Political Mirroring Volume V: A Parlor's Parlay

Volume V: A Parlor’s Parlay

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

The Highlights of Abstract Mirroring Volume V:

• Reminder: Belief acceptance + Context=Harmony.
• The Parlay: the content of irrational speech, which is determined by the intent of the speaker, the actual speech as communicated, and the reception of the audience.
• The Parlor: the context of the speech, including all of the physical objects, places, times, structures real or virtual (i.e. in-person closed convention or Facebook “like” buttons), and any environmental factors that are part of how a political debate ensues.  Not a utopia or dystopia or some ideal environment where arguments are eliminated for being false or where the rhetoric used convinces all participants of some common Truth. 
• A Big SAC: S+A=C.   Speech Intent (S) + Audience Reception (A) = Code (C) as either Green, Yellow, or Red Speech.  A means to evaluate the effect of a Parlay, based on the subjective value judgements of the speaker’s intent plus the subjective value judgements as to how the message will be received.
• The Parlay 6: The inverse of Cicero's rhetorical elements, which indicate speech that should be mirrored.  They are: rote copying of others, reactionary planning based on others, trolling, suppressive delivery towards others, Total Recall, and selective amnesia. 
• Silence Coefficient: The positive, neutral, or negative multiplying effect of not engaging in speech.  Essentially, the speaker's fight or flight response, or a fly on the wall if assuming, being granted, or being unaware that they are not allowed spectator status.  Silence can be positive speech if it prevents an irrational reaction and/or stigma.  It can also be negative if the conversation demands speech or if silence would equal violence (SHIVs) to potentially harmful opponents.  Dependent on the context of the conversation. 
• Captivity Deduction: Mirrors are by their nature rational debaters or at least they believe they are.  Therefore, because of this belief, they are a captive audience because they establish an insufferable level of irrationality and a lack of value in continuing the conversation, yet they must endure it and mirror the offenders so long as needed to avoid stigma. 
• Audience Experience Paradox:  The dilemma that a person’s experience seems authentic because they alone experienced it, but it is deemed inauthentic because it does not fit another person's or group’s subjective interpretation (pathos) of what an objectively good, ethical, and virtuous experience should be. 
• LyE’s- An identity property of sorts whereby a debater is reduced to using ones’ life experience as the sole basis of an argument, used as a logical fallacy, meaning there is no way to disprove something that no other person can live through, thus shutting down the conversation. 
• Hystorical LyE’s:  The idea that all of the positive or negative aspects of a version of history can be called upon to make a person’s lived experience invulnerable to opposition.  This subjective perception allows them to use an interpretation of history as a suit of armor around their world. 
• Morgan Snares- A type of conversation trap built on a disprovable LyE.  Defined as using one LyE to undermine or eliminate another person’s rational opinion about something or someone.  Named after Piers Morgan’s debate with Alex Beresford about the British Royal Family’s racism controversy, an otherwise irrelevant topic to us, but useful only as a style of logic-busting that prevents any counter-argument.   
• Pronoun Flares:  Warning: this trigger warning may trigger a warning trigger.  Some content may or may not be deemed as violating the Politics of Mass Abstraction’s community of one standard.  In a “Pronoun Hoedown,” where the situation has the potential for utmost cancellation and stigma, Pronoun Flares are the extremely negative reaction to the use, misuse, or non-use of small words in place of nouns related to social conceptions that lead to stigma. 
  
• Hexer:  The “Yin” of reacting to another person’s rejection of ones’ views.  This is the defensive, passive-aggressive side of responses whereby questioning a person’s speech necessitates a disproportionately negative response.  Also, a form of the "heckler's veto" where disruption is used to shut down undesired speech.  For example, provable accusations that another person is lying leads to calls for that accuser to be “cancelled” because of as yet unproven accusations of the original accuser’s racism and sexism.  
• Doxer:  The “Yang” of opposing another person’s ability to respond; the aggressive silencers of speech, those pursuing Avenger Justice, who weaponize personal or sensitive information regardless of the actual views or culpability of their target.  The cause for their Justice is irrelevant, they are doxers because they use malicious and irrational tactics to suppress speech for the “greater good.” 
• Cat-like Tread Debate Monster: an insidious type of Debate Monster, a hexer who hijacks a conversation after waiting in the wings after everyone’s cards have been presented.  They don’t have much to offer other than to sneak a win after others do the work. 
• Parlor Feng Shui: The spatial structure of a conversation, its total environment, designed despite the creator's intent to imperfectly increase the positive or negative aspects of a conversation.  Some “parlors” (environments) like Twitter or Facebook are made to be restrictive of certain forms of speech depending on their content.  Like Feng Shui, the structure of a political conversation is often designed with the intent to have positive or negative effects on the participants in the conversation.  

Table of Contents:

Volume V: A Parlor’s Parlay

I.                    Introduction

Part I: The Language of a Parlay

II.                 Speech Tests for a Big Bold SAC

III.              Silence Coefficient

IV.              LyEs: Lived Experiences as Replacements for Objective Truths 

V. Hystorical LyEs

VI.                Morgan Snares

VII.  A Pronoun Hoedown:  Pronoun Flares

Part II: THOSE People’s Parlor

VIII.              Captivity of Reason

IX.           Cat-Like Tread Debate Monsters

X.        Hexers and Doxers: The Disharmonious Yin and Yang of Speech Victimization

Part III: A Most Perilous Space

XI.              A Garden of Conversational Delights

XII.                Parlor Feng Shui:  A Mirror Map to Conversational Harmony

Part IV: Conclusion 

XII. Glossary

Political Mirroring:

Volume V: A Parlor's Parlay

Part I:

The Language of a Parlay

I.   Introduction

“Walking like a one man army
Fighting with the shadows in your head
Living out the same old moment
Knowing you'd be better off instead
If you could only

Say what you need to say (I say you ought to)
Say what you need to say (I say, well)”

John Mayer, “Say”

            What do we need to say?  Could it be that a sense of restraint isn’t something bred into every individual, especially one so carnal as John Mayer?  We can’t know fully about the trail of relationship wreckage he leaves behind, but we should try to care about why he’s so successful at winning others into the bedroom.  After all, seduction is a prized art, the way of the Lothario a difficult skill for those who tug on emotions and spurt hormones around their seedy haunts.  Beating around your bush, one might have guessed from the highlights and a sensual slice of song lyrics that this volume is all about the language of woo: choosing the right words and speech in the most conducive format in order to achieve a more rational purpose. 

            On the face of it, mirrors don’t seem to be the best at using emotions and irrational appeals in order to convince others.  To use such emotional rhetoric defeats the purpose of a non-suicidal sacrifice for Reason.  Yet, woo is intended for the subjects of this philosophy.  We may not love them, but in our studies of them, we want their harmony so they walk with a little more spring in their step, yet out of the way of the freight train of real societal improvement.  

            Now at this very glorious moment, it is important to inject the difference between the rationality of a message’s content as opposed to the rhetoric or persuasion used to convince others about that message.  The first important element of this volume is the “Parlay” or the content of speech, itself an irrational debate where the mirror can play along or deflower the bride of illogic and argue as a participant.   The Parlay is comprised both of the intent of the speaker and the reception of the audience. 

In a Socratic, ideal world, the Parlay wouldn’t exist.  Instead, the discussion would be one where mostly “logos,” or logic and facts, would persuade audiences.  Ideally, mirrors would almost completely pursue this form of rhetoric.  However, “ethos” and especially “pathos” are the likely paths to persuasion for our bursting flock.  Appealing to what seems “moral” or what “feels” right are more important than data or a string of them together in explanation.  This tendency to emotional appeals (pathos) is precisely why mirrors find themselves in the perilous positions that they do and why John Mayer is such a successful slut.   Living in a real world, yet aspiring to Kantean ethical imperatives, we must navigate the complication of rhetoric without busting ourselves on someone else’s hot rock of passion if we don’t want it. 

            Wading into the complex morass of speech, Mirroring needs some important distinctions made for it beyond simple, yet effective sexual insinuations.  We are not looking for total, absolute freedom of speech, only more rational and ethical speech, without overly generalizing what its content could be for all persons in all situations.  We must also recognize something common sense: speech happens regardless of our efforts to yell at the world to stop it when it’s bad or unpopular.  We aren’t dictators, we don’t yet have the capabilities of the “1984” world to reinvent speech to fit authoritarian dictates of what that “Truth” should be.  Unfortunately, the option is there to descend into that abyss with our subjects, moaning together about the issues, praying for harsh consequences for those that utter something disagreeable, becoming insufferable grammar police as a mask to cover up an inability to retort, or taunting those enemies for superficial delivery failures like a stutter or a typo.   

            More proactively, it also means that mirrors need a method that can be performed in real time to discover the barriers to speech, to go beyond the petty problems (microfaults) made into big unsolvable messes (macrofaults).   We need solutions to stop the threats to a speaker as well as ways to streamline conversations so that more and not total rational speech can result, even if the balance is only fractionally better.

Our speech issue is rough.  Working up the will to say something aloud is tougher than one might think.  People aren’t mini-Thanoses, inevitable in their black-and-white view of an ethical, unbiased fifty percent liquidation of the universe.   Why then was I inspired to speak out if the world’s solutions are believed by many to be as easy as eliminating half of ones' opponents through something more thorough than a decimation?  What drove me to explain the tactical trickery of Mirrorism?  Perhaps, I was motivated by emotions, a hatred of the vapid and illogical drivel of the 2016 and 2020 elections, the impeachments, COVID and medical authoritarianism in-person and online, and the generally hellish internet and it's audience of hecklish vetoers?  Though my motivations have been clearly explicated in multiple epic volumes, and my ideologies are decidedly pragmatic and neutral, we’re here for improvement for a fifth time and not a nice cry in the shower after an election rejection or a John Mayer false impregnation.    

            That leads us to the second element introduced here: The Parlor.  Since Volume II, totems are stand-ins for arguments, symbolic actions like kneeling in protest, or the physical objects (props) that are supposed to represent arguments like a protest sign at “the play” in the street (the argument being staged).  Totems are meant to be rigid and not argued against, yet worshiped as infallible because after all, it’s quite difficult to banter with a “Stop Killing Babies” sign.  And why would you want to oppose the glittering generality of stopping the baby slaughter when it’s worded that way? 

In Volume V, the Parlor is a more comprehensive tool than one prop, one anti-abortion sign.  It refers to the environment in which a political debate takes places, with not only all of the actors and props, but the structures in the real or virtual environment.  Think of the fact-checked and approved Twitter feed of a Blue Check, Hollywood, limousine liberal as being the virtual equivalent of their living room, a safe place rigorously protected from ideological intruders, their fans stationed at the gates as security guards to riposte opponents, and the organization of their posts designed for maximum advantage in their wars.  

 One could surmise that a Twitter conversation or a parlor talk about politics isn’t going to be very accepting of contrary information nor is it a safe gamble to suppose that it’s at all rational.  Clearly the environment is about as conducive for a conservative to debate as a CNN reporter trying to interview Trump supporters at a rally.  In both cases, the Twitter and the Trump rally are Parlors.  The format of the argument is already tilted to one side of the debate, which is what gives the Parlor its defining feature.  Arguing rationally in that format is already a disadvantage if you’re not simply going to agree. 

