56. Every Accusation is an Admission
(Epistemic status: Avoiding cashing this out too concretely to avoid drawing fire... but let's do ourselves a service and refuse to pretend to see symmetry where it isn't, shall we?)
In the political sphere, it's been said of late that every accusation is an admission. If Mr. Richard Reprobate of the Purple Tribe levels the accusation of orphan-shredding at Ms. Iamb Innocentia of the Oranges, or if he fearmongers about the dread furnaces which even now the Oranges are cleaning out and stoking to roast the poor Purples in, it will with depressing frequency be the case that our dear friend Dick is putting in an order for new rotary blades, or that the Purples are privately bikeshedding about the relative merits of rotisseries as opposed to applewood smoking or pit barbecues. More generally, whenever some stuffed shirt, public figure, or even just someone you know claims that their adversaries will take such and such an aggressive action, or that they engage in such and such horrific practices behind closed doors, it almost inevitably turns out that that accusation is a confabulation, only rarely being correct, and particularly that the very same accusatory politico or their faction as a whole is guilty of that very same practice, or whipping itself up to start in on the very same behavior.
Here's a shot at gearsily describing aspects of why that might be the case. First off, there's typical-minding. We might recall that humans frequently model other humans as acting much like they do, being taken by much the same drives. If you have few qualms about shredding orphans, you look out on a world full of mostly unshredded orphans and a public morality decrying loss of innocent life, then you might - rather than change your ways - come to the conclusion that surely everyone wants to shred orphans; it's just that most people never get the chance to, or feel like moralizing. Note that the accused behavior need not actually be harmful or morally wrong by anyone else's lights - just that the accuser find it shameful or worth hiding. A more grounded example might be the old saw that all too many people who see closeted homosexuality at every turn will soon enough be caught out in a bathroom.
For a wildcard option, someone who's trying to hide behavior will have that behavior on their mind quite a lot. Groping around for something to smear their opponents with, they might engineer reasons to accuse those opponents of the first thing that comes to mind - precisely that behavior that they seek to hide.
For one last minor possibility, if you hold a certain attitude or are ready to escalate in specific ways, you might well see your own untrustworthiness hiding in every shadow and reflected in every puddle. If you're already thoroughly keyed up and ready to snap, you're in a headspace where you're likelier to suspect those around you of being just as ready to strike.
The reasons scale just fine when we go from individuals to whole factions acting in concert. If instead of one person trying to cover up their perceived misdeeds, one side is trying to be subtle about paying protestors, launching astroturfing campaigns, or plotting political violence, then the dynamic for each person engaged in the plot will find themself subject to just the same pressures. If anything, the pressure is all the greater - interfaction conflict means that your side's messaging should be unified, and often that any suspicion pointed at the enemy is suspicion that - for now - is directed away from you.
In all these cases, the accusation is tantamount to admission of one's own culpability, and it's a bittersweet fact that the heuristic has made its way into the water supply. Perhaps it's only a matter of time before those who hide harm in their hearts catch wise and stop.
In the political sphere, it's been said of late that every accusation is an admission. If Mr. Richard Reprobate of the Purple Tribe levels the accusation of orphan-shredding at Ms. Iamb Innocentia of the Oranges, or if he fearmongers about the dread furnaces which even now the Oranges are cleaning out and stoking to roast the poor Purples in, it will with depressing frequency be the case that our dear friend Dick is putting in an order for new rotary blades, or that the Purples are privately bikeshedding about the relative merits of rotisseries as opposed to applewood smoking or pit barbecues. More generally, whenever some stuffed shirt, public figure, or even just someone you know claims that their adversaries will take such and such an aggressive action, or that they engage in such and such horrific practices behind closed doors, it almost inevitably turns out that that accusation is a confabulation, only rarely being correct, and particularly that the very same accusatory politico or their faction as a whole is guilty of that very same practice, or whipping itself up to start in on the very same behavior.
Here's a shot at gearsily describing aspects of why that might be the case. First off, there's typical-minding. We might recall that humans frequently model other humans as acting much like they do, being taken by much the same drives. If you have few qualms about shredding orphans, you look out on a world full of mostly unshredded orphans and a public morality decrying loss of innocent life, then you might - rather than change your ways - come to the conclusion that surely everyone wants to shred orphans; it's just that most people never get the chance to, or feel like moralizing. Note that the accused behavior need not actually be harmful or morally wrong by anyone else's lights - just that the accuser find it shameful or worth hiding. A more grounded example might be the old saw that all too many people who see closeted homosexuality at every turn will soon enough be caught out in a bathroom.
For a wildcard option, someone who's trying to hide behavior will have that behavior on their mind quite a lot. Groping around for something to smear their opponents with, they might engineer reasons to accuse those opponents of the first thing that comes to mind - precisely that behavior that they seek to hide.
For one last minor possibility, if you hold a certain attitude or are ready to escalate in specific ways, you might well see your own untrustworthiness hiding in every shadow and reflected in every puddle. If you're already thoroughly keyed up and ready to snap, you're in a headspace where you're likelier to suspect those around you of being just as ready to strike.
The reasons scale just fine when we go from individuals to whole factions acting in concert. If instead of one person trying to cover up their perceived misdeeds, one side is trying to be subtle about paying protestors, launching astroturfing campaigns, or plotting political violence, then the dynamic for each person engaged in the plot will find themself subject to just the same pressures. If anything, the pressure is all the greater - interfaction conflict means that your side's messaging should be unified, and often that any suspicion pointed at the enemy is suspicion that - for now - is directed away from you.
In all these cases, the accusation is tantamount to admission of one's own culpability, and it's a bittersweet fact that the heuristic has made its way into the water supply. Perhaps it's only a matter of time before those who hide harm in their hearts catch wise and stop.
Comments
Post a Comment