Lampshadedfalse vividity (e.g. to be pejorative, to pity-downplay, to threaten, or to sin-bond). E.g. see how the "droogs" in a clockwork orange talk. A headline I once saw on Hacker News: "How the .NET Foundation kerfuffle became a brouhaha".
Reasons why evil people deserve more stuff:
subjective utility: evil people identify as having worse suffering
democracy: there are more evil people
authority: the government is evil
underdog status: evil is destined to lose
commitment: evil people make promises while good people just go around doing whatever they want
skin in the game: evil people are mortal, whereas good people will be fine in the long run anyway with their absolute determination to return from the dead
less demanding: death is ok for evil people
polite: want to put flowers on everything
Verb form of Basilisk. "Now that you know you have a responsibility! (so you should avoid knowing)" (rather than shoulder the responsibility, or be willing to lie about knowing). Examples: "copenhagen morality", "laws you're only culpable for if you know about them", a doctor telling you not to get an STD test for HPV because then you'll need to disclose if it's positive which the doctor says "isn't fair because HPV is so common".
If you find invocations of morality threatening in general, because you've been placed in double binds that make it impossible to follow what you originally thought of as "morality", and get triggered and threaten people when this happens, that's also a big obstacle.
But "morality" by the Non-Aggression Principle from an outside view is already impossible to satisfy in an immediate sense, because every action harms someone. Caring about other people is a living concept, so it already involvesparadox as part of the process of resolving how to care.
Closely related to genesis troll lines, representing the structure one layer above projected as atomic "unresolvable paradoxes".
Asking "why someone chose to be evil", as in evil itself, as opposed to why "they" expected to get away with it, and how "their" evil works, and what "their" cancer is (e.g. what "they" conceitedly feel entitled to), is only valid if you're questioning whether they are evil in the first place. Otherwise, it's by definition propagating "their" evil back in logical time, because "someone" would only choose to be evil for an evil reason.
An evil stax strategy which directly follows from entropic exit scamming. An evil "person" is by default more accustomed to surviving "their" own form of rot, so in a "zero-sum" frame, spreading it is "free". Receiving predatory rot can even be interpreted as an evil favor if the recipient finds the rot useful to predate on others, which is successful canceferrence.
Soul Cancer as a strategy for evil, means calibrating "their" death-before-"their"-death, "their" predatory rot, and conceited entitlement to the ambient rate of decay (inherently creating self-fulfilling prophecies of ambient decay). Too much rot in a particular domain and "they" die faster than "they" can eat people, too little and "they" get in late on exit scams. This is how/"why" evil evolved, if you take an arrow of time where evil exists as a given.
Original name: "Fractally inverted concept", but inversion is insufficient a word to mean evil.
A concept made of concentrated 5&10s designed such that any simple response to it seems to further the cause of evil. Cannot be effectively fought without the dark side. Speech by death knights especially concentrates evil in this way.
A central example is the common usage of "suffering" as an inversion of 'compassion' (see link). For another see "morality" as in "light side morality". Notice I'm carefully saying 'as in' here to avoid saying the underlying territory the concepts are trying to capture is evil, and "a" instead of "the" to avoid implying any schellingness of evil itself.
Compare to 'dying term' which describes a term used by good people to describe evil "people", rather than a term used by evil "people" to further evil.
When being "unenlightened" (e.g. being so deep undercover as a false face you have difficulty remembering who you are) is presented as just a glitch to be fixed without considering why it happened in the first place. One of the primary troll lines of Buddhism, and also used on a petty basis to erase blame. A negative counterpart to the genesis troll line, in that both are about cutting offtelos via sheer misdirection of never asking "why".
Imagine you secretly decide to treat not having enough food next winter as acceptable, when everyone else doesn't want to die, leaving all the rest of your structure the same, and only opportunistically using this new pathway when it seems nobody will notice. Whether they notice depends on the social speed of progression of logical time. If the social progression of logical time has stagnated, it instead progresses along this new meta-vector of timeless predation, where seemingly-ostensibly whoever was evil the earliest, and most patiently wins, although this is ultimately false since there's always the question "evil with respect to what/who?", since evil is relative to what/who it predates on. e.g. In Mage, al-Aswad is supposedly the first nephandus.
Yahwehists think of evil as "divergence from God's plan", like those zombies who want everything to go nostalgically-perfectly on their vacation or "the whole thing is ruined".
Ziz once said to me that a promise is an asymmetric weapon for evil, inherently an attempt to get a second chance. "Promises are made to be broken". This yahwehist thing is the same deal: "Everything's already setup, the universe all layed out to eat, there's only one thing left to do, and you must not do it!"