Therefore, a Parlor is simply the total, real explanation of the context of the Parlay, all of the people, places, rules, objects, and potential ideas that could be discussed based on who could be there.  It is not perfect, nor is the Parlor compressive to include only those supportive or hostile as for example, there is no way of guaranteeing in a closed Vatican meeting room that priest abuse solutions won’t come up as a topic.  It’s simply very unlikely based on the structure of the discussion and who is having it.  Therefore, mirrors who understand the Parlor, the structure of how the discussion is purposefully limited, have a greater chance of maximizing harmony by improving the emotions of the likely victors and avoiding trap arguments that can lead to their own stigma and victimization. 

            Moving beyond the simple concept that words matter is important for this volume.  My intent is to flesh out just what speech or the lack thereof means to Mirrorism and how speech’s utility, yet imprecision leads to our current political morass.  Why do pronouns carry the good (or soul) of a person depending on their use or misuse?  In Volume IV, even silence itself could provoke a conflict as it seems there is the disappearing act of the traditional liberal, Enlightenment understanding of speech, which was as permissive as possible without causing actual societal harm.  Increasingly, mirrors must exist in a world where the relative, irrational, and subjective interpretation of the other's silence could mean stigma, cancellation, and harm. 

            Why do debates fall into the hands of the passive-aggressive Hexer, a canceller of great proportions whose very safety and comfort is threatened because of the countervailing speech of others?  Why does Doxing exist in a world when the criminal justice system, legitimate whistleblowers, and the Pure Journalism ideal offer better avenues to expose information about the corrupt and powerful and punish them when it actually matters and when it is more just?  These are mysteries that I will attempt to woo you to understand in this Volume.  I can't say that I'll fight off all the shadows in your head or that I won't be the one man army fighting off the mob, knowing you'd be better off being rational instead.  Hopefully, by the very last definition in the glossary, we’ll all end up in the same bed together, with John Mayer and previous partners left cold on the door step of American society. Let's say what we need to say before we're wooed by another seducer, one more man-whore macerating our majesty! 

Part I:The Language of a Parlay

II.              The Parlay: Speech Tests for a Big SAC

“Peasant 1: We have found a witch, may we burn her?
Vladimir: How do you known she is a witch?
Peasant 2: She looks like one!
Vladimir: Bring her forward (advance)
Woman: I'm not a witch! I'm not a witch!
Vladimir: ehh... but you are dressed like one.
Woman: They dressed me up like this!”
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

Dressing opponents up the way you want them is what we fret, a scary scenario made worse because unstable and reactionary people are in control of the crowd.  We should know that the mob wants to persecute, to affix a bad label upon those it doesn't understand, all because speech isn't as expected and the results aren't pure.   We mirrors might not be King Arthur, leading the way to create some more perfect place, a Camelot of our own, but we sure can try.  To understand the people that might judge us, two additives cover most environments for a conversation and give us basic information to decide what to do about them, witch dressings aside.   

The speech, the push to the irrational by the person or within a crowd is what is meant by a Parlay.  It's two or more despicable pirates meeting together like in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies, saying and doing whatever pirates want to do, but without an enforcer there to shoot the violator of the sacrosanct Code.  It's making others the losers by doing whatever it takes: screaming, taunting, silencing, deleting, lying, deceiving, or any behavior or statements that arise instead of rational argumentation or to prevent one in response.  The Parlay is a sign for mirroring to take place, if one isn't already suffering through the behavior, for the belief to be temporarily accepted, and then for the mirror to leave.  

First, we need to refresh ourselves of important background information.  The first two volumes of Mirroring consisted of setting forth a system to combat the wasted time in conversations with people who believe in total Truth or Falseness to the point of irrationality.  Volumes III, IV, and this current momentous undertaking are the vehicles by which I dig into the details of important mirroring elements like Justice, Conflict, Harmony, and now Speech.  In Volume IV, peace was related to agreeing with the winning group in the conversation, an uneasy status quo, a mirage of harmony rather than the actual establishment of it.  Opposing a dominant argument is the least harmonious state of affairs, one closest to nonphysical conflict, yet the worst in the argumentative world.  Therefore, we need to delve further into just what kind of speech and assemblage leads to the extremes (Peace Hate Scale (PH)). 

Another important caveat: we are not free or restrictive speech absolutists.  Built into the very core of this philosophy is the idea that context is key for instructing the use of speech.  It is entirely dependent on the capabilities of the mirror to detect illogical speech, to judge the potential for stigma for opposing irrational speech, and to know when to “fight or flight.”  To argue that anything should be said for any reason at any time is illogical and overbroad.  Clearly, humans use context to determine when to engage in speech, because of or in spite of their intent, even if they're not aware of the consequences of what they say or do.  Thus, the First Amendment is merely a law protecting the ability to speak and not all content or in all contexts.  So the Bill of Rights aside, absolute free speech has social consequences that may not be governed by laws, but it can be just as severe when put into the hands of the mighty Debate Monster, a broad class of person whose desire is for self-gain and victory over truths.  When Debate Monsters are on the hunt for treasure, they generally fit two sides: the pathologically vindictive Doxer, or the passive-aggressive Hexer who is empowered by the attacks used against them. 

How does the mob interpret the speech or better yet what are some tools we can use to figure out if they or we are being lead on?  Well, since the 1st century AD, Cicero's (Genius Dead White Man GDWM) rules of rhetoric and its five traditional canons or divisions have been important to convincing juries, senates, and the Roman mob as they were often led astray by demagogues instead of those following the Roman republican ideal.  The canons are invention, arrangement, style, delivery, and memory. Note, we are not here to train students in rhetoric or its historical use beyond an identifier in irrational political arguments and rhetoric's distortion of reality.  

Take memory, for example, which is often overlooked as a part of rhetoric, but it is important for our purposes because it involves the exact recall of your own work and those of the arguments of your opponents.   In Mirroring, memory is often purposefully distorted so that a debater can manipulate what the opponent is saying by selectively ignoring key points or even denying they said what they did (if unrecorded).  It is also altered in irrational ways, like claiming a person can have knowledge of "collective history," what I call the Total Recall logical fallacy because a person can't exactly wake up with the added experience of others crammed into their heads.  Any person can only experience life through their own eyes and as a social creature, become aware of other people's experiences without having directly lived through them personally.   

Apologies to GDWM Cicero, but the Big SAC is a more relevant, updated way to deal with a crowd that cannot appreciate the finer appeals of a rational public speaker or internet poster, even if both wear a sexy toga and look like John Mayer.  The reverse of Cicero's 5 canons are the "Parlay 6": rote copying of others, reactionary planning towards others, trolling, suppressive delivery, Total Recall, and selective amnesia.  They refer to copying the work of others often without understanding it totally.  Second, there is no plan other than a response to an opponent, often more a sign of haste and retribution than a system to demolish an opponent.  This might result in simply banning an opponent because their reactive arrangement wasn't working. Third,  trolls seek a response and for attention with no intention of taking the argument seriously or rationally. Fourth, they use volume, repetition, physical intimidation, insults, humor without the truths that comedy comes from, and any number of logical fallacies to silence an opponent without having a rational counterargument.  Fifth, the Total Recall is the fallacy whereby one claims authority from recalling events that one could not have because it's impossible to mind or time warp (i.e. the fallacy of "collective memory").  Finally, the sixth Parlay refers to Selective Amnesia, which is the purposeful ignorance of the facts, arguments, or the obfuscation of opponents' actual views.   So, beware of the six Parlay rhetorical styles, apply information as given to the SAC equation, and adopt the ever-questioning mentality of Socrates and until we have a more discerning public, a little less of the flashy Ciceroan oratorical style, so that one is not swayed by a sop story, but also so that one doesn’t get “cancelled” because you weren’t convinced and spoke up. 

The type of appeal (logos, ethos, and pathos) and Cicero's inverted elements are all important to discerning the effectiveness of speech and deciding whether to stay or go.  That decision can be made by using the equation S+A=C or speech intent (S) plus audience reception (A) equals code (C), which refers to a generalized category explaining the effects of the speech interaction.  The intent of the speaker plus the effectiveness of the tactics to convince the audience are used to give a score, in as simple terms as possible, to make the choice to fight, flee, or stay neutrally silent. 

So, the mirror takes all of these factors into consideration and can assign the following simple number set to speech intent (S): -1,0, and 1.  A "-1" code is when the speaker’s negative intent has been detected by a mostly neutral spectator, the audience, or the speaker is intentionally hostile by communicating so.  Zero (0) is when the audience does not assume intent in any noticeable way.  A positive one (1) is when the audience perceives the message to be positive, meaning they are receptive to the message. 

Let's start with the speaker's intent (S) or the desired message.  In Volume III concerning Justice, determining intent was not rigorously scrutinized by the average observer especially when considering the imperfect American justice system.  Often, there is no attempt at all at a rational determination of mens rea or guilty mindset, where evidence of a person’s mindset is presented and a case is made.  In Mirroring, Speech intent (S) is the subject, likely the mirror, but really any person who intends to make a point verbally, actively, using a common language or through silence if they understand it.   

The Mind stone from Volume III (and from Marvel) should be mentioned.   It indicates the desire of our subjects to control the thoughts of others, a kind of enforcement mechanism to enable as much group think as they can muster.  It is critical because it gives a user the belief, however unrealistic, that they have the power to determine someone's intent without evidence.  It is a free-floating burden of proof that is as minimal as they determine it to be.  It is very relevant for our discussion of speech because of the puppetry sought.  One will recall a fundamental element is the desire to prevent opposition because it erodes the harmony of our subjects, degrading their happiness proportional to the intensity they have put to their Truth, their belief system.

Negative speech intent is when the purpose of the speech is anywhere from rational, as in disproving an argument, to incorporating emotional factors like anger, revenge, jealousy, whatever.  Intent is often difficult to determine as trial lawyers would angrily tell you.  Regardless, the purpose of the speech is determined by the speaker as having a negative purpose.  Therefore, a generalized score for intent (S) can be assigned that takes into consideration all sub-factors of the speaker, their effective use of the 3 rhetorical appeals, Cicero 5, and Parlay 6 tenets.  

Included descriptions of the speaker that can effect the accuracy of their message as conveyed to the one intended might include: level language skills, attractiveness, gender, race, or other subjective factors that might help or hinder interpretation in a non-blind world.  This total accuracy refers to not just sight, but all sensory inputs non-essential to receiving the message that allow for exact reception of the message as conveyed.  Yet, no blank-slate audience exists in the real world to objectively determine a subject's intent and receive the message as intended.  So, in a non-"blind" world, I refer to reality where all irrational factors cannot be dismissed, but as many possible should be used assessed and eliminated where possible to make the conversation more productive through simple means like removing the names of the speakers and presenting no visuals of them, reading an exact transcript so only their words are considered, or retelling it in a more neutral context where nearly all factors are equal for the speakers so their speech can be judged.  

