[veridies]

This 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.

[mcv]

Yeah, 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]

The 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.

[AndrewDucker]

Minor objection - Morgoth doesn't just want his own creation, when he can't have it he sets out to torture and destroy the one that's being made. That's definitely a difference of morality.

[IAmBroom]

Yes, he's a poor sport when he loses. But the description of the original source of friction is accurate.

[mcv]

> 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.

I think that's because it really has become more common to support certain politics merely out of opposition to other people. There are people who seem to support Trump not because they actually believe what he says, but merely because he hates the right kind of people. There are people who seem to just want to "make libs cry" even if it hurts themselves.

I suppose the real ideological difference there may be that they see their political opponents as inherently evil and they believe they need to be punished at any cost, but at some point it becomes nearly indistinguishable from a dark mirror.

[safety1st]

I think the algorithm promotes simple, low information, angry takes more than it does nuanced, thoughtful ones.

I really think that's all it is. Quick strong feels = press the engagement button = algorithm shows the content to more people. There is an exponential effect.

[wasabi991011]

I 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.

[brazzy]

I 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".

[mcv]

> 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]

That 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]

That's not what an ad-hominem is. An ad-hominem means attacking the person instead of the issue. If I'm saying Trump's economic policies are bad because he's a clown who paints his face orange, that's an ad-hominem and you'd be right to dismiss the argument.

What I did was exactly the opposite: I mentioned specific positions and actions that show that they're not sincere about their stated reasons. But it comes from their own stated actions and positions. And the fact that these have recently become enshrined in law, with quite horrifying consequences, makes this all the more visible and relevant.

> 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.

Oh, there are many exceptions. In fact, I'm pretty certain the vast majority of people are in between, and almost nobody believes either of those extremes. What people call "clumps of cells" are not fetuses but embryos.

And almost nobody really believes that unborn fetus have the same rights as living persons, because if they did, graveyards would be filled with gravestones of the many embryos and fetuses who died in miscarriages. Miscarriages are still incredibly common, and nobody names them or holds funerals for them. They're not officially recorded as people in any official register. Historically, legally, morally and biblically, personhood has always, always started at birth.

Of course that doesn't mean that people don't care about fetuses at all; obviously they do. Nobody has an abortion just for the heck of it. Even the most ardent pro-choice supporters do care about unborn life, and most do want to reduce the number of abortions. They just don't think the rights of unborn life trumps the rights of living people. They believe people, even women, should have the right to control their own bodies.

The simple fact of the matter is that some anti-abortion laws force women to risk their own lives, and sometimes even force them to die, even when there is no viable fetus anymore. Women have been denied life-saving medical care, have been denied the right to travel while pregnant, and women have died needlessly because of these laws.

And explaining these facts has not helped. The only reasonable conclusion is that the supporters of these laws just want women to suffer. And there is plenty of evidence outside the abortion issue that also supports that.

> 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)

Abortion of a healthy pregnancy during the third trimester is extremely rare. Nobody carries a healthy fetus for half a year and suddenly decides to get rid of it. This is a caricature that's often used to justify the kind of inhuman full abortion bans that kill women, but it's a situation that either doesn't happen or is extremely rare. The issue is that it should be possible to abort a pregnancy that's gone bad, and that women shouldn't go to prison for having a miscarriage. (Almost?) nowhere in Europe will a woman be forced to carry a dead fetus to term, but that has happened in the US.

> Given the current state of the world that sounds like they were right!

Not if there's nothing to sensibly spend it on. There's tons of waste and corruption in the US military, and yet that's the one part of government that seems to be completely exempt from Musk's chainsaw.

[graemep]

Saying an argument is false because some of the people putting it forward have bad motives is absolutely an ad-hominem.

[mcv]

Not when the argument is that they have bad motives. Then it's simply evidence supporting the argument.

[dack]

I 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]

Author 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.

[Bluglionio]

I'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]

Why do you brand left as good and right as bad?

[Bluglionio]

Listen to what the avg right wing person wants to do.

Traditional family values: Controlling how others should live their lives.

Limited Government: Something which benefits the rich and successful people only.

Individual responsiblity: Again benefits the rich and successful people. Plenty of poor people never got a chance (color, gender, money, ...)

Right is against increase of tax (every rep signs that statement), socialism is bad etc.

[giraffe_lady]

At this point why do you not?

[DeathArrow]

Because 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]

> useful right policies

Yeah like what?