7 ms·
Dark Mirror Ideologies
- veridies 2y agoThis concept is worthwhile, but the author is so focused on malice that he neglects real examples. For example, I think many people agree with vegans about animals’ capability for suffering, and don’t WANT to increase it, but just don’t consider it worthy of moral consideration. The factual beliefs are the same, but the moral choices are diametrically opposed. Similarly, many (not all!) conservatives and liberals basically agree about the effects, positive and negative, of immigration. But one side doesn’t want those people here, and one does. You don’t need to have different beliefs about the world to be on exact opposite sides of that issue.
- brazzy 2y agoI think you're missing the author's point, which is made in the last three paragraphs. The point is exactly that these diametrically opposed ideologies do not actually exist, but that ideologues often paint their opponents that way. A typical example is seen among the more extreme pro-choice activists. They frequently make claims like "It's not about protecting babies, they [pro-life people] just want to control women's bodies".
- dack 2y agoI think the OP's point is that there are more "dark mirror ideologies" than the author claims, because the author was focused on examples that are too extreme (and therefore rare). The OP is showing that there are more reasonable oppositions that appear to fit the dark mirror definition and are not simply a false accusation.
- larsiusprime 2y agoAuthor here. I’ll grant “gray mirrors” without a fight. (Ideologies that admit to the same facts but one side just doesn’t care; multiply by zero instead of negative one). Also note in the article I cop to at least one salient example being real My main point is not to say dark/gray mirrors don’t exist, just that it should never be your first explanation. Your opponent tends to want things for their reasons, not yours, and the better you understand them the better you can oppose them. That’s it.
- mcv 2y ago> A typical example is seen among the more extreme pro-choice activists. They frequently make claims like "It's not about protecting babies, they [pro-life people] just want to control women's bodies". There is actually plenty of evidence for that claim. Some so-called pro-life politicians are not meaningfully pro-life except in their opposition to abortion rights, do not support other measures like sex ed or contraception that would reduce abortions, are fine with letting pregnant women die, and some have even pressured their mistress to have an abortion despite opposing abortion rights politically. Everything points to it being more about denying freedom to women than about actually caring about unborn life. For some at least. But their number is not small. This can also be seen by the criminalisation of miscarriages, and women being forced to risk their life to bear a dead fetus to term. Those measures are absolutely about controlling women and do nothing to protect unborn life. In fact, there seems to be an increasing number of issues where especially US Republicans' position seems entirely based on simply opposing whatever the Democrats want on principle. Look at coal rollers; in what kind of world view does that make sense? A few years ago they voted to increase military expenditures above what the military asked for, and the military had no idea what to even do with that money.
- graemep 2y agoThat is an ad-hominem in terms of whether abortion should be allowed or not, and to what term it should be allowed. It may be a reason for not voting for a particular politician (because motivation matters in office). It does not affect - should abortion, or abortion under these circumstances, be allowed. Also, most people who feel strongly about the issue (i.e. not politicians) do either believe that unborn babies have human rights (most often that they are able to feel pain, respond etc. therefore they have rights) or that fetuses are just clumps of cells. I am not saying there are no exceptions, but there is a very strong correlation between these beliefs and their stance on abortion. it is striking that anglophone western countries (where the demonising of those who disagree is trongest) tend to either not allowing abortion at all, or having very late term limits (even up to birth) whereas as almost of continental Europe has about 12/13 week limits, a compromise most people think is OK. > A few years ago they voted to increase military expenditures above what the military asked for, and the military had no idea what to even do with that money. Given the current state of the world that sounds like they were right!
- mcv 2y agoYeah, it feels like the author introduces an interesting concept, and then intentionally turns it into a ridiculous caricature that cannot possibly be true. But then why introduce it in the first place? I think there are plenty of meat eaters who agree that animals can suffer, but simply don't care because meat tastes good, which is not something vegans deny, but simply something they consider less important. Similarly, in climate change, I sometimes get the impression that even if all the science is correct and we are irreversibly changing are world, damaging ecosystems, and creating massive social unrest, refugee crises and war, some people still don't care because they won't be alive by that time and why should people today make even the slightest sacrifice for the people of tomorrow? And some rich people seem to actively want inequality and exploited poor people.