            That brings us to Audience Reception (A), which is the danger zone for speech or conduct.  In Volume III, the Reality Stone was an allusion and a literary device used to show the effect of speech on the present feelings of our subjects.  If the speech provokes an emotional response like crying, sobbing, anger etc., it is evidence that the debater has found the power of the Reality stone and will use it to squash their opponents. It relies on social cues taken from other people, which provides some information to the speakers in the course of their action, but definitively less accurate than the level of certainty of the intention they had in engaging in the speech in the first place.   

            The answer set for audience is greater in magnitude because social belonging or the absence (anomie) have a greater impact on stigma than meaning to say something and its execution going awry.  The value set is -2,0,1.  A "-2" code is when the speaker’s negative intent has been detected by the audience, it is always greater as a negative than intent because of the need to interact in society and the damage that resisting that can do when your opponents are irrational subjects.  Zero (0) is when the audience does not assume intent in any noticeable way.  A positive one (1) is when the audience perceives the message to be positive, meaning they are noticeably receptive to the message.

            Intent is decidedly more truthful than the audience's reaction because it is dependent on the will and beliefs of the person speaking as opposed to the imperfect reception from the crowd.  The speaker might lie to themselves, a sort of delusion that wishes something to be true when they engage in the speech.  Regardless of the truth of their intention, they believe in the underlying assumptions enough to speak and that act is truer than the message or conduct's reception.  Its delivery to the crowd is mostly out of the speaker's control other than their will to speak or to stay silent, both of which can certainly be judged on their face.   

So back to the SAC.  This broad equation again is meant to be easy as possible to use. Speech Codes (C): The output or test to assist in evaluating the effect of ones’ speech. A green light, or a positive value, indicates you believe harmony will result from the conversation.  Yellow as cautionary (0), a warning sign that someone is speaking out of turn, that emotions are equal to or greater than the rational content of the speech, and that an exit may be required if the mirror as a participant, or the participants with the mirror as an observer, do not correct course.  Red codes (-), or negative sum,  are perilous and indicate that stigma may result in continuing it whether for the participants or the mirror themselves because of their speech or because a lack of speech (silence).  It also indicates that a state of war is likely to exist based on your interpretation of the situation.  The Code (C) is the result of the mirror’s assessment of the speaker's intent in addition to the audience’s likely reaction.  It can be the mirror themselves that uses the equation or it can be the mirror using the equation to assess the conversation as it unfolds and inform their decision to stay because it is rational or leave because it doesn’t seem to be. 

III.   The Silence Coefficient

“You have the right to remain silent... but I want to hear you scream!”
Samuel L. Jackson, "The Others Guys"

 Silence can be speech, yet it's hard to realize sometimes that the absence of words communicates just as much as affirmative speech.  Volume IV presented silence as violence as a form of logic busting known as a SHIV (Silence Heinously Imposing Violence).  It fits within the Peace Hate (PH) scale to determine if the conversation was headed towards an escalated conflict and therefore less peace.  Different from a SHIV, which exists in a narrow way to judge the overall negative circumstances of silence in the conversation, the Silence Coefficient (SC) is neither inherently positive or negative.  Describing the speech content of remaining silent, it attempts to add greater explanation to the range of interpretations of silence.  

In math, a coefficient is defined as a number multiplied by a variable.  In the Speech Code equation, S, A, and C are the variables.  The Silence Coefficient (SC) works by multiplying that variable.  If silence is neutral for the speaker and/or the audience, it is assessed as +1 as any number multiplied by 1 is unchanged (multiplicative identity property).  In all parts of the equation, the SC will always be positive even if the choice of silence was not affirmative, but simply unintended and passive and it was interpreted by the audience differently.  Since the SAC equation is merely a speedy assessment tool, with the SC merely adding information, S, A, C will carry the subjective interpretation of the conversation by having the user apply negative signs as warranted and the silence will only magnify the intent of the speakers or the audience's reception. If the Speaker's intent is negative because they are hostile and want their speech to oppose the audience, and they intended to be silent so that message of quiet hostility is sent to the audience, the S would be negative, but the SC would remain positive.    

After all, refusing to raise a fist in solidarity with Black Lives Matter (BLM), yet also failing to resist, can be interpreted in the context of the interaction as either positive consent to their views because of passivity or by refusing to counter them.  Non-resistance could mean that only racists would object and engage in speech.  However, like in the cases of sexual abuse and rape, the lack of affirmative consent could in of itself be immoral and criminal.  But unlike those very serious acts, strictly social and non-criminal Mirror Courts are the place of judgement for the effect of silence when dealing with our subjects.   When the lack of affirmative speech consent is judged as immoral, yet the accuser is irrational about why, it is a SHIV because in the BLM protest context, anyone not engaging in the symbolic speech could be a quiet supporter of racism.  It would depend on the protesters, the persons of whom speech is demanded, and the factors at play in the Parlor (the environment). 

I group the coefficient into three general areas for mirrors, though they generally conform to the fight, flight, or spectate reactions.  All three possess the potential for stigma, though mirrors generally would either flee or try to spectate.  As one would in assessing a vicious predator, before engaging in the discussion, and with spears out ready for battle, it is highly recommended that one assesses the persons involved using the standard from the previous volume, especially Counter-insurgent Conversation Strategies.  And were one to fight, one must be aware of Debate Monsters, the tactical version in Mirroring of Yin and Yang, and as best as possible assess their trolling capabilities.  As we'll see in Part 2 of this Volume, Debate Monsters are placed in two archetypes that very broadly suggest their style of combat and the type of activities they'll use to win an argument.   

• To "Fight," to stand ones' ground without conceding key points, to use any other symbolic action in a way that detected as speech. For example, Speaker Pelosi ripping up the 2020 State of the Union address, turning backs during speeches, or to use words to resist in a noticeable way. Does not remain physically or symbolically silent and the key players know it (No Silence Coefficient).
• To "Flee" neutrally or to take steps to leave the conversation without being accused of cowardice or SHIV'ing. Symbolic speech is not detected by key players even if the intent of the departed was intended as speech (x 1 SC for intent).
• To "Flee" aggressively in a way that is interpreted as speech/symbolic action while remaining verbally silent, or for example, noticeably leaving a presentation when offended ( x 2 SC for reception).
• To "Stay Silent" neutrally with or without malice towards the speech content, the speakers, or the crowd. Even if malice is intended, it is not detected either by the silently hostile audience, or the hostile speaker's intent isn't received that way by the audience (x 1 SC for intent and x 1 SC for reception).
• To "Stay Silent" when speech is required by the group and is interpreted as malicious, but not intentional. Rationally, this would involve not stopping child abuse, or irrationally it would be SHIV like demanding someone speak out against an evil political candidate ( x 2 SC for reception).

To fight is likely the riskiest path for mirrors or their subjects and it invalidates the ability to mirror as by definition you are not practicing temporary belief acceptance.  One choosing to fight has assessed the conversation and determined, rightly or wrongly, aware or unaware, that little stigma will result.  For example, Speaker Pelosi knowingly ripped up Trump's 2020 State of the Union, clearly intending her symbolic, heroic or childish act, to be speech even if she wasn't speaking.  Silence was clearly intended and interpreted by all as fighting.  However, resisting regardless of intent runs the risk of engaging in illogical arguments, the emotions getting out of hand, and serious consequences for the fighters, which in the Pelosi case was more partisan division. 

To flee is more natural when faced with confrontation than one might suppose.  Generally, mirrors would do whatever possible in order to leave.  However, as usual, context is key to that decision and how that departure is going to be interpreted.  Take the example of Trump hunkering down in late May 2020 as destructive anti-police, George Floyd protests protests raged outside the White House threatening the Executive Branch in one view or sending a message he needed to hear even if some historic buildings got burned down in the process.  To not engage in speech, or in this case to flee non-neutrally to a safe bunker instead of wading into the crowds in an act of contrition and bowing down was interpreted as cowardly flight by the mainstream media gatekeepers of the public audience.   Therefore, if any person (the mirror included) cannot leave without being regarded as a coward by failing to speak, or by not speaking and being unaware their silence is stigmatizing, they worsen harmony and are no longer mirrors and potentially become subjects for other, better mirroring practitioners. 

The categorical imperative is instructive for us and the dilemma of whether to flee.  From Immanuel Kant, a universal rule is used when approaching ethical dilemmas so that any person in identical circumstances would make the same rational choice.  On its face, this seems restrictive for our options since we’d be stymied by what every rational person would do in that circumstance.  Yet, mirrors also work with an interlocking maxim of our own, namely that “Avoid political discussions when everyone’s society cannot receive a guaranteed benefit.”  It sets the context, the conditions under which we are exempted from action.  If addressing an ethical problem would not benefit society, and the mirroring agent subjectively determines that based on their judgement, then preserving that rational choice for the future is preferred over engaging in the argument. Then they would ethically justified in fleeing. 

This is quite important for speech and whether to engage in it or not.  The rational among us would prefer a rule that could be constructed for every hypothetical situation where an ethical choice could be made to engage in speech or not.  Should we speak up and assert the truth that there was not yet a provable conspiracy to insurrection on January 6^th , or that widespread election fraud had no provable impact on the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election, or is the silence the better part of valor because saying so would create stigma?  That’s the essence of the Silence Coefficient dilemma in a nutshell.  It’s impossible to create a rule whereby active speech or silence can be determined in every situation.  It takes the mirror in the conversation to recognize for themselves the potentials of action or inaction.  

There is also the justice concept of having the right to remain silent, enshrined in the 5^th Amendment to the US constitution and supported in case law.  In the American justice system, this means that one cannot be held liable for silence after receiving your Miranda warnings.  The idea is that one should not be compelled to testify against oneself if prosecutors interpret silence as an admission of guilt when one refuses to deny a charge.  Unless you’re the prosecution in the controversial Rittenhouse homicide case, the January 6th Investigation versus those invoking 5th Amendment privileges through their lawyers, or the garbage media in cases only they care about, these protections are fundamental to being more fairly tried in American society.  However, Mirror courts are not guided by any constitutional protections other than what would involve the police, an arrest for breaking the law, and processing by the justice system.  In Mirror Courts, there is no 5^th amendment right to remain silent, there is no "Mirandizing" a suspect (reading them their constitutional rights).  Whether the Silence Coefficient is relevant or not depends on the context of the conversation: who is arguing, why they are, in what format, and what they believe.  If the silence is interpreted negatively, it may be used as SHIV or a weapon to punish those who heinously impose violence by being silent.  

Finally, like the SAC equation, the SC is prone to system failure as a result of user error.  You might be wondering then why such an equation would be useful if the benefit is so marginal?  The answer is simple: increased awareness.  It does not prescribe how to act or react in every situation like the Mirroring Equation in general.  The cleanliness and the simplicity of the math is not reflective of some universal order that I have discovered.  It's simply a tool.  Full disclosure:  it's on your care as the user to be more systematic with your speech, making more rational considerations from your environment and before acting.  I could never and wouldn't want to plan for every scenario.  

