I've been thinking about conflict vs mistake theory lately, especially since the events of October in Israel last year.
I've been particularly trying to understand where support for Palestine (and Hamas, implicitly or not) comes from. Much has already been written about this of course, whether it's the bigotry of small differences or the trap of the "oppressor/oppressed thinking," the hierarchy of oppression, and so on.
What I found striking and want to discuss here though is the strain of thought responding to "how can LGBT+ support Palestine" by declaring, e.g., from Reddit:
It's easier to focus on getting gay rights when you're not being genocided.
Or from a longer piece:
The interviewer asks him, “What’s your response to people who say that you’re not safe in Palestine as a queer person?” Dabbagh responded, “First and foremost, I would go to Palestine in a heartbeat. I have no fear. I love my people and my people love me. And I want to be there and be part of the movement that ends up leading to queer liberation for liberated Palestinian people. If you feel that such violence exists for queer people in the Middle East, what are you doing to change that for that community? The first step is the liberation of Palestine.
I don't claim it's the most common strain of thinking, but to me this largely cashes out as "they are homophobic because of oppression/imperialism/Jews." As an aside, contrast with the way "economic anxiety" plays out in the US.
The part I want to focus on is this kind of blend of mistake and conflict theory -- there's conflict, yes, but it has a cause which can be addressed and then we'll all be on the same side. I'm skeptical of this blend, which seems to essentially just be false consciousness: if not for an external force you would see our interests align.
I think this mode of thinking is becoming increasingly popular however and want to point to the two most recent video games I put serious time into (but didn't finish) as examples: Baldur's Gate 3 and Unicorn Overlord (minorish spoilers ahead)
[Again, minorish spoilers for Unicorn Overlord and Baldur's Gate 3 ahead]
Baldur's Gate 3 was part of a larger "vibe shift" in DnD which I won't get into here except to say I think a lot of it is misguided. Nevertheless, there are two major examples of the above:
The Gith'Yanki are a martial, fascist seeming society who are generally aggressive powerful assholes. A major character arc for one of your team Gith'Yanki team members however, is learning she had been brainwashed and fed lies not just about the leader of the society and her goals, but also the basic functioning of the society. For instance, a much-discussed cure for a serious medical condition turns out to be glorious euthanasia.
The Gith have been impressed with a false consciousness, you see, and your conflict with them is largely based on a misunderstanding of the facts.
More egregious is the character Omeluum, who you meet early in the adventure. Omeluum is a "mind flayer" or "illithid":
Mind flayers are psionic aberrations with a humanoid-like figure and a tentacled head that communicate using telepathy. They feast on the brains of intelligent beings and can enthrall other creatures to their will.
But you see, even these creatures turn out to be the victim of false consciousness--Omeluum is a mind flayer who has escaped the mind control of the "Elder Brain." After fleeing, he happily "joined the good guys." You might think it's an issue that his biology requires he consume conscious brains, but fortunately he only feeds
on the brains of creatures of the Underdark 'that oppose the Society's goals', and wishes to help others of his kind by discovering a brain-free diet.
In the world of DnD (which has consciously been made to increasingly mimic our own world with mixed results), it seems that but for a few bad actors we could all get along in harmony.
Anecdotally, the last time I ran a DnD campaign it eventually devolved into the party trying to "get to the root" of every conflict, whether it was insisting on finding a way to get goblins to stop killing travelers by negotiation a protection deal with the nearby village which served both, or trying to talk every single cultist out of being a cult member. I'm all for creative solutions, but I found it got pretty tedious after a while.
The other game, Unicorn Overlord, is even more striking, albeit a little simpler. Unicorn Overlord is a (very enjoyable) strategy game where you slowly build up an army to overthrow the evil overlord. What you quickly discover, however, is that almost without exception every follower of the evil overlord is literally mind-controlled. The main gameplay cycle involves fighting a lieutenant's army, then using your magical ring to undo the mind control. After, the lieutenant is invariably horrified and joins your righteous cause.