- safety1st 2y agoThe author is here and responding to some comments (great article, larsiusprime!). Presumably better than I can. But I think this is the money quote that comes at the end: > Accusing your opponent of belonging to a Dark Mirror ideology is a weird narcissistic exercise, and a failure to develop a coherent theory of mind. It's also counter-productive. Dark Mirror ideologies may exist but if you feel tempted to identify your ideological opponent as subscribing to one, you should examine that temptation carefully. In Tolkien you have Morgoth opposed to Iluvatar, why? They differ on a key contention, which is that Iluvatar thinks he's the only one who gets to determine the shape of the music of creation, Morgoth says "Why's it only you who gets to drive the bus?" and everything falls apart from that deep ideological difference. In Star Wars you have the Sith opposed to the Jedi, why? They differ on a key contention, which is that the Sith feel you should embrace your passions and the Jedi feel this is a destructive can of worms; to which the Sith respond that the Jedi are just trying to control people and putting a velvet glove around an iron fist, therefore they are no more moral than the Sith. In real world politics you often have people divided over fundamental concepts like realpolitik and whether the ends justify the means. "Is Problem X so serious that certain sacrifices need to be made?" The point is that the "Dark Mirror" interpretation in all of these cases would be wrong, nobody says "We have all the same priors, I'm just evil," but they do frequently ascribe that worldview to their enemies. In actuality the counterparties disagree on some very deep-rooted principles, but the character of your average online debate looks something more like "Team X obviously agrees on my same worldview, they're just evil people, so they want to do the bad things!" This is inherently a pretty narcissist way of looking things, there is no effort to understand what the other side is really trying to accomplish, and even if you're utterly committed to destroying them either way, "Know Thy Enemy" is still good advice. So the Dark Mirror approach to ideas you don't like is ultimately self-defeating. It's interesting (and troubling) how these ragebaiting, Dark Mirror style positions used to be a bit less common but with the advent of social media have absolutely exploded into the dominant form of political discourse that now determines elections.
- Bluglionio 2y agoI'm pretty sure the reps also want immigrants just for their benefit. Also often enough there are 'good immigrants' and 'bad immigrants'. JD Vance wife is an immigrant. Trumps wife too. In Europe you see the same thing often enough too: "I'm not a nazi, i have a partner/friends which are from <another country>". In my opionion the core difference is the idiology: Left people want to help and support and assume that immigrants are normal human beings which can be part of our country but of course don't want to have an immigrant killing people and raping and being shitty people. But their view point comes from the good side. The right wing people hate immigrants as a default and come from the bad side. Which allows them also to have 'good' immigrants. Nonetheless, i also think its an educational issue and value system issue: the left see it as a human right to be a human and having a fair chance, helping others and potentially also see that the world is not isolated. Like when the USA produces a lot of co2 which makes people across the world environment bad, they have some type of valid reason to move to the USA. The right wing people don't care about this.
- DeathArrow 2y agoWhy do you brand left as good and right as bad?
- giraffe_lady 2y agoAt this point why do you not?
- DeathArrow 2y agoBecause I don't side with either left or right. Both did good things and bad things. Because I think there are useful left policies and useful right policies.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago> useful right policies Yeah like what?
- 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- wasabi991011 2y agoI agree, I had the same thought about the vegan example. The premise of dark mirror ideologies is interesting if you don't consider the moral inversion to be an exact mirroring. TFA even gave the anti minimum wage example at the beginning, which is not an exact mirroring (scoring political points & looking generous != enjoying killing businesses). If dark mirror ideologies is supposed to be more like the main examples (dark veganism, dark liberals, etc.) then I'm afraid all TFA has discovered is that the no ideology has "being evil" as their priority.
- protocolture 2y agoFunny that the article mentions the minimum wage debate but forgets that its like the original example.
- dokyun 2y agoSo Open Source is like a dark mirror version of Free Software. Open Source thinks that there's benefit in programs being free, but also that defending their freedom is actually a bad thing.
- larsiusprime 2y agoOpen source self describes its value system as being freedom for developers, free software self describes its value system as being freedom for users. Most open source grants users far more freedoms than proprietary software, for instance, though not maximal freedoms. It’s not opposed to user freedom (“that’s bad actually”) it’s just not the goal being optimized for. I think it’s a fallacy to accuse them of being dark mirrors of each other for the reasons stated in the blog post. They have different worldviews and different goals, they don’t just take each other’s goals and multiply them by negative one. Open source doesn’t try to intentionally restrict users, it just trades off against their maximal freedom in favor of maximal developer freedom. Free software doesn’t intentionally try to encumber developers, it just trades off against their maximal freedom in favor of users maximal freedom.
- DeathArrow 2y agoOpen Source is a practical take on software. Free Software is an ideology.