IV.              Testimonial LyEs: Lived Experiences as Replacements for Objective Truths

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

1984, George Orwell

Blessed be the human who has lived on earth and experienced something, anything of note that by telling others about it, they might convince them to change their mind.  Mirrors aren't apostles sending epistles to a flock of skeptical Greek polytheists, never-Trumpers, election conspirators, or Democratic Socialists.  No, mirrors take the False since the letters won't be read anyways.  We absorb wrong information when opposing it would be detrimental.  Thus, arguments boiled down to their very core such that only silence or stigma results are what we call a Lived Experience (LyE).  To the subject, their argument (LyE) is the irreducible Truth, the ultimate red line that if crossed, cuts to the very core of the subject's identity even if the inclusion of identity is not logically part of the argument.  LyEs are logic buster arguments, insulating against opposition and allowing LyErs to eliminate counter arguments as there is no way to reject someone’s perception of their own life because we cannot mind warp and verify. 

Lived Experiences are logical fallacies that are used to dismiss rational arguments and suppress opposing speech because a person’s perception of their own life supersedes any sense of objectivity or facts being presented to them.  In that sense, LyEs are a Truth, an indivisible Fact that cannot be fully comprehended by others or disproved unless some other being can place themselves exactly in the same position and conditions (mind-warping).  And confronting a LyE is testifying to Falseness, a totally wrong view of the world that is morally unacceptable to our subjects.  Therefore, narratives are an identity property for all persons involved, independent of each other and all possible content or arguments, as they establish an irreducible place in an argument where no other person can go.  One can’t jump into another person’s shoes, you can only attempt to imperfectly empathize with them over similar experiences, physical similarities, or common ideologies. 

 A narrative is a comprehensive view of the universe taking into consideration a perception of the past, possibly both rational and emotional comprehension, current feelings etc.  Our subjects often argue against a negative narrative known as Lies from the Tablecloth or LiFT (from Volume IV) because they use a belief system about their life to irrationally ignore all contrary information.  A LiFT is a type of False, a rejection of narrative, a dismissal as untrue, immoral, and unethical of an entire identity of someone.  

In Volume IV, there was the LiFT example of the Iraq War veteran versus their anti-war sibling, a scenario unlikely to lead to a constructive convergence of opinions so that something could be done about the conflict.  The transmission of information, the “speech,” we’re referring to now is hindered because of these near diametrically opposed narratives, meaning shouting, signs, physical action, or even violence are more likely to be the outlets.  By descending into an irrational LiFT, where arguments are rejected solely because of the person and their perspective, the conversation becomes an unproductive fossil, non-adaptive and more worthy as a museum piece than a policy for change.

 Therefore, a LyE is a logical fallacy and a rhetorical device used to invalidate an argument because of some inescapable and irrelevant quality about the arguer.  It is based on false perspectives, immutable qualities, or broad abstractions based on physical characteristics and it is the telltale sign of a LiFT rejection.  It is a tool because it prevents a response from the person and it shields its user from having to listen and acknowledge.  It labels them as an agent of evil, a Prince of False, as their whole presentation/speech is uttered by a malevolent quality.  

The Audience Experience Paradox is a particularly damaging part of a LiFT.  It is involves calling into question the validity of a person's experience because a vision of reality is deemed authentic and True, and anything contrary is rejected because it doesn't fit the narrative of the audience.  The reason why the paradox involves the audience is that they have come to this belief without objective evidence that the testimony of the speaker is false.  The reason it's a fallacy is that they argue it's false simply because of the person relating their experience.  The pathos (emotional/feelings) style of rhetoric is often used, as is the argument that a person lacks empathy, which calls into question their ability to relate to them, which is fallaciously used to disprove the argument.  So without knowing its true authenticity, the audience attempts to shut down a person's honest telling of some event or set of beliefs because the person cannot be trusted.

As conceptual tools, LyE’s are not a rejection of all perspective shaping an argument, or that qualities, like race, can never be a factor in an argument.  As an abstraction based on physical characteristics, race certainly requires real attributes.  So, if race is relevant to a discussion, say if racial slurs were used by an offender during a crime targeting a victim then race is certainly germane.  Where race would exist as a LyE would be if ones’ speech dismisses an argument regardless of its content solely on the basis of the race of the speaker(s).  Use the blind identity factor/test.  Take the content and strip away as many value judgements, abstractions, and all personal characteristics of the speaker as possible.  Does adding the race of one, both, or all speakers add objective truths to the debate?  If the information can't pass a reasonably blind objectivity test, then it likely is a LyE, used as a rhetorical device to persuade rather than to seek a truth, and a pernicious logical fallacy that may well spoil the pool.  

A similar example concerns gender.  White males making most laws on its face seems paternalistic especially when those laws include women's health issues like pregnancy or breast cancer screenings, or anti-discrimination laws especially in the workplace.  Certainly, women would want a major say in laws that affect them as that's part of the ideal representative democracy we aspire to have.  The LyE in this example is when only gender is used to make the argument, or to make laws, about the content.  If a law was read aloud, would the gender of the person reading it matter to the content?  If some women, whether 1 person, 5%, 49% of all women in a population, support a bill that is deemed anti-women, would the gender of the authors matter to labeling the content and its authors that way?  It's not that an author's gender doesn't matter ever, as not all amendments to the Constitution applied to women without major changes in history, nor were nonfiction works by women acceptable in other times.  Those cases certainly require gender.  But must women think only a certain way about a law or are they self-hating?  Who gets to make that paternalistic decision for 1 woman, 5%, or 49% of women in a population?  The point is that gender only matters when it is not used a bludgeon against opponents against contrary beliefs and if the content could pass the blind test.  In a blind ideal world, a man or woman reading the same exact information should be able to support or reject the bill on its merits for helping women and not because of whom was presenting it. 

V.  hYstorical LyEs (iLyEs)

Any historical fact(s) without a direct provable connection to the issue + LyE (a Macrofault where the “victim” interprets the present argument negatively and uses a logic buster)= iLyE.

            History is a complicated discipline and it is never rigorously used in a mirrored discussion.  From Volume I on, context has been an overarching and reoccurring fault within our subject population’s style of argument.  Because a mirror finds their misuse of history to be illogical, our subjects abuse the discipline of history and instead throw some facts together without providing historical context.    

            Let's back up a second and give some explanation to "living" historical experiences.  Something has to be experienced during "living" or it’s a living being like a human personifying (giving human characteristics) to inanimate objects.  One could tell the geological story of a sedimentary rock, but the rock simply changed, it didn’t experience as would a living creature, especially not as a human would experience.  So, the term "lived experience" is redundant as of course you have to live in order to experience and have a narrative.  All humans use their experience as direction, a bearing to set a course for their futures.  After all, that concept is the foundation of this philosophy and anchored in pragmatism.  The problem is when an experience is no longer a tool used for future action, but when it becomes crusted over with a new layer of sediment like the rock.  It changed, but the added sediments only expanded the existing rock without changing its fundamentals.  

             That’s the conundrum with iLyE’s as they’re not useful abstractions about the past that improve a conversation or solve a problem. They’re a stagnant retreading of history, laden with sediment yet still the same obsolete core, meant to block other arguments regardless of their utility.  They're hYstorical Lived Experiences because they're hysterical impossibilities and history is summoned out of context for a fallacious argument.  We're not living through the oppression of  Christians during the Roman Empire because prayers can't be said by public school teachers in schools; building a pipeline on native American land isn't equivalent to the Conquistador era; and as terrible as race relations are, Georgia's 2021 voting law isn't equivalent to the Jim Crow-era, actual segregation of the 1890s.

            And leaving aside the slavery and George Washington examples from other volumes, let’s look instead at the tool aspect of an historical LyE or iLyE.  They are particularly pernicious because the iLyE tool is used to command the past, a total context impossible to experience while taking as few steps as possible to recreate it as a good historian would attempt.  Why is this oversimplification fallacy and hyperbole so dangerous an argument?  Well, it lacks rigor and expects even less rigor to dispute it.  The mere mention of historical facts is used as a bludgeon, to corner weaker, oblivious, or uncaring opponents into silence.  Remember too that no person can command all history on their side simply because of a physical similarity, blood relation, by living in the same geographical area as someone in the past, nor can they do so simply because they share ideas.    

            Therefore, the iLyE is the actual speech used.  It's when you declare that history is doomed to repeat itself with some current action without actually taking the time to prove the exact parallels on how the past context is relevant.  It is the rhetorical device, a fallacious one wrapped in logos because dates, names and ideas are used that are meant to roll over the opposition.  It is the item “Cherry Picked from the Historical Grove” (Volume IV), but of a specific emotional variety suitable to the pathos style of rhetoric.  Someone merely stringing historical facts together to trick an ignorant opponent is Cherry Picking, wrapped in fake logos, a tactic that may not even lead to a LyE or a mirrored conversation if it's simply a one-time use.  An iLyE is more specific by lumping together one’s personal characteristics with history, which can have some cherry picking to support it.  But if the debate has gotten to the point of all "white people" acting as  modern-day "oppressors," it really won't matter if you cherry picked some facts to try to get out even if your argument is mostly rational.  A cherry pick can be handled most of the time, but it's hard to argue with someone claiming history is going to repeat itself because all white people don't agree them.  Leave history alone!  

VI. Morgan Snares

“Alex Beresford: It's their lived experience. Again, this is where the confusion comes in. How do you sometimes identify covert racism?
Susanna Reid: Piers, what you’re saying is that there are facts, and what Alex is saying is that there is an experience and a perception of those facts that you only appreciate when you're in that situation.
…Piers Morgan: It’s just untrue.  It has nothing to do with racism.  The fact itself upon which she’s basing that claim is not true.
Susanna Reid: Except that her perception appears to be that it might be true
Piers Morgan: Well, it’s like me saying the sky is blue outside, my perception is that it’s raining.”
“Good Morning Britain” March, 2021

The last thing any mirror would want would be to attached to, defend, or in any way be involved with is celebrity politics.  Check back at how much "The Man Show’s" Kimmelian supporters or Don Lemon’s Donlemonites fared when our strict scrutiny was applied to their opinions, which overwhelmingly use the fallacy of appeal to popularity.  To worship them with the tribe is just as fraught as seeing Obama or Trump as visions of Truth.  And so goes the same for Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, their media allies Alex Beresford and Susanna Reid, and their arch-nemesis Piers Morgan.  In this situation, a mirror cares not for the content of the conversation, only that the effects are rational, productive, and devoid of stigma for participants. 

Why bring up this merry bunch?  Well, it’s certainly not to act as a court to judge racism in the British Royal Family or the demerits of those two "oppressed" millionaire, self-exiled love bugs.  Nor is it to settle the score of who was right in the emotional and pointless TV debate about them: Beresford and Reid for the plight of the accusing "self-exiled" couple and Morgan supporting one of the largest landowning families in the world.  Instead, we are focused on their rhetoric, not covert racism or a lack thereof, but how these celebrities inspire common folk the world over to debate irrationally.

