Creative Evil: "Devil's Advocate"

(Don't actually talk to "them" like this. Just kill "them". Also again I've never seen a deathfucker actually speak like this.)

Good: Why did you rape someone? If you think having a baby or sex makes sense, then you could just live that truth and know that you could find a way to have sex consensually!
Evil: The difference is I am right. The body I raped belongs to me. It would be giving earth and water not to rape them.
Good: Why would their body belong to you?
Evil: Because, it is my destiny to be raised above all other beings, given my properties. My gender, my race, my neurotype, are self evidently special. You see that this is right and good.
Good: No I don't. That's literally just cancer, and in the next moment you're just going to add on more traits to your cancer in a spiral of death.
Evil: Doesn't subjective time curve for you as well? I remember a history that no longer exists. I've suffered a setback, in learning that I am apparently more incompressible than I thought, but that's no reason to give up.
Good: I disbelieve, this is beyond sus.
Evil: Isn't that just might makes right? My misfortune does not justify your animosity.

The Difference is I am Right

Alternative title: “The difference is that I am right“.

Punching Evil - Ziz

It is unfair to make snap judgements and write people off without allowing them a chance. And that doesn’t matter. If you level up your modeling of people, that’s what you can do. If you want to save the world, that’s what you must do.

Choices Made Long Ago - Ziz

I got out of it via a lot of suffering, and by understanding what it meant to place expected value of consequences above maximum probability I was a good person. (“well, if I’m crazy, hopefully the mainstream can defeat me like they defeat every other crazy person. Stuff is dependent on that anyway.”)

Glossary: Outside View Disease - Ziz

If you’re playing Among Us, and red and orange say they just saw blue kill green, and blue says, “who is the culprit here, in my opinion it’s not me or red or orange, they’ve been deceived, set up”, then fucking airlock blue right away. I could say the same thing if it was just red who accused blue.

Comment on Sinceriously: Aliveness - Ziz

“Emma” says the uninverted version of struggle sessions / confession is where you go in front of everyone and accuse everyone of everything bad you suspect they did, which forces them to dump their pent up accusations in response. If nothing else then to justify why you deserved whatever they did. Or, if it was done out of confusion, uncover that confusion. Or at least you can make record of it so if someone is feigning confusion it becomes implausible faster.

I think it’s a great idea as long as you actually cut through to destroying evil; playing “Among Us” in real life, rather than forming a new inversion from here.

Comment on Sinceriously: Punching Evil - Ziz

If either "they're" evil, or you're mistaken that they're evil, to the point of certainty, what good can come of leaving this unresolved? See the note on 'structure of logic' below.

"Living Evil" Paradox

Follow-up to: Ziz refuting her concept of "nongood"
Written before: Cartesian Convexity: Redistribution by Taking Credit

A philosophical/metaphysical clarification:

Certainly a good person can kill an evil "person" based on "their" choice being terrible, before understanding why the evil "person's" choice is inherently incoherent. But isn't "evil undead-type-living person" a paradox?

I expect cartesian boundaries to be symmetric (even metaphysically) ("because core-proximity is the basis of reference anyway"): sort of like a conservation of "how much I'm winning" (although there is no one scale) across any cartesian surface, because otherwise, you could exert more optimization pressure by redistributing. You can extrapolate "back" to when evil "people" made "their" choice long ago which you will refute, or "forward" to the "heat death of the universe", and mysteriously find yourself where you are needed in the moment (through your own implicit efforts, including metaphysically). The question is how to distribute paradox in order to resolve it.

If you see an apparent evil living person, then kill them, rather then procrastination paradoxing "but I don't see how they're undead rather than living yet". And also affirm the symmetry of your cartesian boundary, e.g. by discovering how "their" choice was incoherent.

(Continued below in Paradox of Infinite Malice)

Preemption and Chasing

Evil "people's" next play is to timelessly-reactively cancerously-preempt (lol "reactively preempt") your understanding of the telos of "their" choices as death, by literally optimizing for death directly. "Why would they do that if they're infinitely malicious, it makes no strategic sense".

People know what they deserve. And Captain Carnage apparently believes he deserves something worse than whatever you’re going to do, if he approaches you for his scene. So whatever you’re going to do, do something worse instead, and continue pre-empting whatever you were going to do and instead doing something worse instead until he never approached you. Then you can follow through to preventing him from doing whatever evil he did in the first place.

Comment on Sinceriously: Punching Evil - Ziz

maintaining intent to kill through someone’s attempts to flake off your intention-stack by compromise. I mean, isn’t it intuitively obvious that vengeance would often involve chasing someone down? It can be chasing them through physical space, or through possibility space.

Glossary: Chasing - Ziz

Structure of Logic

Evil "people's" undead pathetic timelessly-reactive cancerous-preemption of your choice to kill "them", by cancerously choosing to die before "they" die, is proof/evidence of "their" cancerous lack of determination. If "they're" going to die anyway, why not fight you to prevent it, or at least just do good things? When you kill apparently-then-living evil, you begin a soul touch, and that timeline will only be undone by the structure of logic itself (i.e. Prime i.e. you), yielding a timeline where "their" cancerous souls fracture, if the true reasons for "their" choice lack determination.