- ropejumper 2y ago
- aaron695 2y ago[dead]
- DeathArrow 2y agoI find ideologies and ideologues off putting.
- hnbad 2y ago"The greatest trick the devil ever played on mankind is to believe you can be free from ideology." Alternatively: "If you don't have an ideology, you just end up creating your own inconsistent ad hoc ideology from scratch." I'm not sure who first started promoting the lie of being "free from ideology" or ideology being bad, although I could imagine it being tied directly to the rise of Third Way politics (e.g. New Labour in the UK) - which, ironically, very much is a political ideology (although one so incoherented and conflicted it has fallen victim to right-wing populism throughout the West). Actually the Democratic Party's politics (think Obama and Biden, not AOC and Sanders) generally closely align with Third Way politics. I can understand opposition to ideologues as the term is usually applied when talking about people who only talk about their ideology rather than applying their ideology directly (e.g. I could at lengths explain the ideas behind Democratic Confederalism or Anarchism but that would do nothing to help with concrete policy decisions in the present system or day-to-day problems in real life). After all, when people say e.g. "Trump says it like it is" they don't mean he speaks the truth but that he talks about problems people perceive as directly affecting them and then talks about things he wants to do about them (whether or not they're helpful for addressing those problems is beside the point) - the distinction is that he offers a concrete solution at all rather than waffling on about the spirit of the light of the hope of the nation at the dawn of the greatness etc etc. Ironically this waffling is actually compensating for a lack of an explicit ideology but it is indeed quite off-putting.
- hollerith 2y ago>If you don't have an ideology, you just end up creating your own inconsistent ad hoc ideology from scratch. I'm not sure that is accurate (when applied to individuals). If we define an ideology as a way of assigning moral value to things that is comprehensive enough so that almost any decision can be viewed through "the ideological lens", then some people are many orders of magnitude less influenced by ideologies than other people are. What is futile is to ignore or prevent the effects of ideologies on a society or a large organization because people who share an ideology cooperate much more effectively than people who do not, and this has powerful effects on politics and the management of organizations.
- virgilp 2y ago> Dark Liberals agree that democratic institutions, free speech, a free press, human rights, tolerance for differences, and a cultural melting pot are all essential parts of maintaining a free society Honest question - is the "cultural melting pot" thing considered a liberal ideology in the USA, now? It was my impression that nowadays its considered an offensive bad thing, not "a strength of the USA".
- channel_t 2y agoYes. I would be curious to hear what formed your impression that it is now considered an offensive bad thing. I have some ideas of course, but none are reflective of the reality of the worldviews of most city or even suburb-dwelling US people. If anything, the cultural melting pot thing has never been stronger.
- virgilp 2y ago> Yes. I would be curious to hear what formed your impression that it is now considered an offensive bad thing. I don't know, TBH. I think friends from US told me to be careful, that it's now politically incorrect to mention it, especially to express support for it/imply that it's a good thing? I don't live there so I wouldn't know for sure, especially given that when I interact with US colleagues I generally try to steer away from more potentially "touchy" subjects. I did notice myself that it's best to avoid some subjects in the US corporate world, since you never know what may be offensive. Or well, I don't, perhaps it's a me-problem. (it's probably also that I don't understand all the local implications and sensibilities. Like, for me "melting pot" means the ability to take immigrants from all over the world, and turn them into "americans" with roughly the same culture & set of values. That, for me is unequivocally a _good_ thing, I think it's generally recognized that conflict at values-level is the most difficult one to resolve/ it's basically unresolvable. You can't have a nation working together if large parts of it have different set of values, that's just a recipe for internal divisions and long-term problems. Or anyway, that's my general line of thinking, that's why I personally have always felt that the "melting pot" was one of the best things US did, and did better than e.g. France or other nations. But I do recognize that there might be other problems associated with that, in the minds of US citizens; and being subjected to the "melting pot" can't be easy/pleasant for everyone, it's in the end about modifying/tweaking your identity so that's gotta be a hard process)
- Bluglionio 2y ago[dead]
- juped 2y agoOK, but consider that _my_ opponents are genuinely Dark Mirror ideologues. Silly of the author not to consider that.
- renewiltord 2y agoSure, in general accusing your opponents of just being You But Evil is boring and betrays a lack of Theory of Mind but consider the people who believe that our modern society with all of its comforts could only occur under the free markets we have but simultaneously believe that these comforts are bad. “What a caricature! You fool why would anyone believe that! Your opponents are not saying that!” But what if they are? Famously bananas in winter would not exist and that would be good.