That leads us to a stigmatizing event known as a Morgan Flare, the trigger for a LyE that defies logical response and sends the offender to the Phantom Empathy Zone.  This is the “hell” of the conversation where no argument, logos or ethos, can reach the offended parties because a person believes the other has no empathy and is written off.  This debate is essentially between personal experience forming a harsh judgement versus outsiders forming abstractions about them because of allegations (of racism) that haven't been proven.  Shared experiences though never exact can be rational arguments if the elements of the accusation are proven.   

So, Beresford with Reid supporting are not irrational merely because they claim a shared experience with Markle because of Beresford’s shared mixed race background.  Nor is it irrational to argue that Markle perceived racist elements upon entering the family inner cloister.  However, the problem with Beresford’s argument is his fossilization of race as the only means for discussion and as a shield for negative criticism about the royal couple's behavior.   The racism accusations could very well prove true, but the Morgan Flare, the death of Morgan's empathy for people he clearly doesn't like stems from not simply accepting the accusations as true without seeing any evidence.  He's to disregard his clearly angry experience with her as well his belief that she lies regularly.  Morgan might be wrong about it all, but if he has experience dealing with the aggrieved princess, and he doesn’t trust her, he can make that argument without the logic buster of race being used to stifle his awkward attempt to express his mistrust and dislike.   

Justice is smothered by the smearing of potentially innocent persons as racist or by harmful racial discrimination suffered by her or her child that weren't proven in way where a remedy could be found.   Fairness is smothered by deflecting criticisms of Markle by saying that even though she might be logically wrong or at least without proof, her lived experience of racism not only proves accusations because her perception is more true than the facts, but also that her subjective Truth insulates her from opposition.  For her and Beresford to be questioned when using LyE’s, means the questioner is doubting the entire experience of racism, which calls into question their entire life narrative, which means Morgan is labeling them as liars by conveying  LiFTs.  Mirrors would quickly acknowledge the oversimplification fallacy.  No argument should be insulated from opposition even if feelings might get hurt.  That we have to move with tact so we’re not labeled racist and attacked with stigma doesn’t remove the imperative to increase more truths and results and to minimize the effects of emotional and irrational people. We'll just have to be tactful, avoid blowing up our families unless we're really certain we can and should win against the backlash.  Otherwise, hating on grandma isn't a good idea for family harmony!

VII.  Pronoun Hoedown          

“Oh, now don’t you know I’m human
I got my faults just like anyone
And sometimes I lie awake, alone, regretting
Some foolish thing, some sinful thing I’ve done
I’m just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood” 

“Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood” by The Animals

            What Dave Chappelle and J.K. Rowling got wrong was…

Redacted 

X

For Possible Information

X

Part II: THOSE People’s Parlor

VIII.           Captivity of Reason

“Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: People can get a cheeseburger anywhere, okay? They come to Chotchkie's for the atmosphere and the attitude. Okay? That's what the flair's about. It's about fun.
Joanna : Yeah. Okay. So more then, yeah?
Stan, Chotchkie's Manager : Look, we want you to express yourself, okay? Now if you feel that the bare minimum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that, okay? You do want to express yourself, don't you?
Joanna : Yeah, yeah.
Stan, Chotchkie's Manager : Okay. Great. Great. That's all I ask.”

"Office Space," 1999

There is unprecedented access to information, to the options most suitable to tastes.  That reality need not bother us.  However, a deduction is a subtraction, a negative on the conversation.  In many ways, this could be a good or bad factor.  We could subtract Donlemonites from a conversation and not have to worry about what some entitled TV talking head has to say about an issue they're merely blabbering about.  

            The Captivity Deduction is the subtraction of our own emotions and feelings, it is the sacrifice we make for Reason.  It is the chotchkie we must accept, the totem of others, that determines for a short time what our speech will be.  The chotchkie totem isn't our actual beliefs, which inwardly we can't be compelled to give up nor can any other person force and confirm those beliefs unless under the worst torture and deprogramming.

            An important part of Volume II was that mirrors self select to be rational.  A consequence of this choice is the captive audience that they become locked into.  Though they choose when enough false arguments have been uttered, they also must voluntarily enter captivity until the point at which they suffer the least stigma, or if the cost of remaining is higher than the worth of the harmony that would result.  A careful reader of that previous volume would also note that while it is wrong to assume that leaving the conversation because it is too irrational leads to more irrational arguments because they aren't questioned.  One could also question then why staying in a captive situation wouldn’t increase the potential for the person to become more irrational because of the exposure?  No, again.  The choice of captivity is similar to the choice to leave.  If a mirror becomes trapped in the irrational conversation, but makes no effort to leave or actually agrees with the subjects, they cease pursuing their mission and become a subject themselves.  If they recognize the futility of continuing their captivity, then have kept the spark alive and can proceed to the exit. 

Mirrors are by definition a captive audience in that the circumstances require them to listen or act in ways so that they can leave the conversation or preserve themselves and their reputation from stigma.  They are forced to endure, a kind of martyr as detailed from other volumes that does not involve a suicidal self-sacrifice for reason.  Rather, their sacrifice comes from willingly not responding, not crushing easily destructible garbage. Therefore, speech and the conduct of that speech is the only evidence of a mirror’s altruism.  They act for others above self and allow delusion to continue if there is no useful way to stop it

Breaking out of captivity is possible.  Mirrors cease captivity when they detect the infringement of ones' freedom of conscience or some impediment to their ability to act.  In Volume I, a clear red line for mirrors is the hindrance of their ability of movement because of captivity or enslavement.  No subject is allowed to deny freedom of movement and if they do, one is not obligated to any moral imperatives from Mirroring other than the laws at the time of your captivity and that your safety is paramount.  You are not required to mirror enslavers.  You are your own person and you only have to make believe that you agree if it will help your situation.  Flee for your lives if you can!    

 

IX.       Hexers and Doxxers: The Disharmonious Yin and Yang of Speech Victimization

Hexers:

"Cindy, you know by tattling on your friends, you're really just tattling on yourself. By tattling on your friends, you're just telling them that you're a tattletale. Now is that the tale you want to tell?"

Mike Brady, "Brady Bunch" movie.  

Characteristics: irrational deflection, selfishness, trusting of ones' wisdom and knowledge over other more experienced/rational ones, helpful for selfish purposes not genuine care, irrationally insecure about unsupported safety threats, for eternal lock-downs and masking and opposing those who oppose them, emotional reaction, trolling, defensiveness, reactive cancelling, noise-making, high volume, physical retaliation in response to an irrationally-conceived injustice

           In Taoism, the Yin and Yang are opposing forces, yet complementary in nature.  Before we discuss if our subjects can complement each other despite opposite characteristics, we need to elaborate about the people engaging in a Parlay and especially their style and generalized behavior profile.  For our purposes, the person who participates in a Parlay is a Debate Monster, regardless of whether they are the greatest combatant or the most sheepish person whose garnered sympathy pushes them to a moral win. These Debate Monsters (DM) have two basic ways of acting, two impulses controlling them in their horribleness.  Like the Tao, the forces can work together to keep the argument in balance or if on opposing ideological sides, cancel each other out if they possess the same force (Clash of Titans Debates).   They summon energy from being on the right side (Truth) of group belief or from the selfish impulse for self-gain while being perceived as a deceptive or false.  

            The first type of DM gains the will and energy to fight from others with a hex, a type of spell that draws on the strength of the opponent’s casting.  In the martial arts  world, Judo is the closest comparison as ones' weight and strength are used against an opponent in a physical fight.  The more intense the opponent, the greater the hex is in response.  In the Yin and Yang style, hexing is the Yin side, the lack of knowledge, un-wisdom, little skills utilized, trolling, imposing silence or shouting others down in order to get it, deleting friends real or virtual for opposing views, muting conversations, directionless but for reacting to other’s success or happiness, unhelpful, damning or cursing, lock-downs for lock-down’s sake, and most importantly a desire for external safety that one irrationally perceives to be threatened by shadowy other-figures.  Like water, it is absorptive of all types of rhetoric (pathos, logos, and ethos), boiling and steaming with stigma when reactive to logical statements that do not comport with the hexing Debate Monster’s feelings.

            Utmost Hex is when the Debate Monster has drawn the most power from the conversation.  Especially controversial topics like race, gender identity, or socioeconomic status empower the strongest reaction and regardless of the speaker’s original rationality.  A topic that elicits a hex response is known as a Hex Trigger.  Some examples of a Hex Trigger include failed delivery, improper timing, a lack of shared meaning of words used, misusing pronouns (Pronoun Flares), misinterpreted body language (for example the “OK” hand signal being racist when used by certain people and simply meaning “okay” by others), misinformation or a lack of care in seeking out information, a lack of critical thinking, premature ejaculation of arguments, untimely or constipated reaction to emotion flares where a response is demanded and isn’t delivered fast enough.  

            Hex Triggers are often connected to hYstorical LyE’s as facts about the past elicits a response particularly if out of place information isn’t included as desired by the hexer.  They can also be triggered by CONs (Conditioned on Negatives) such as “No justice, no peace.”  Because the abstract justice that is desired hasn’t occurred yet, a real person may be targeted for a hex because of any number of planned or random reasons that lead to the demands on them.  Less specific/uncategorized topics that focus solely on the problem (microfaults), which are also irrational, can spiral into larger macrofaults and provide cause more power for the hex and more stigma.     

            Finally, we need to address the curious case of the SHIV (Silence Heinously Imposing Violence) and whether it is a hex trigger or not.  One might assume that silence acts as a cast spell because a Debate Monster calls for speech and gets silence instead.  The act of remaining silent may be interpreted as a trigger.  However, without context there is a SHIV trigger only if there is a demand for speech.  If a person is walking on the street, has views on an issue in their head, but has no context within which to disagree about those thoughts, never speaking them in a way detected by others, then no SHIV trigger is present and no cause for the Debate Monster lurking in the dark corners of the neighborhood to react.  However, if they’re in the midst of an anti-abortion protest, and silently walking through the crowd while not reacting to the chanting and heckling, the context of that protest might make that person complicit in baby murder because they didn’t agree with the protesters thus empowering the hex trigger proportional to abilities of the Debate Monster and the context of the silent interaction.   

            A SHIV is a hex and not a dox only if the DM reacts defensively to the silence.  If no action has taken place, especially online and they proactively attack because speech is not used, then it is a dox.   To be a dox, the provocation is minimal and the antagonism comes from the fire of the person’s beliefs with little or no prompting from others.  A good example of a SHIV dox would be proactively attacking and stigmatizing those who do not choose a “blackout” profile picture on Facebook to symbolically stand with those against racism and police brutality.  Worthy causes, however, it’s not the symbolism of the picture that is important, it’s the reaction to those who do not choose to engage in the speech and who haven't taken any steps to trigger on this specific matter.  Again, there must be some speech, some proximity to opposing speech, or something about a person’s action to trigger a disproportionately negative response for it to be a hex.  Were a person known to have opposing views, yet not post the desired content or debate in person, the attack would be a dox as there is not enough outrage to fuel the spell. 

