[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.