actuality for many, an ultimate form of Justice where every mark is wiped clean in the future. The ES clears those accused of supposedly unfair wrongdoings or through God's silence, condemns by not speaking.

The outlet for most of these appeals to total Justice don't end up as actual restorative justice, pushed through the courts in total satisfaction of the aggrieved, nor are the reputations and the world corrected with a snap of Thanos's Infinity Gauntlet. Instead, people use what they know. They complain in online forums, talk to themselves or to the trees above, or make insufferable Facebook posts that no one dares oppose. Of course the ES is believed by many who use Mueller Exonerative Justice as by declining real world criminal justice actions and instead acting as debate prosecutors, they allow for abstract qualities like "exoneration" or the explicit lack thereof to do the condemning for them during the course of a political debate or when accusing a person of an uncharged criminal offense by a fully capable prosecutor.

This is the last warning for today about the potency of the ES as a conversation's sense of Justice has to be adequately determined before the mirroring agent can determine if the political conversation is constructive and working towards a just end or irrational, lacking facts, lacking due process, and is a potentially dangerous waste of time and effort.

IX.            10 Areas of Concern where Obstruction of the Conversation May Take Place.  

“Implied guilty mindset + resisting act = Obstruction of a conversation= Injustice”

The Mueller Exonerative Justice Elements of Crime

I want to use the basic criminal justice approach, take my Mirror version, and apply it specifically to Mueller Exonerative Justice (MEJ).  For mirror subjects and unlike most American courts, it is “implied guilty mindset (guessed intent) plus resisting act equals crime.”  You will notice that concurrence and causation are absent.  Concurrence doesn’t matter for our purposes because the debate is only in that context and it doesn’t matter for our subjects because guilt is already determined whether it occurred a millennia before the act, whether it is ongoing, whether it is intermittent, or whether they judge the accused’s mindset to allow for future crime.  Causation is also left out as the mere act of dispute in a debate is considered the cause to react and therefore, obstruction of the conversation. 

10 Instances where Mueller Exonerative Justice may be triggered because of the obstruction of the debate winner’s “Justice”:

1.     Pointing out the unjust treatment of a person you believe to be just, but more powerful debaters think is corrupt (Cause: Describing a just person’s mistreatment).

2.     Disputing acts you believe to be mistreatment are actually evidence of your own corruption. (Cause: Complaining of maltreatment of self or others).

3.     Ending personal or professional connections to questionable friends or subordinates, firing them from your debate side, then counterattacking those you believe treated you unjustly when you found out about their underhanded misbehavior. (Cause: Retaliation in self-defense of a perceived betrayal and injustice).

4.      Forced to submit to persecution and then complaining about it (Cause: Failing to willingly submit).

5.     Making verbal statements that show a lack of complete submission to destruction (Cause: Complaining is curtailing a previously unhampered process).

6.     Lacking complete transparency as the not accused, accused, which means you attempt to invoke due process and/or other constitutional rights, which makes your actions obstructive (Cause: Failing to give up all information to persecutors without allied help to represent the not accused, accused’s interests).

7.     Trying to reassert your own pre-established legal powers over a process others initiated. (Cause: Authority may never be taken back once taken by others).

8.     Expressing complaints to friends anywhere or anytime about injustice and even contemplating the reassertion of power. (Cause: Verbal and thought crimes if found in any way are evidence of injustice)

9.     Trying to correct what you view as false information or gossip, but what is viewed, though as yet not proven as facts by your persecutors.  (Cause: Resisting your enemy’s analysis of information and leaking of it outside of the conversation)

10.             Failure to comply with an ex-friend turned enemy that was once sworn to secrecy, but betrayed anyways and that any inference that this oath-sworn, ex-friend feels like they’re being pressured to return to once-truth can be seen as obstructive (Cause: Actions to defend friends are obstructive, actions by betrayers to join persecutors must be aided and abetted.  No hostile person of any connection may be convinced of the error of their ways).  

Part III:

In the Infinity Social Justice War

X.            The Six Stones of Social Justice

"I will shred this universe down to its last atom and then, with the stones you've collected for me, create a new one. It is not what is lost but only what it is been given... a grateful universe."