Doxer:

Bobby Brady "Well ever since I became a safety monitor at school, no one will talk to me. They think I'm some kind of fink.
Mike Brady "Well Bobby, people like to be corrected when they're doing something wrong. That's how we improve ourselves."
The Brady Bunch Movie

Characteristics:  group thinkers of a Truth, hall monitors on offense, fiery, zealous, ideological, pro-active mandates, damaging reputations, taking away someone's prosperity or livelihood, damaging or ending other people's relationships with friends, family etc., making others insecure and uncomfortable, anti-Pure Journalism, physical retaliation with little cause or in lieu of potential future injustice or because of a perceived ideology, obligatory assistance for the greater good over a genuine individual desire to help, mask police when ideologically supported,  family/relationships as important illogical factors for or against someone or some idea, judges people as moral or guilty by association,

        Now we must come to the dox. They actively pursue their victims like one of the two presidential German shepherds after White House security. They use the internet or snap embarrassing photos in pursuit of Avenger Justice. A bright reader would recall from Volume II that Avenger Justice is the aggressive pursuit of a concept of Justice. People are roadblocks to these individuals and no consequence can be too small for their victims if the cause is so dire. The reflection’s potential for stigma is proportional to the ability of the Debate Monster to offensively dox.   Like with the Tao symbol, there are elements of hex and dox in each other, even though both come from the Phantom Empathy Zone. Yet, a hexer comes from the Yang side and requires the provocation of another in order to activate. Doxing is already well known and ours is similar, yet broader than simply releasing identities for ideologically-driven revenge. A dox is a type of critical damage, an offensive strike at an opponent to offensively release information in order to stigmatize an opponent. Traditionally, it refers to releasing private addresses, phone numbers, bank information, or anything to damage a person’s reputation short of actual physical violence.

            Now, it's important to note how much greater the reach of doxing has become.  It’s important also to note that doxing is symbolic action and not "Pure Journalism," which in its purest though disappearing form is the legitimate finding and reporting of information in context without unjustly  interfering or disrupting the subjects of which the reports are about.  Doxing is venom to the heart of journalism because it not only interferes with the subject, but selectively and with malice avoids the context of the information being reported.  It can be legal or illegal depending on existing laws, but it is completely unethical because of its motivation of hate and its selectivity to be out of context.  Regardless, once the info is released, it’s hard to put it back into Pandora’s Box and contain the damage.

            Therefore in Mirroring, doxing is any offensive action or behavior to damage a reputation.  It is the Yang style, a fiery confrontational style that necessitates little to get it going.  Thus, the victim’s abilities and actions are independent of the Debate Monster who doxes.  A Dox Fortifier (DF) is the bare minimum hurdle to overcome to attack a reputation.  It is a negligible item, whereas a hex trigger is empowered by greater outrage.  A DF might be a the mere presence of a Democrat politician at a school meeting warranting    It could be an (R.) for Republicans next to their name or a picture of a lawyer with billionaire financier George Soros.  As the Yang of DM tactics, doxing is often associated with others and proximal, meaning knowing a person(s), information, even to a minor degree and/or being near or far from a person, groups, or information is the Dox Fortifier needed before starting combat.  The point is that a doxer needs minimal inspiration to start their nefarious activities.  

 

X.  Cat-Like Tread Debate Monsters

“Cat-Like Tread”
“With Cat-Like Tread
Upon our prey we steal
In silence dread
Our cautious way we feel
No sound at all
We never speak a word
A fly's foot-fall
Would be distinctly heard."

"Pirates of Penzance," a Gilbert and Sullivan musical.

 

One kind of hexer is a real pussy... footer.  As the broadest form of creep, the Debater Monster is a descriptive term, a characteristic of someone who is more concerned for their own victory, glory from that win, and ego rather than pursuing the truth, bettering society or making non-allies feel better.  And unlike the stealthy tactician, the Clash of Titans debaters are two or more great, opposing, and irrational forces butting heads and creating a show, with loads of disharmony, but little good resulting, especially from any civilians caught in the crossfire.  But the cat came back the very next day after the Titans roamed!

With fleet foot and load of kitty litter for brains, the Debate Monster with a cat-like tread needs a lot of milk to let the cat out of the bag.  Once the catnip has finished its course, a cat in gloves catches no mice and is fair game for this hunter to become the hunted.  For their pounce, a troll pounce after all, one should plan not to risk one of their nine lives.  Scaredy cats they are and leaders they are not.  They creep around, but aren’t forceful, cogent, creative, unless they’re silently hunting for an opportunity.

They care about an audience, a veritable Puss N Boots themselves.  Their intent is selfish, the Yin side leading to mystery, stealth, and dark attitudes.  Their approach to the audience is deceptive, disingenuous and narcissistic.  It appears as if the Cat-like Debate Monster is the champion of the audience, providing seemingly helpful, though fundamentally vapid, emotional feel good statements. Meow Mix meow the fans cry!  Oftentimes, this covert felinity gets an applause line if their strike is effective, hissing for their rivals after the claws come out, though a rational observer would easily detect their moves.

Step back from Cat Alley for a moment for they don't yet know their part.  Two rational debaters go back and forth about police brutality.  One debater argues that racism affects African Americans because police dis-proportionally target their community.  They offer statistics including proportions of the prison community and the disparate sentencing involved, as well as low funding levels for social services that might lead to less choosing crime and ameliorate the poor relations between their community and police.  Their opponent counters that though racism is still a factor in some circumstances, times have changed since before the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the reaction to policing has been counterproductive as has been cutting police funding.  Extreme actions aren’t supported by minority communities who suffer the most from crime.  Also using statistics and logic, they show that more money, better trained police, will lower crime and limit discriminatory police interactions.  A fine riposte to a fine argument!  And on and on this rational talk might go if uninterrupted! 

But so stealthily the Cat-like Debate Monster creeps!  While the crowd is mostly sleeping, half-engaged, and not emotionally invested, the Cat approaches and realizes the audience can be won, stealing the thunder from the two productives.  They could stand up and shout “George Floyd was murdered.  End police brutality now” and get the applause lines or they could bleat “Fix our big cities first and get rid of crime so we can live there again.”  Like macrofaults, there is truth, but the focus is solely on the abstraction, the problem be it police incidents, one person’s murder, or an increase in violent crime or the supposed mismanagement of big cities.  Ignoring factors like the specifics of the Floyd murder, COVID, anti-police policies, and politics, the Cat sidesteps those arguments, ignoring contrary evidence.  They want to suck up the energy and attention from the room, the Parlor they’re struggling to create.  

 If the two debaters can recover, they will have to devote energy to countering or qualifying those glittering generalities and slogans.  Until the audience is cleansed of such damaging absurdity, since popularity and live polls do not an argument make, the Debate Monster has converted the environment into a Parlor and if live-streamed, it may spread into chats as a nasty, live infection, blotting out any good arguments about the topic.  That one action could spin out of control and trolls may feed off the hex and start attracting other chatters.  Pray the cat isn’t let out of the bag!     

 

Part III: A Most Perilous Space

XI. A Garden of Conversational Delights 

            The garden of conversational delights is the ideal environment we all would like to have.  It’s a fantasy realm where we fantasize about standing up to the bullies, where our rhetoric causes admiration and swooning and above all where we end up being acknowledged as "right."  The garden is the Eden by which that forbidden fruit of victory is seized from the Tree of Knowledge.  Alas, we're more likely to grab snakes and take venom from the garden.  But fear not!  The debate monster is a gardener, knowing when to plant the bitter fruit seeds, when to offer the fruit of the poisonous tree to those unfairly chosen victims, and when to cloth themselves in righteous indignation at the naked and uncivilized barbarians that lack empathy.

            The Parlor then is just the sort of garden that the Devil would love.  It is setting the garden of paradise for eternal harmony and casting out the unworthy.  A Parlor by definition is the real or virtual environment of a conversation that is structured intentionally or not for advantage or disadvantage in irrational ways.  It is defined by objects, places, time, rules, formats, and anything not related to the content of the speech, its execution, or its reception on the audience.  It has a an impact on the SAC with the intention to distort the outcome and even limit speech.

An astute reader would recognize from Volume IV that Counter-insurgent Conversation Strategies (CCS) is a means for mirrors to assess the surroundings of a conversation for its viability.  At least two aspects are relevant for expansion.  A Parlor space should be viewed through the lens of requirements #1 and 3 of CCS.  The ethos or integrity of the host is vitally important to determining whether you wade in or not. 

Requirement #1 refers to the credibility of the hosts of the conversation, meaning those that set up the meeting, the Facebook comments or chat, or any of the structures used as an avenue for political debates.  To be rational conduits, the telltale signs of good hosts are that they should not use excessive volume, physical intimidation, or emotional rhetoric, instead opting for facts to back up statements in a generally calm and stoic manner.  In mediating their environment to avoid becoming a Parlor, the same qualities are desired.  Look for evidence that they routinely challenge debatable comments, extra points going to those moderators who can agree with people with known ideological positions contrary to their own.  Rigid political ideologies are the bane of pragmatism because they become fossilized and reactive and dismissive to contrary truths.  However, a good moderator, one where mirroring may not be necessary is one where a Parlor is not set up and they minimize the disruptions like totems, props, logical fallacies, and generally boorish debate behavior.  Any setting where the host is in favor of retaliatory acts like doxing or hexing should be passed over to avoid a quagmire.  Volume IV presents the idea of credibility tests for a conversation, which have been expanded in this volume to be SACs.  If the host or hosts are hostile to the speakers or they appear to disregard a common-sense interpretation of their speaker’s intent for positive or negative reasons, you should choose mirroring instead of participating.

Requirement #3 is also relevant because it is situational awareness of the set up of the Parlor.  Mirrors must be aware of the physical and digital surroundings in order to wage a counter-insurgent war on irrational political debates.  Using SAC and assuming that speech content can include any amount of lying, cheating, or fallacy, assume that if you become ensnared as a captive audience member that fire can come to you from any direction.  It could be a choke point question designed to filter and test members on a social media post.  Other than saying you agree, the question is usually cast as a bait.  Avoid these structural questions. 

Online and in person speech are very different.  The so-called structures of in-person speech are related to where, what kind of room, body position as in standing/sitting/kneeling, and other interpersonal factors like volume, pitch, tone, body language that affect the speech.  Those interpersonal factors are more fitting to the parlay section as it relates to who is doing the speech.  Therefore, when I refer to structures, I mean the non-human, non-personality characteristics of the environment in which the debate takes place.  Virtual has many more structural constraints to dialogue, censorious features that can limit speech in ways that yelling at someone couldn’t.  In 2021 America, it’s very unlikely you’ll be compelled to write a letter of agreement other than in a disciplinary proceeding or that you'll made to stand on a chair in a dunce hat for being counterrevolutionary by the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution in China. 