- HKH2 2y agoTed Kaczynski argued that such a system is unsustainable long-term.
- renewiltord 2y agoFortunately, he had the much more long-term sustainable solution of driving a truck full of explosives into a building. Over years of doing this, we will find that bomb trucks will provide green energy and joy to all the poor.
- HKH2 2y agoI think you're thinking of Timothy McVeigh.
- renewiltord 2y agoHaha, absolutely correct. I suppose the crucial difference in sustainability is using trucks as bombs or just bombing without.
- HKH2 2y agoHaha even though I do not agree with his prescriptions or actions, I do think he made a somewhat cohesive description in relation to what you said initially. In the spirit of the article, do you think it's possible for someone to hold similar views to him and not commit violence?
- pshirshov 2y ago> fully commit to wickedness, inverting all the foundational moral goals Mm, reminds me modern russian orthodoxy.
- asimpletune 2y agoIt needs to be said that Darth Vader is not simply a villain who believes in the force but uses it for evil. He sincerely wants peace for the galaxy. In terms of goals Darth Vader and the Jedi ultimately want the same thing, or at least neither of them want "evil". Where they disagree is he just believes the best way to achieve peace is through gaining power, that's it. It's essentially a contest of peace through control (order) vs peace through trust (balance), and for that matter the Jedi are not even successful in sustaining their beliefs.
- Angostura 2y agoThe Sith really need to get a comms guy in to look at their branding and messaging strategy
- nelox 2y agoFinally! Someone who sees his true motives. Never, was there ever a more misunderstood figure.
- whatnow37373 2y agoI get what you are saying, but surely their definition of "peace" itself differs quite dramatically. I venture to say they in fact are not after the same thing, while they may be using the same words. Their use of the word "evil/not good" only serves as a distraction as that is a word used to determine how aligned or misaligned a subject thinks it or some other subject is on our or its way to whatever goal we have in mind, but this doesn't mean the goal is the same if two actors use that word. What Siths want is autocratic control for its own sake. If they could somehow have robots or whatever handle the galaxy's "peace", they wouldn't suddenly grab a martini and start relaxing on the beach singing beautiful songs of cosmic harmony. They would still exert control in their characteristic sadistic, vindictive ways. They are in it for themselves, they don't care about anything else and I'd argue they are incapable of knowing. They are wired that way. In a way it's sad. They want personal control and personal aggrandizement. When they use the word "peace" they mean "lack of resistence (to me)" and not "freedom from violence and liberty for all". Jedis fundamentally want a different thing. They don't want to become personal dictators over a faceless populace subjected to their every arbitrary whim. They do want "freedom of violence and liberty for all". They want an order based on rules and those rules must be born out of concern for life itself, not the indiscriminate use of power to get whatever the hell you want when you want it. That's why Siths are obsessed with personal power, not because their aims are equivalent. It's because their aims are not equivalent.
- blueflow 2y agoI feel like the author is discovering the facts vs opinions situation and its implications.
- vintermann 2y agoThere are many ways to define opposites. This author demands that the "dark mirror" person wants the exact opposite, but that is way too specific in my opinion. Then it's more interesting with cases like William Cowper. Who certainly believed in anything a Christian in his time and place was supposed to believe, including double predestination. It's just that unlike most who believed that, he was convinced he was predestined for hell. He didn't go around doing evil things, of course, what would be the point of that? But he was very, very distressed. Likewise, I think the author underestimates how much Marxist historical materialism was viewed as a hard science in much of the world, until the cold war. There were certainly capitalists who were terrified it was true, but could not see any way out of it for themselves, because just like Cowper's double predestination, orthodox Marxism denies that there is such a thing.
- stereolambda 2y agoI have another somewhat related observation. If you don't think or don't know how to think about your ideas your broadly (because the communication is saturated, or you lack any context), your opponents often get to dictate your beliefs. This is when you know either them or what their propaganda describes as the worst caricatural evil. For a model example, you are a peasant in old Christian Europe, you don't know any learned humanism or anything like that, so you turn to witchcraft--as it is described by the preachers to you. Also it is common among young people who can be raised in a very controlled environment where the authority figures shut out any opposing views: so either you submit, or your only alternative is the (often objectively) horrible things they describe as the enemy. Of course they won't tell you there are other options besides that, and you are very unlikely to come up with them by yourself. I would also say this plays a role in the society's spiral of internet radicalization. People rarely know basic boring political theory and ideologies, non-ragebait history post WW2 etc. If you are fully jacked into twitter-likes like that, your worldview is gonna largely consist of someone's Satans adopted out of ignorance and spite.