Thanos, Social Justice Warrior in “Avengers: Endgame”

Social Justice is the ultimate macrofault, a giant glittering generality combining so many faults and wrongs that it’s almost impossible to define the belief in way that would allow for rational opposition.  Mere contrarianism to it will provoke more than simple b*tching as would contesting the average macrofault.  Instead, this concept is wrapped in the perception of all history and future to infinity and beyond.  And all of the weight of that space and time is on the shoulders of the debater in the conversation and all energy could be released upon you, the inevitable victims of these mini-Thanoses.  For that debate monster holds the Gauntlet of social justice and will not hesitate to throw it down (metaphorically) before you in order to validate their social justice beliefs.  It is too late in the game for you to stop the full gauntlet of Social Justice power directed at you and this time, there’s no time travel to take back what you said to provoke the titans.  Therefore, the utmost care is required in social settings to prevent the collection of the Infinity Stones of Social Justice for each conversational mistake you make is another gem on their fists.

Here are Social Justice keystones that upon their acquisition greatly enhance the potency of the irrational debater and successively increase the danger of mirrors in opposing them:

1.     Power: Victims- The route to power for Social Justice rests on the victimized group that doesn’t have it.   

2.     Time:  Period of Fault- The simplified time of the faults that is seen in totality as a period of injustice and despair.  An ahistorical concept. 

3.     Mind:  Groupthink of Problem- All persons on the side of Social Justice must believe the same things or be labeled “evil oppressor.”  

4.     Reality:  Immediate Feelings- The emotional effect of the social injustice, one of which is a “triggered” feeling. 

5.     Soul:  Eternal Sacrifice- What is lost by the victimized group: resources, freedom, equality, or some other abstraction.   

6.     Space: Futurism- The ability to travel to any point in an argument and know the outcome of all propositions.

Therefore, claiming social justice involves bearing the gauntlet and using it against debate opponents.  With the Power stone, the debater will describe a downtrodden group (real or not) and how some other group (real or not) stands in their way from achieving some greater aim.  Any debater who stands in the way of the Power stone can expect to be mowed down “like wheat to its shaft” for the oppressors are evil incarnate, bringing universal injustice by any denial of any magnitude of power to the aggrieved group.  For example, simply suggesting a person sign in before voting could be construed as an oppressive act, the denial of power to an aggrieved group if that group does not use its voting power to some desired level.  Because the vision of the oppressed group voting is smaller than what the debater wants it to be, any attempt to rationalize a voting process means the proposer is attempting to limit the power of the oppressed.  That provokes a planet destroying response. 

The Time stone is perhaps the most common function of irrational debates, especially those of social justice pushers.  When included in the gauntlet, it enables the debater to leap to the period at fault at some point in history and then to cherry pick the events, people, or facts they want in order to justify their claim of fault.  They could insert slavery into any discussion without taking into consideration specific types of slavery throughout the ages, nor a nuanced, albeit difficult discussion of race in the USA in 2019.  All that matters is that their description of events and their use of time bolsters their argument and to silence their opponents.  Any contrary perception of events denies the victim group the justice it has apparently longed for ad infinitum. 

          Mind stones are really thought control.  Using it requires Orwellian levels of word policing, to make sure the right words are used in the right formation.  New Speak and New Action mean that visible and audible signs of nonconformity will be rigorously patrolled and punished.  Speaking against a redistributive tax plan, for example, is a clear sign that the person is not conforming to the economic policy plans of some social justice warrior who views that government approach as the only correct one.  Of course, the stone user feels no compunction in justifying their economic policies.  Rather, the objector dares to speak up and question.  The Mind stone is then meant to put disagreeable people in their place, making the Debate Monster the unquestioned leader of the conversation. 

          In the Marvel Universe, the Reality stone is a fluid-like ether.  It changes and morphs around just like reality.  For our mirroring purposes, the Reality stone reflects the powerful emotional feelings of the irrational debater when they are opposed about some social justice topic.  They are able to channel their negative emotions into an unopposable force.  I remind the reader about the inability of any human to exactly match the emotions of another.  There is also no way to debate against feelings as they defy logic and rationality.  Therefore, the Reality stone is something no debate opponent can grasp.  If the user cries or screams angrily about the effects of oppression on them in the conversation, there is no way to counter the punishment the opponent is likely to receive.

          The Soul Stone has a special place in the heart of our subjects in their infinite quest for social justice.  It marks an eternal sacrifice that someone or some group made at some point in history.  Whether or not the debater shares in any of that sacrifice directly is inconsequential.  Perhaps a family member experienced discrimination in the past, an injustice certainly, but the debater can only connect themselves through emotion to something that someone else did, not a wrong they experienced directly.  Again, if the individual actually experienced the discrimination, it is clearly an injustice.  But the Soul Stone is used in arguments where the debater did not directly suffer the injustice, they only invoke the sacrifice because of some common trait (race, gender, class, religion, language, etc.) to the oppressed in order to win an argument.  The injustice then becomes a microfault of sacrifice as if that event answers all rational opposition to the debate claim.  Who would question a martyr about their commitment to suffering persecution?