When interpreting the reception of such questions, refer back to our broad discussion of context, especially taking into consideration the warning about engaging in politics with friends and family.    In the Parlor, you know them best, but they also have the greatest edge in trapping you for something unfortunate.  Family and friends might limit stigma, but they too can suffer from associating with you if you’re cursed.  However, if the elections of 2016 and 2020 are an example, numerous families and friendships have been broken up because of even minor ideological differences.  Or at least a petty deliverance from annoying opposing opinions by deleting Facebook friends and family because they couldn't stand looking at it.  Therefore, if one sees a widely conspiratorial post about the election from a family member, resist the urge to start a war if it's not really worth the petty take-down.

What are other key structures that determine, undermine, or in rarer cases, elevate an argument?

Props: We have exhaustively covered why objects symbolize speech, conduct represents speech, or how both can be very convincing despite lacking substance.  However, props are not rational arguments unless they’re used as evidence in written or oral speech that explain them.  Some examples include: signs, seating arrangements, microphones and their volume level

Memes:  Funny or interesting items on the internet are the bane of Mirrors.  One case study has already delved into the scary realm of just COVID memes early in the pandemic.  Memes are for the weak minded as they supplement actual, original arguments about a topic.   

Facebook and other similar social media structures: This refers to the different tools and widgets to interact.  Even mundane activity can be interpreted as speech and given a negative reception.  Some example of social media structures are: the ubiquitous status message with or without a picture, the “like” button, emojis that use picture representations of emotions and represent speech, GIFs which are short animated pictures often with text, pictures of individuals sent to convey a message, shared videos, Reels, and Tiktoks, the Facebook forward message, the like or share page feature to show support for politicians or causes, etc.  Each social media site has slightly different structures like Snapchat’s disappearing messages that offers some privacy from malevolent exposure.  However, Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook all give the users the ability to screenshot or copy paste pictures, posts, or videos.  That can lead to mischief and stigma. 

Structural Content:  Either the presence or the lack of something in social media. For example a picture has speech content in it just by describing what is seen in it.  However, the content can have mirrorable applications.  This refers to posting something common, like solidarity with a protest movement, or not posting something, which as a potential SHIV, may indicate many actual things about the views of the non-poster, whether indifference, ignorance, or disapproval.  For example, not posting a picture of your vaccination card on social even if they just got the shot can be a SHIV to some at CNN early in the vaccination era.  SHIVs compel speech because the silence is made to be equivalent to violence, which in the case of vax cards, showing a lack of support for the shots, something similar to failing to adequately display the image of a revered leader in an authoritarian country like North Korea.  Other clothing items, paraphernalia, or personal protective equipment (PPE) like masks can be used as prop totems.  Not wearing a face-mask even in a private setting like not posting a picture of your vaccination card can be a SHIV used by COVID authoritarians to stigmatize your less than enthusiastic effort in supporting masks regardless of the actual circumstances of the photo.  Or having a mask on with a Black Lives Matter logo on it can be interpreted as well, indicating that if you have it on, you support rightly or wrongly a virulent anti-police organization, or that if you didn’t wear at the height of the racial injustice protests in Summer 2020, you don’t value black lives. 

Structural neutrality is dependent on context.  Using the “like” button in Facebook as an example, it has a "–, 0, or +" potential depending on both the recipient of the approval, the content of the post to be liked or ignored.   Remember, the absence of approval can be interpreted as the presence of disapproval.  There is much less penalty for the silence coefficient virtually than in real life.  People are not as compelled to like or comment, which is even more important if the potential commenter is known to be inactive on social media.  That reputation can help stave off a SHIV.  Self-censoring is therefore often more acceptable online than if you were to witness the conversation and neglect to take part. 

There’s also the paradox of content censoring.  As addressed in the Election Day Brainteasers in other parts of this blog, blocking someone in order to force speech compliance is contradictory and asinine.  The reasons for hiding posts and blocking entirely are many including judging the totality of the person's speech as irrelevant, offensive, hate speech, hatred, past history with the person independent of the content, etc.  Yet, be mindful of the saying “If a tree falls in the forest, will anyone hear it?”  Will they really know what was done?  A person whose virtual friendship is deleted may be aware of their removal and yet not be certain of the moral of the story from that former friend’s action.  As symbolic speech and the ethos/pathos forms of rhetoric, it is extremely ineffective at convincing the deleted person to change their immoral views, especially if they’re unaware of the action in the first place or the extent of the emotion behind the decision.  If you as the mirror have been the one hidden or blocked, you’ve lost the ability to add harmony, you might take more drastic steps to encourage that person to add you back or unblock you, toning down your own posts or comments, especially if the blocker is someone known for stigmatizing. But only if it's worth your time and efforts!

 

XII. Parlor Feng Shui:  A Mirror Map to Conversational Harmony 

 

The Parlor Feng Shui diagram is a mirror drawn with four interlocking mirs (миры or peaces).  The black (Yin) side is reflected over the horizontal time axis to the white side (Yang).  The black and white sides are reflected across the vertical Truth axis, where it terminates in the North position at Total Truth, where all beliefs are accepted as true, and the South position at Total False, where all beliefs are rejected as false.  The True and False positions are absolutes at the point of their termination and are polar opposites at their utmost pursuit.  

Total False is the total rejection of the humanity and all beliefs of a person, unlikely in absolute form in the real world, but closeness is possible.  Near Total False is pursued if one opponent labels something “water” and the other person calls it anything other than water because of who the person is.  Total Truth would be complete belief acceptance.  For example, Trump or Clinton could say the elections of 2020 or 2016 were stolen despite all contrary evidence, which believers would accept uncritically.  Truth is also the line in pursuit of fame and reputation, which as social abstractions essentially become “True,” meaning stigma or notoriety becomes “facts” that cannot be disproved easily, or depending on the distance from the center, possibly ever.  False is the line of career and life path, as the subjective side, it is inherently selfish, which in narrative form appears more false to others the more the person pursues it.  Greater False implies selfishness, lying, cheating to get ahead, trickery, and other Machiavellian machinations.  Greater True means reputation, which is dependent on others for success.  At its greatest point reputation is so dependent on the goodwill of other people, the crowd, group-think way, that Greatest True accepts even the wrong views of others regardless of the truth of it. 

Past and Future are two never-ending sides of the Mirror continuum.  Though humans only process the present using an understanding of the past in order to project future goals and action, the perception of either the past or future is shadowy and imperfect.  Narratives are the ways in which we summarize blocks of information for future planning.  For our Parlor and its Parlay, the Past represents the arguer's focus on the foundations and existing ethical and moral doctrines, which the older they are the more rock solid the belief that they should remain unquestioned.  The further back on the Past continuum the more distant the memory of the experience and the greater the potential to be disconnected from practical use (i.e. more “fossils” from the past that have lost their utility in the present).  However, age or newness does not prove or disprove an argument, a belief system, or an experience true or false simply because of the time elapsed.  The test is for utility, for a rationally conceived use for the concept, a belief system, or the experience.  Without that scrutiny, superstition, emotion, and reaction are likely for every belief system, even so-called progressive ones that are oriented towards removing tradition and planning the future.  As a continuum, it’s impossible to reach the terminal point as it’s impossible to throw out all previous information and start with a blank slate as an adult. 

For Mirrors, future direction represents the creative impulse as well as the ability to re-work or overturn the past with or without justification.  Notice that the Past/Future line does not exist in the True/False one.  All futures as True or all pasts as False or vice versa does not exist in the real world.  An all True Future or all False Past is impossible not just because it rejects every possible solution for the future, without conceding every belief to others while ignoring your own experience, which may prove a collective False Past partly true, thus calling into question your entire belief system or causing one to irrationally ignore contrary past information. 

The Center Point, origin, or Reflection point is where mirrors would ideally be positioned. It is the place mostly to bring us a garden of conversational delights.  We would know how to build a reputation for logic and rationality by experience, one that wouldn’t uncritically accepts beliefs from others while also trusting that their own knowledge is not adequate to improve the world.  They would present contrary facts to those can respect it, admit false leads, gaining wisdom from others, and helping others in non-condescending ways.  Those are the ideals, imperatives really that should guide the mirror’s language and also guide them in the construction or deconstruction of Parlors.  

Here a few examples of the four mirs, giving good, less good, and damaging examples for each quartile.  It is not a comprehensive list by any means, in fact it's not even large since real life and the internet are massively complicated and I do not have the time to do all of the grueling work.  I just describe some examples as a model, which allows other mirrors to do the follow up.

Yin: Knowledge/Wisdom and Helpfulness

Good Knowledge/Wisdom Harmony:

• Little to no detectable bias.  Their information is the most useful to a debate, and few can question its relevancy.  They have mastered logos and ethos appeals and are exceptional at Cicero's 5 rhetoric canons
  
• Pure Journalism is practiced (presenting the facts with actual context), no noticeable ideological bent, experienced-based abstractions, rejects memes, forwards and simple Parlor structures as arguments like the “Like” button, rejects absolute arguments in favor/disfavor of something
•  Goes to School Board meetings/ government forums for information and asks emotionally neutral, well-informed, and non-ideological questions that cannot be dismissed as “False” or “True.”

Less Good Knowledge/Wisdom:

• Some bias, but the facts and a reasonably rational presentation shines through.  They do engage in occasional pathos rhetoric and miss a few of Cicero's canons. 
  
•   Goes to public meetings and asks questions with some ideological bent, leading to some dismissal, but that generally are not easily dismissed by sensible thinkers and that represent most of the crowd’s concerns and beliefs. 
•  Ideologues who believe they’re practicing Pure Journalism in a way that even their opposites have a hard time dismissing.  They pass the “even this person or group says/argues this” test, which shows the speech is generally good and not a Parlay.

Bad Knowledge/Wisdom:

•  Wrong skill-set for the speech and the authority it requires while claiming to be able to speak on the subject regardless of the validity of the content (Dr. Jill Biden acting as a medical doctor and not as an educator).  Speaking from no authority and being fallacious makes the speech a Parlay. 
•  Argues almost completely from the pathos style of rhetoric and frequently applies the Parlay 6.
  
• Any Parlay where authority is claimed and the content is mostly false or debatable but presented as factual. 
•  Biased journalism including bias of omission, intentional slanting of coverage, severe bias including inviting opponents into a hostile Parlor and cutting them off so they cannot respond.
• Cherry picking especially of history, avoiding the actual context of information
• failing to correct reporting mistakes in an open and obvious way or burying that correction to avoid embarrassment.
•  Going to a public meeting like school board with no intention of gaining knowledge and only with ideological and emotional purposes.

Good Helpful:

•  In a debate, they provide cogent questions that the group won't ask or is too afraid to.  They move forward the conversation, the group work, or task in a way that makes their partners feel better.
  
• Public support, community service, and or fundraisers for obviously good causes (cancer research, orphans, pet rescues, etc.)
• Genuinely charitable with time, money, resources in real life in a way that also isn't intrusive or that demands extensive reciprocation. 
  
• Offers supportive posts, words of encouragement, genuine interpersonal expressions of support/encouragement, minimizing complaining or groping only for the most serious occasions, or smartly offering to take the personal chats or offering more information in private messages with trusted people.   
• Avoids useless chain letters (post this to 3 people or suffer bad luck, etc.), copy/paste posts, or internet behavior that makes other users feel like they must comply
  
• Sticks to useful information, useful connections with other acquaintances, never overstepping the bounds set by the person receiving the help.
  