- goreil 2y agoI really like the example of dark grill dads. Not only because it's funny, but it's strikingly memorable and gets the point across. The absurdity of it really sells the idea.
- monkeycantype 2y agoI can’t say this is true, but it seems to me that Peter Theil views René Girard’s ideas on scapegoats and mimetic theory as correct, but views them not as an identification of the flaws we must outgrow as a species, but as a feature to be used to control and rule.
- HKH2 2y agoWell you can agree with the description and not the prescription. You can't derive an is from an ought after all. I generally agree with the Buddhist description of reality but don't agree with their conclusions about what should be done about it.
- monkeycantype 2y agoHK, what do you mean when you say 'can't derive an is from an ought after all.' I can read a meaning in that but I'm not sure if I'm understanding it the way you intend or not.
- HKH2 2y agoDescriptions cannot directly lead to prescriptions. Values come from you (the subject). 'Junk food is bad for your health' is a description, but who is it that decides that health is more important than pleasure? The prescription 'Don't eat junk food' is rooted in a value (e.g. that health is more important than pleasure), but you have the freedom to simply reject that value. How much moderation we should have is subjective.
- neotek 2y agoSeems to me there are quite a lot of people for whom the cruelty of what they're doing really is the only point, whatever other arguments they might make.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- smitty1e 2y agoA theological point: > Even should you go to the ends of the earth and find some weird fringe sect that strictly professes perfect classical trinitarian doctrine, but also that God is bad actually Satan (and atheists) seem to spend more time claiming that they are God; that their subjective truth trumps objective Truth.
- donkeybeer 2y agoWhat is the difference between subjective truth and objective truth? Do you have a telephone line to god or some other entity that will tell you Objective Truth?
- smitty1e 2y agoThere is no intellectually satisfying answer, in the form or a mathematical proof. For if there were, then your liberty to reject that objective truth would stand diminished. I can only tell you, for example, that "form follows function", not offer a proof that retires modern hedonism.
- donkeybeer 2y agoIts a simple question either you have a telephone line to Objective Truth or you don't. If you don't have a telephone line to Objective Truth, you are bsing and trying to pass off your Subjective Truth as Objective Truth. Otherwise all truths are the best approximations we get from Subjective Experience. On matters of this fundamental level, high level of rigor is even more important, if you fail to provide that then it should be completely dismissed. Such a fundamental basis of thought cannot be left to wishy washy nonsense.
- smitty1e 2y agoYou're at liberty to go the Full Bertrand Russell with the rejection of the "wishy washy" all you like; Objective Truth is always going to bring along a Kurt Gödel. Whether or not you buy off on the notion that Objective Truth paid a visit a couple millenia back and was crucified for explaining that Truth to humanity remains a subjective matter. It has to remain subjective, lest it tampered with your free will to reject that Objective Truth. We all get to own our response to that Onjective Truth, free and clear. One anticipates that this reply will stand rejected as "wishy washy" for having failed to externalize something that does not yield to externalization. All I can say is: best wishes to you, sir.
- impossiblefork 2y agoWe can more limited variants of the dark mirror ideology though. For example, we can imagine someone who believes all the tenets of Marxian Communism and uses the analysis to maximize his own advantage, so that he if he is a large property owner ends up doing all the things that Marxists expect large property owners to do-- perhaps he even pushes a liberal ideology in public, but this kind of limited-dark-Marxism in private. I think the dark liberalism of this essay is a real ideology commonly held by marginal dictators, think Lukashenko. I also don't think this kind of limited-dark-Marxism is unusual.
- dooglius 2y agoWhat's far more reasonable and does seem to exist are people who have values that are not the opposite, but weigh the tradeoffs differently. Take for instance someone who is on a diet vs the Grill Dad ideology: a person on a diet can certainly agree with the Grill Dad about food being delicious, but believe that the health effects are net worse.
- thinkingemote 2y agoWould "accelerationists" would be dark mirror types?
- DeathArrow 2y agoSo basically mirror in author's view presumes two groups with the same set of beliefs, they agree on the phenomena, they agree on validity of certain laws, they even agree on the ultimate outcome. They only differ on the nature of the outcome, one group thinking it's good, one group thinking it's bad. For me, that's not actually a mirror. A mirror effect will change everything to 180 degrees, not just some parts.
- shermantanktop 2y agoA figure of speech is not a formula which must be literally interpreted. Sometimes doing so is interesting, but I don’t think this is one of those times.