          Finally, the Space Stone is the ability of the debater to dance to any point in an argument that they want, changing topics at will. Any opposition to their argument is seen as obstructive if it’s even heard.  Instead, a Debate Monster uses the Space Stone to skip inconvenient argument that might in any way diminish their impending victory.  For example, the Space stone allows certain types of feminists to dismiss women with differing social views on a topic like abortion as being male-dominated puppets.  The Space stone also has the unique ability to determine for the individual, without evidence, exactly what the outcome of their proposals will be, with great assurance.  They’ve traveled across the mental galaxy and know exactly what their abortion proposals will result in achieving, which of course are objectively perfect and universally beneficial.    

XI.               Combat Social Justice:

“Bury me in the ocean, with my ancestors that jumped from the ships, because they knew death was better than bondage.”

From Killmonger,

paragon of social justice, murderer, genocidal wannabe, yet an “innocent” product of his environment?

In the movie “Black Panther” (2018)

          Justice is seen as something that is physical.  The victims of the alleged wrongdoing want physical evidence that a fix has occurred.  For example, if a drunk driver hits and kills a victim, the victim’s family wants to see the individual arraigned in court and locked away.  For the retributive justice sort, some may even want that person killed by the state as punishment.  In the end, physical justice is often the most harmonious for those wronged because they can see what was done. 

Yet, physical action does not completely resolve a victim’s wrong.  The innocent receiver of the physical action is most likely not convinced of “justice” as they are attacked, only those perpetrators and their supporters see “justice” with what they did.  To kneel in protest, to punch an abortion doctor, or to engage in ritual combat for the throne of “Wakanda” from the Marvel Universe are all physical actions believed to lead some universal justice or righteous outcome.  Yet, mirrors do not have to accept any action that might lead to the harm of themselves or anyone around them, nor do they have accept symbolic actions, real or fictional, as Truth. 

I do not mean this final section to act as a movie review nor a detailed discussion of “Black Panther’s” very interesting themes.  However, mirrors should be aware of two potent strains from the movie that relate to Avenger Justice and as a subset of that, Combat Social Justice.  The first is the concept of ancestors blessing the winning combatant in a physical trial (much like in Game of Thrones).  The second concept is as quoted by Killmonger, that death is preferable to living in an irrationally-conceived state of injustice. 

First, ritual combat was common throughout the world as any historian would tell you.  What makes “Black Panther’s” use of it so interesting is that it’s the method of determining the ruler of a highly advanced, xenophobic, enthnocentric fictional African civilization.   Birthright, constitutional governance, democracy, or even religion do not directly determine who is the king of Wakanda and who wields the Black Panther power, but pure human force in combat.  Therefore, physical actions determine just outcomes because the ancestors must want the strongest physical ruler possible by blessing the individual in combat.  The king does not have to be a just ruler or be born into the ruling family, although we might assume he consults with the ancestors enough in order to get their blessing to help him hold onto power.  So why does this fiction matter for mirrors in a conversation?

I bring this up once again to note the power that physical action has on people’s minds.  In Wakanda, physicality is justice and righteousness, which is exactly the opposite of the rational action that mirrors want more of.  Just as we reject egg throwing protesters or off-rhythm chants because they're not arguments, so too would we reject any physical action pushed on us as an argument in order to bring justice.  Mirrors would never view participation in ritual combat nor any required physical action as proving a rational and just outcome.  Therefore, physical action is the opposite of justice and it does nothing to contribute to restoring the balance of the universe other than in the minds of those who already agree. 

We come then to the drastic example of Kilmonger, the antagonist from the same movie.  After his bloody schemes for worldwide revolution of Africans peoples to violently overthrow white regimes using Wakandan weapons fails and he lays dying from battle wounds, he rejects help that might let him live, albeit in a prison cell controlled by his African cousin/King who fatally injured him.  When offered help by the Black Panther so he could at least live, he equates accepting his cousin’s vision for racial harmony and Wakandan benevolence with accepting the brutal injustice of 18^th century African slavery!  He meets all of the criteria for the Social Justice warriors mentioned above as he leaps out of time to equate his actual unjust upbringing in an American city ghetto and his genocidal solution to far worse injustices centuries before he was born.  To accept a jail cell, like he correctly cites as the resting place for many people “who look like me” across the world, would basically be re-enslaving him even though clearly the Wakandans are black Africans.  So, the Wakandans are basically no better than whites (all of which are considered slave owning, colonizers) because they reject his vision of social justice.

