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:
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 18th 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
No comments:
Post a Comment