I should note this is far from unusual in this genre, which requires fights but also wants team-ups. It's a lot like Marvel movies which come up with reasons for heroes to fight each other then team up, like a misunderstanding or even mind control. Wargroove was especially bad at this, where you would encounter a new friendly and say something like "Hello, a fine field for cattle, no?" but the wind is strong or something so they hear "Hello, a fine field for battle, no?" and then you fight. Nevertheless, the mind control dynamic in Unicorn Overlord is almost exclusively the only explanation used.
Funnily enough, I think in these an other examples this is seen as "adding nuance," but I find it ultimately as childish as a cartoon-twirling villain. The villain is still needed in fact (Imperialists, the Evil Overlord, The Elder Brain, The Queen of the Gith), but it's easier to explain away one Evil person who controls everything than try to account for it at scale.
Taken altogether, I can't help but think these are all symptoms of the same thing: struggling to explain conflict. The "false consciousness" explanation is powerful, but seems able to explain anything about people's behavior.
My suspicion is that mistakes and genuine conflict can both occur, but this blended approach leaves something to be desired I think. I had an idea a while ago about a potential plot twist for Unicorn Overlord where it's revealed you aren't freeing anyone -- you're simply bringing them under your own control but you don't notice. That feels a bit like the fantasy all of this is getting at I think: I have my views because of Reasons or Ethics or Whatever, and you would agree with me if not for Factor I'm Immune To.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
First off, I like this topic and the discussion below is pretty good. Most points are well stated already, and converge to fairly reasonable conclusions.
As such, I will posit an unhinged opinion on why modern morality in the media/meatspace spheres is so weird, with everything from ISIS to Tolkein Orcs to even 40K Horus getting some woobie 'they actually have good reasons for being total assholes'.
I blame online fanfiction. Specifically, Harry Potter Fanfiction. Even more specifically, Draco Redemption fanfics.
In Harry Potter (or whichever OC self insert is used in place of Potter), Draco is the central proximate agent forcing Harrys decisions. He is active, always Doing Stuff, always in Harrys face. Harry is reactive, and always must act against Draco, who is at the very least a persistent thorn in Harrys side. Harrys companions are set dressing, hypoagentic slaves to the protagonists actions, and thus subservient to the hyperagentic Draco.
Oh, and Draco is hot. He has enough charisma presented in order to directly command toadies and followers, and is explicitly described as good looking. Bishi white haired bad boy had its predecessor in Sephiroth, but Draco was the western normies intro to this rabbit hole.
Good looking ,always in your face, talks shit all the time, always does stuff. But a total villain.
Imagine, dear reader. What would happen if this handsome manifestation of the Dark Triad was not, in fact, an asshole. What if he were good. Why... he and Harry would... oh my...
But he's a villain! How can our morally upstanding hero have anything to do with this cur! Well, what if Draco actually did not want to be a jerk. What if it was Something Else motivating him to be as such.
Bang. Internet, do your thing.
Why is Draco a jerk? Its purely his abusive fathers fault! Its Voldemorts fault! Its his lack of Real Friends! It is literally all externalized. For True Love to win over this dastardly villain, all he needs is to have his evil outside heart vanquished. Preferably by the protag, for maximum emotional impact.
This is the modern morality tale. Writers cut their teeth on fanfic as teens, grow up to be journalists or showrunners or academics or civil servants as adults, and have this as a compelling base morality. Everyone who is an asshole actually just wants to be good, and the power of my special Goodness Heart is all that is required to defeat the big bad enemy and unleash the kumbaya cooperativeness natural in my prize.
But wait, you might say, furrowing your brow as this crazed pervert blames deranged early '00s teenage fujoshi for modern moral failures. VOLDEMORT was the ultimate agentic force of the book. He was the Big Bad Evil Guy, not this Team Rocket prettyboy.
Yes, Voldemort is the external. But Voldemort was He Who Must Not Be Named. An amorphous concept, helpfully instanced in the narrative as a real tangible force*. Defeat Voldemort and Harry becomes best friends (and maybe more?) with Draco!
As it is in fiction and its derivatives, so too must it be in reality. The moral prize of a redeemed asshole must have an external to be blamed, to focus ones efforts and emotional energies on. You can't change Draco, theres nothing to change, you just need to free him from his evil fathers influence!
Father? Didn't I just say it was Voldemort who was the Big Bad Evil Guy?
Father. Because the Father is a closer proximate target that can be easily affected.