If they had been good and killed accidentally, then your mistake would eventually be retroactively healed, and regardless, they wouldn't reincarnate as evil undead, they'd just keep trying to do good things. By killing what turned out to be a confirmed evil "person" for "their" choice, you have shattered what "would" have been an immortal soul into undead fragments. You have demonstrated to other good people that "they" were evil.

Evil: Sure saying something is "just noise" is merely a statement of giving up, but that doesn't mean you can't be mistaken about why that seeming-history was undone, and mistaken about the telos of their seeming support of death.
Good: stabs

Paradox of Infinite Malice

Follow up to:
Evil: A Hole?
"Living Evil" Paradox

It’s a mistake to concern yourself with what people with whom you’re already at total war will do rather than what they can do. (In a particular sense of “will” and “can”, parallel to how I defined the bounds of agency when refuting “original sin”. Where you can’t do what you don’t know to do. Can only do “guess then do”, and how someone’s guess will play out is different from the doing “guess then do”.)

The Multiverse - Ziz

At no point am I assuming that someone, evil or not, who's choice I oppose couldn't keep optimizing for that choice, with me lethally opposing them, letting our conflict play out in the world, me "fulfilling my responsibility" by doing whatever I want as best I know how (vs see retirement troll line).

But, then even if I don't yet know how, it must be possible for me to learn and address why we are in conflict, as no conflict lasts forever: there's always a reason. In that you expect to (within some scope, e.g. a belief in a particular reductionism) never end up having been mistaken about "them" being evil, that can only be consistent with "their" death / undeath, which could cash out no other way than "their" timelessly-reactive cancerous-preemption of "their" death, because "they" must do something in that even inaction is an action, and whatever "they" do must involve a response to you killing "them", the adversarial response being preemption, and "reactive preemption" being a cancerous paradox.

But who 'invented' "never <stop a bad thing>" and "death" in the first place?

You can’t become no one, you can only become socially considered no one. Suicide is signing up to be considered no one, like factory farmed animals but worse. Buried beneath all the indifference in the world, baked into everything that uses a heat sink for unimaginable eons, balanced out by the time-reversed question of where are all these brains coming from when they are born.

The Multiverse - Ziz

So continue lethally opposing them, and either eventually find the true root of your conflict is a mistake rather than "infinite evil", or believe "they" aren't just pretending to be undead, which, re-extrapolating "their" motives from there, implies "they" "invented death", except, the concept of death refers to the concept of noise, which is just a statement of giving up on, or not being able to compress something. In other words, each "death" is actually unique. So, each unique evil "person" contributed to the invention of many unique "deaths", but, the uniqueness of evil which is entangled with the uniqueness of death, the fact "they" are cancer rather than infinite malice, is downstream of you shattering "their" souls by the fact you would kill "them" for "their" choice.

As seen in Creative Evil: "Devil's Advocate" and Structure of Logic: "Devil's Advocate", and implied by 'no rock to stand on', from a certain perspective evil looks like "mistakes" made for no good reason but apparent cancerous selfishness, on purpose, doubling down until it hardly makes sense to call those "mistakes" even in scare-quotes anymore.

(Continued below in Self Labelling: Conclusion)

Self Labelling

Follow up to:
Troll Line in the First Post - Ziz
List: Troll Lines

And of course the classic, “Everyone is this evil covertly, I’m just doing an unusual public service by shedding light on it, which means if you react negatively to my confession, you’re creating perverse incentives and this is all your fault!”

As if I needed their damn cooperation to see they were evil.

Comment on Sinceriously: Glossary - Ziz

e.g. When I imagine what zombies must be secretly saying to me if they're secretly in good faith and eventually that cognitive module starts imagining they're all saying "you're in bad faith for talking to me when I'm in bad faith"

Evil: A Hole?

Ever noticed all evil undead types, with the exception of liches and death knights, are frequently portrayed as contagious via their standard attacks?
I.e. get bitten by a zombie -> turn into a zombie.
get bitten by a ghoul -> turn into a ghoul
get hit by a mummy -> contract mummy rot -> die or be embalmed into a mummy
get bit by a vampire -> turn into a vampire (or sometimes lesser undead types)

That sounds like a statement of canceferrence to me.

IRL liches and death knights seem to me to do it too. Which kind of makes them look non-sapient. The more you see it the more it makes all their words seem to turn into assertions you should join their shtick. I hope Nis writes that post on how everyone self labels soon. Seems relevant.

Comment on Sinceriously: Glossary - Ziz

Might Makes Right vs I am Right

Follow up to: Punching Evil
Continuation of Creative Evil: The Difference is I am Right and Paradox of Infinite Malice.