Finally, the most interesting part is Killmonger’s willingness to die for his deranged vision of social justice.  He is an interesting, though fictional contrast, to Socrates who committed suicide for reason.  Killmonger died for irrational social justice: Socrates died for reason in opposition to irrational social justice mobs in democratic Athens.  Killmonger may have been injured in combat and watched his vision for bloody world-wide revolution of blacks fail, but he willingly threw away any chance of living where the world didn’t bend to him.  So he contends that dying for his genocidal solution is equivalent to slaves committing suicide by jumping into the ocean from slave ships rather than accepting bondage!  An extreme and fictional example, but it demonstrates many of the ways in which our subjects bend reality and history to fit their arguments. 

It is also a perfect example of the irresolution of social justice.  Because the world isn’t as perceived, social justice warriors may go to extremes not just in their everyday political arguments, but in the physical actions they would be willing to take in order to see their version of justice come true.  It is also very important for mirrors to realize the potency of this vision, to see the danger of potential Thanoses or Killmongers in our conversations and to rigorously oppose their actions in the public domain when that discussion can be done rationally.  Otherwise, mirrors beware! 

XII.            Conclusion

“Careful with your fingers!  Don’t touch writing! You don’t know what it is to write.  It’s a crushing task; it bends your spine, blurs your eyesight, creases your stomach, and cracks your ribs”

Medieval Manuscript taken from Jacques Barzun, Dawn to Decadence.  

Alas, Volume III will not and cannot be some utopia, some happy woke domain where all of the solutions magically align and the average political debater suddenly becomes a brilliant art piece instead of the political wreckage of today.  No, mirroring will never be an ideology shouted and cried over in the street.  And rightfully so! 

There is no Truth in a sendoff.  I did not write three volumes to provide a rosy future for all to enjoy.  I am also not John the Evangelist, writing a dread apocalypse about the despair of tomorrow.  No, a mirror does not see the world as it should be other than being a little more logical, a kingdom of ends that is more likely to come about because of individual efforts and time tested and scientific approaches to reason. 

Though this volume is completed, justice is of course not complete.  Please go forth and make your conversations a little more logical and lots more just.  Thank you for reading!

XIII. Glossary

•  Actus Reus: the criminal act or the steps completed to start it, an element of crime.
• Abstraction: the nonphysical
• ad hominems: "of the person", meaning an illogical attack about the person. 
• Avenger Justice: the punishment side of a justice system.
• Blowwhistles: Gossipers with an agenda. Persons who are not direct witnesses to an event and where no law is cited as being broken.  
• Blowwhistle Scale:  The means by which Blowwhistles evaluate the person(s) they will gossip about, taking into consideration many factors like ideology.  
• Combat Social Justice:  The irrational idea of physical action creating universal justice
• Concurrence: the accused and the events of a crime are in the same time and place.  Context.
• Context: the persons, places, and times of a debate.
• Debate Monsters (Trolls): Persons who only argue to get an emotional response from others.
• Double Negative Accusatives:  Passive accusations intended to suggest guilt without actually saying it. (Not, not guilty)
• Exonerative Justice: the restorative side of a justice system.
• Exoneration Society: a vision of a world where all inncoents are exonerated.
• Fallacy: a false idea. 
• Hearsay: not directly witnessing an event or have no direct knowledge of it.  Gossip. 
• Justice: the righting of a wrong.
• Kimmelians: People who derive authority from celebrity and popularity.
• Fault: a wrong that is merely blaming. 
• Macrofaults: large abstract and complex problems that approached simplistically.
• Mens rea: intent or guilty mindset, an element of crime.
• 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.   
• Mirror Courts: irrational debate conversations that lack actual justice.
• Meuller Exonerative Justice: The passive-aggressive new version of justice named after Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller. 
• Obstruction: blocking a perception of "justice"
• Orwellian New Speak and New Action: George Orwell's terms to describe the control of totatalitarian systems over speech and thought. 
• Pragmatism: 19th century American Philosophy that sought truth through what works.
• Quid pro quo: "This for that." Illegal transaction exchanging good or services for something else.  
• Rationality: the use of reason and logic to discover truth.
• Reason:  Justifying belief using facts.
• Tapperist Conspiracies: denying an equivalency of two or more independent quid pro quos and labeling ones seen as unjust as conspiracies.
• Wrongs: an actual injustice