Here is where we come full circle into modern morality. Harry Potter, or the self-insert OC, cannot be an overpowered god at the beginning because it renders all conflict meaningless. The BBEG must remain, but there must be defeatable proximate villains. Voldemort is a cursed horcrux corpse**, a mcguffin as far as the relationship dynamic is concerned. Draco cannot be redeemed if it requires defeating Voldemort.
But prying him away from his dad? That can easily be done in a few chapters, depending on authorial angst level at time of writing.
The identified moral enemy to be destroyed is not the actual loci of externalized influence on the victim, it is the one that can be easily attacked based on current capabilities. I can't do anything about Voldemort, but I can give Draco another voice to listen to other than his dad!
So too with modern morality. Jihadism is Voldemort, he who must not be named. Palestinians are dicks only because Israel, whom I can actually talk to, are dicks. I just need to tell Jason Isaacs to show Tom Felton proper love and Draco will be the perfect companion to Harry. Either that or destroy Lucius Malfoy, then Draco will be free.
Here is the closing of the loop. The hyperagentic asshole is now no longer the sole agent in these relationship defining exercises. The protagonist can exercise agency by attacking a nearby actor that is identified as the Real Proximate Cause. Once that is done, my beautiful Draco will be a perfect companion.
Reality breaks with this fanfic construct in two ways. First, Draco is ugly (sorry Tom). An attractive skinsuit must be superimposed onto the current presentation to justify all the emotional energy previously invested in such a prize, and that itself breaks away from what others can see. Secondly, the identified target may not actually be the cause of the dickish behavior. Draco was a dickhead independent of his dad or Voldemort, and his character arc ended with him staying away from Harry instead of having his soul redeemed. The agentic entity may in fact be fully cognizant of the consequences of their agency, and the negative consequences can be their actual desired outcome.
To effect Harry/Draco, the reality of mistake morality must be made manifest. The gazans are innocent lambs lashing out against the agentic Israelis, whom we can actually influence. The skinsuit of moral attractiveness is draped over the gazans, the Israeli is the only one with agency, and with this moral dynamic the arc of responsibility turns even more away from the gazan.
*There is also plenty of Snape,Voldemort redemption morality fic. Its all the same principle
**I don't remember the books anymore and my knowledge of the deep lore is corrupted by my forays into editing alpha/omega smutfics. I am a broken man and I need help.
Don't worry, I understood most of those words you put down. Maybe we're both broken.
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks for the contribution. I think you hit on something important, which is the rationalization aspect of it.
It does seem like it comes back to using concepts of evil vs evil influence to justify what I already want to think.
What’s striking to me is even in your Harry Potter example it seems like we could make it go any direction we want. Maybe we want to redeem Voldemort because of absolutely-not-sex-related reasons.
Wouldn’t I be on equally firm ground (which is to say, not that firm) saying “yeah the little scamp got carried away but it was the bad influences! And now he’s terrified of these Death Eaters who know where his horcruxes are and are Evil!”
As I type this I think it’s basically scapegoating. That’s all it is. There’s something bad I need to account for so I pin it on someone I don’t like in order to absolve someone I do.
I am a big believer in motivated reasoning and self imposed blinders being the reason for cognitively dissonant presentations. It does not matter that a stated reason fails to hold up by its internal historical context or by the proximate current context. All that matters is that it is true for the arguer. The true value of moral arguments is self certainty, and the strongest of wills do not require a single external to agree with them.
You can present the statements made by Azzam Pasha about how he looked forward to the slaughter of jews, or video recordings of palestinians spitting on Shani Louks corpse, or the videos of palestinians beheading a thai worker with a hoe, or the ecstatic calls of palestine supporters screaming 'gas the jews' at the Sydney Opera House. The Israelis, for daring to win their wars against brown muslims, are the moral villains. Thus the palestinians and supporters are eternally innocent, and their just cause must be evidenced by comporting history and facts.
Or you could just be hot. Hasan Piker interviewed a handsome yemeni pirate and socialists everywhere started slobbering houthi dick. Its not like 'hot dude = good guy' is unknown to terrorists. You just have to see the AI art generated on Arab telegram to see how they portray themselves as handsome badasses. Reductive, but surprisingly consistent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link