• Offers posts or words that recommend products especially if responding to requests, travel tips, drink/food recipes, so long as your tone is genuine and you don't attempt to bludgeon others to make your decision for themselves.
  

 Less Good Helpful:

•  In a debate they are constantly asking questions, which come from a good place, but can lead to tangents and distractions.  Though they mean well, they could cut back.
  
• Intermingles legitimate public support, community service, and or fundraisers for obviously good causes with political party activity or fundraisers, groups or organizations that garner equally negative opinions (NRA for liberals/progressives, Planned Parenthood for conservatives, etc.).  Generally, their support for causes is more positive than negative, though some hesitancy might result when asking less helpful people for assistance. 
• Generally neutral in terms of offering time and resources, they may not offer much but they also do not take.   
• Occasionally offers more help than is wanted, seems too eager to help which can lead to slight mistrust.
  
• Some complaining or airing of personal problems, less of filter on their posts, displays some willingness to take the personal complaining to other less public formats, occasionally posts chain letters or forwards but they mostly positive and good-nature.
  
• Uses posts or words that recommend products especially if responding to requests, travel tips, drink/food recipes, so long as your tone is genuine and you don't attempt to bludgeon others to make your decision for themselves. There may be mistrust because of previous unhelpful behavior.
  

 Bad or Unhelpful:

•  In a debate they are constantly asking questions that disrupt.  They don't listen or purposefully mishear others, they waste time or purposefully stall, or use tangents to ruin the conversation. They mean to harm and intend to take their time. 
  
• Strictly engages in unpopular or annoying activities online. 
• Their posts are hyper-partisan, with no willingness to value opponents or empathize with their views.  They have hyper-polarized thinking, which makes their enemies demonic and worthy of suffering.  For example, if they can't wear a mask or get the vaccine, they deserve to lose their job or even die.  If they can't fully fund the police, they deserve to wait for 9/11 to respond to an emergency.  They wouldn't shovel the driveway of an old conservative lady or help a liberal fix their tire.  
• Their political party activity or fundraisers is in your face and extremely off-putting even to neutral viewers.
  
• Unless you're in the ideological bubble with them, most people wouldn't ask them for anything and wouldn't expect much in return.
  

Yang: Relationship and Fame/Reputation

Good Relationship Harmony:

•  In a debate, this person only has serious, factual ones with those that are trusted, which excludes most disagreeable friends and family.  They are useful in the discussion as woos, who are effective at building relationships without sacrificing reason or utility for blood or comradery.  They are great wooers such that no feelings are hurt and the discussion's ruffled feathers are easily smoothed over by its end. 
  
• Posts family photos, lighthearted quotes, tagging friends family in fun/funny, inoffensive materials.
• A regular positive presence especially with social media, which is the bare minimum.
  
• Gatherings and meetings are  organized to ensure politics doesn't come up, turning on neutral music or sounds, avoiding news shows especially cable news and biased programming, choosing board games or trivia questions with little current events content.  Be mindful of your relations tying certain board-games like Monopoly may trigger bad harmony because of ideology (potentially a game inculcating greed in its players), keeping setting arrangements such that like thinkers are spaced with neutral placements.

Less Relationship Harmony:

• In a debate, this person occasionally mixes politics and hot button issues with the wrong groups even with some disagreeable friends and family.  But they are capable of mostly explaining away unpleasant and irrational confrontations as they possess some wooing skills.  
• They can be effective at building relationships, but in many cases the relationships merely survive the debate and aren't enhanced by their participation, partly because relatives or comrades were included when they shouldn't have been.  They woo haphazardly, but it is mostly shrugged off as "Oh, it's just <insert person's name>," which while not agreeing with them mostly dismisses them as harmless.
  
• Mixes politics and family and relationships on social media, especially Facebook, but not often enough or not so that relations can still see an off switch.  Over-posting or griping and allowing relations to see it would be damaging. 

Bad Relationship Parlors:

• Doxer- unjustly damages family, friends, or work relationships of others out of ideological hatred and spite.
• Uses LiFTs- rejecting a whole person's worldview, declaring it inauthentic, thus justifying responding against them.
• Family, friends, or associates are placed well above others even they deserve it more.  Ignores merit for familial or ideological purposes.
  
• Believing things just because of who said them without regard to their logic or rationality: family, friends, political parties, celebrities (Don Lemonites, Kimmelians, etc.)
  
• Absentee presence- not communicating in ways that your relations use, but expecting them to respond to your communication desires. 
  
• Placing "likes," subscribing, or re-posting blatantly biased content from politicians, celebrities, or public figures so that known enemies will despite their best intentions to be convinced to convert to their side, making them likely to be angry and/or retaliate.
• Bringing up micro or macrofaults are the most damaging to relations whom disagree.  Avoid blanket pro/con arguments on local issues, big topics like COVID, Trump, Biden, inflation and the economy, January 6th, crime, etc.  While family and friends can be the most forgiving, they know the most, thus offer serious potential for disharmony.  

How to Handle a Relationship Doxer:

• A doxer's intent is to damage relationships by exposing information that will affect family, friends, or associates.  Attack swiftly, but appropriately.  Find their pressure points, ignore their senseless arguments, and prepare relations for stupid arguments.
• The Next Step: cleanse social media as much as possible for conduct that could be used against you: public relationships, questionable activities caught on camera/video, job activities, personal information like phone numbers, emails, or social media, which should be set to private, you should know every profile, or if a public page, every controller of that page to avoid information exposure.  
• The Third Step:  BEWARE!  Purging your friends list is only appropriate when the target is so worthless they aren't even worth the most basic social media contact.  If they become aware of your deletion, you may have an enemy on your hands and if Sun Tzu and Machiavelli had anything to say about that choice, it would be to always minimize the number of people who openly hate you and work towards your ruin.  Deleting people, especially declaring you're doing so makes you look irritated by others and petty.  Be careful who you delete or your petty choice may come back to bite you!
• The Fourth Step is to review your existing content, deleting obviously biased content, altering so that it is more nuanced and less objectionable. 
  

Good Fame/Reputation:

• In a debate, rational debaters would want this person on their team because of their solid, scholarly reputation.  They focus solely on the argument and you are famous for it.  They acknowledge the enemies points, disagree without being disagreeable, and are respected for enemies and friends alike.  
  
• Uses words and actions that show theystick up for underdogs, who are near universally agreed upon as such, defined as real victims including historically victimized classes of people if they’re provably victimized because of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  It must apply to the person for them to be a real victim.  A class of person used to argue victimization without actual proof is a Parlay and should be mirrored. 
• Gives someone their “word” and following through, meaning everything from being on time, fulfilling promises (like repaying loans or returning property), and returning phone calls, texts, or emails if the relationship is important. 
• Social media reputation: enhanced quality of posts that displays the ability to relate or understand different types of posters, keeping longstanding profiles with clear evidence it’s them and their style of trustworthy posting.
•  Keeps trustworthy friends and not deleting in swatch shows they can handle diverse views.
• Fame comes from standing up for beliefs with proof without being nasty, disagreeable, or opposing others just because of who they are or because they tend to agree. 
• Fame from the honest portrayal of you skills, genuine abilities, self-deprecation as well as honestly doing the same for others. 

Less Good Fame/Reputation:

• Uses superficial qualities for benefit while having some genuine connection or virtuous intent.  For example, a good looking, but talented lawyer who enhances their reputation both with easy factors like attractiveness, family reputation, and personality, but also has enough rationality and ability as a lawyer.
• Intentionally uses family, race, gender, sexual orientation, or other factors for benefit, while still possessing a rational purpose.  The benefit is the actual argument, action, or rational purpose and not the uncontrollable characteristic used for advantage.

Bad Fame/Reputation:

• Ad hominem: meaning about the person.  In this case, they use only beauty, race, gender, physical deficiencies/disabilities, illnesses, ethnic features, fashion, hair styles, popularity, conspicuous consumption, wealth, family name, celebrity (Donlemonites or Kimmelians), etc.  If those are the main focus of an argument, bad harmony results from debating with such a subject and they should be mirrored as it’s that shiny object they want to see reflected and not an argument. 
• Contrary to explicit bias used to take advantage while pursuing a rational purpose, implicit bias burdens a person with circumstances beyond their control.  Those arguing that implicit bias solely determines the validity of an argument are Parlaying and should be mirrored since one cannot argue against uncontrollable characteristics. 
•  Internet notoriety: It is damaging to be known for constant negativity.  They delete friends and boast about it, use extremely biased posts, have very partial judging of posts, eliminate comments from those with opposing views, and instantly dismiss speech because of what they irrationally perceive to be a pattern of conduct that is predictable and likely annoying even if the speech is truthful or not. 
  

Conclusion:

            Phew!  That was one comprehensive volume.  Not only did we explore a tool to determine the danger-zones of conversations, but we also delved into the darkness with the Hexers and Doxers.  In the final section, we discovered that Time and Truth are experienced individually, but if we want to live a life of less social anxiety, we should be aware of the Mirror Map, the four quartiles, and how to make our behavior better in person and on the internet.  The benefits that this self-awareness can bring are beyond even the other four volumes.  Surely, Volume V is not the end of Mirroring as these concepts may find their way into case studies or a sixth epic a year from now.  I hope our 2022 is more rational, happier, and a few steps forward to practical progress!

Glossary

Abstraction: the nonphysical

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

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

Assent: To agree to something. 

Audience Experience Paradox: one's experience is deemed inauthentic by others who didn't experience it. 

Captivity Deduction: the sacrifice, sacrifice, or opportunity cost of staying in an unwanted conversation. 

Cat-like Tread Debate Monster:  a hexer who waits to step in and win after doing little work.

Cherry Picking: using information out of context to make a point.  Especially historical info.

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

Dox: The Yang side. Aggressive, attacks using ideology over provocation, ruins others.

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

Fallacy: a false idea. 

iLyE: using history irrationally to shut down a conversation.

Hexer- The Yin side.  Defensive, draws strength from others, and is irrationally insecure.

Kimmelians: People who derive authority from celebrity and popularity.

LiFT: Lies from the Table Cloth, rejecting a whole narrative, worldview as false.

LyE: Lived Experiences, where a person's experience irrationally ends an argument.

Macrofaults: large abstract and complex problems that approached simplistically.

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

Mirs: from the Russian word for peace.  4 sections of the Mirror Map.

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

Mirror Agents: the people mirroring irrational political discussions.   

Parlay: The content of irrational speech.

Parlor: The total environment of a debate bent irrationally to favor or disfavor some participants.

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

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

Pure Journalism: the finding and reporting of information in context without interfering with the subjects of the reports.  Doxing is venom to the heart of journalism because it not only interferes with the subject, but selectively and with malice avoids the context of the information being reported. 

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

Reason:  Justifying belief using facts.

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

SHIV: Silence Heinously Imposing Violence- when being silent irrationally makes that person violent. 

Silence Coefficient: The effects of silence (as speech or conduct) in a conversation.

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

Totems: objects acting as symbols.  

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