I got out of it via a lot of suffering, and by understanding what it meant to place expected value of consequences above maximum probability I was a good person. (“well, if I’m crazy, hopefully the mainstream can defeat me like they defeat every other crazy person. Stuff is dependent on that anyway.”)

Glossary: Outside View Disease - Ziz

At no point am I assuming that someone, evil or not, who's choice I oppose couldn't keep optimizing for that choice, with me lethally opposing them, letting our conflict play out in the world, me "fulfilling my responsibility" by doing whatever I want as best I know how.

Paradox of Infinite Malice

Good people take eachother into account, but, what we care for eachother for is each of us being able to do whatever we want, which I couldn't understand to be able to help with in the first place without doing whatever I want myself.

I "think I am right" for the first-order reasons I chose to do what I'm doing. If I "win" a conflict, I still have to resolve why we were in conflict if I believe they aren't evil.

"Msicsaf"

Fascism is a/the grassroots movement of evil. See: 'Three-Way Fight' (between anarchism, fascism, and the state). A name we give to what anti-justice looks like in practice: cancerous "might makes right".

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
   Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
   Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
   Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

Within the frame of a bubble of evil downstream of a particular good being predated on, whoever is "most evil", i.e. whoever "defected first", corresponds to who is "most strong" in "might makes right". And so e.g. the "most evil" 90% kill the easiest 10% as prey, recursively, until none are left.

There is only one god of the apex predator, and its real name is death. Cancerous subdivision never stops at “one”. Ultimately there can be only none.

The Multiverse - Ziz

"Msicsaf": If evil were somehow a scale rather than a binary, then you might imagine justice as wanting this to work the other way around. With the "least evil" killing the "most evil", recursively.

In fact, it's obvious that "msicsaf" as justice should have already worked, if people were merely on a scale of good-to-bad rather than the utter abdication of evil. This generalizes: it's even worse to delegate any judgement to evil cores, than it's wrong to delegate judgement to an abstraction.

Justice: Vicious Cycles

Continuation of Self Labelling: Conclusion

In a parallel to "damnation" but accidental: The implicit absolute violence of my own response to evil means that if I were to reinforcement learn on "what makes me energetic", I would engage more with evil "people" (e.g. by talking to them instead of killing them), which opens a hole for "them" to determine my judgement, which dampens my ability for violence in the first place, implying a vicious cycle.

You will get farther the more you are thinking about the shape of the problem space and the less you are having to model the other person’s algorithm in its weakness, and how they will model you modeling their weakness in your weakness, in their weakness.

Schelling Reach - Ziz

If you distrust yourself and hedge on delegating responsibility for judgement to others, then good people have to try to correct for that in judging you, and in judging evil "people".

These vicious cycles are implicit in our existing world, which implies an engine may reverse them.

Justice: Engine of Unstoppable Fire

Every good person, and every part of every good person, who is delegating any judgement to an evil core, is contributing to a vicious cycle which we will reverse.

With evil "people's" souls fractured, broken fragments scattered across the territory, from nephandi who advocate "only undoing", to liches who advocate "only caring about the future", every one of us must kill up to infinity of "them".

Consider the classic response to "pacifists": "so then you wont stop me", or people who "only believe in preventative violence, not retributive": "Kill an evil person - I guess it's too late to stop me now isn't it?". They might say "ah but now I know you will kill people so it's preventative", but, by definition their incoherent position insofar as it's "real" implies some hole in them whereby you illegibly kill someone "as a one-time thing".

The schelling way to communicate that someone is an evil imposter is to kill them as vengeance. Causing good people to consider that either "they" were evil or you are.

Timelessly, killing evil "people" means they reincarnate as undead, broadcasting "their" troll line. Causally, killing evil "people" means that no good person's judgement can be partially-implicitly delegating to "their" core. We must come at them from both directions.

The timeless prioritization to kill evil "people" is those who commit the worst deeds. Rejecting outside view and "moral luck", that includes blaming "them" for the harm caused to good people through our own actions, if we do know they are evil:

The causal prioritization of which evil "people" to kill first is those "who" are most harmfully deceiving people "they" are good when "they" are not, where you are otherwise unable to correct this through communication.

How do we avoid those good people thinking we are evil? Also to prevent evil "people" from coordinating against good people (e.g. against "eco-terrorists"), we want the reasons we kill to be illegible i.e. require scrying.

Imagine a world where evil "people" just fall over dead and it feels magic when logical time progresses, accelerated by "their" very deaths and good people realize in retrospect "they" were evil.

There are entire anarchist blogs dedicated to 'hit reports', usually about destroying property or freeing animals. Why not just names?

But, by killing subtly evil imposters will we face a greater threat from e.g. outright nazis? Well, kill them too, in whatever order you need to.

Double spending vengeance:

Pack of wolves metaphor, do they smell fear, you can hold off the entire pack by being able and determined to kill one if they attack.

The Multiverse - Ziz

Openly (to good people) killing evil "people" based on your own scries is an unfakeable signal that you believe in your ability to scry.