Kobayashi Maru is a Narcissist-Killer Round

 When an average but healthy psyche is put into an artificial no-win situation, they go, "That was dumb," and forget all about it. At best they ask each other about the teacher's password, correctly assessing it as a camouflaged social game. If there is no "right" answer, there must be a zealous ass-kissing answer. 

The narcissist is instead destroyed. Every narcissist models themselves as the best in some sense. This is in reaction to their true belief: that they are, in fact, the worst. This belief is intolerable, so they bandage over it with the opposite delusion. Every time they are reminded of the truth, they pour twice as much psychic energy into the psychotic bandage.

 The best have a winning strategy in every situation. Indeed, this is why Kirk, narcissist hero, has to win the no-win test. It's cope. The Kobayashi Maru says they aren't the best, and therefore, must be the worst.

 "Can't win 'em all." "Yeah, and clouds are fluffy."
 "Only human." "Indeed, and the sun rises in the morning."

 If you need to be reminded of these things, you are insane. Lost contact with reality. Narcissists not only can win 'em all, but must win 'em all, according to narcissism. When faced with a no-win situation, even a farcically artificial one, they are faced with the falseness of their narcissistic delusions. If you hear them talk about it, it superficially sounds profound, but in essence it's all cope. "How can I say that I in fact won the Kobayashi Maru?" Petty and venal. The tragic part is when you see the flashes and glimmers of realization, that the problem isn't in the external problem, but in their need to win everything. "It makes me feel like I can't win 'em all," they will almost say.

 A healthy mind is aware that they are who they are, regardless of what anyone thinks - including themselves. The narcissist is the one obsessed with 'identity formation' and 'membership' and whether they truly belong in Starfleet or whatever. If they can't figure out the cope that says they in fact "won" the Kobayashi somehow, they will get stuck in an endless cycle, first thinking it's over, then deciding for no reason they're back, then remembering the Maru again...

 P.S. In the case of Kobayashi Maru, the zealous ass-kissing answer is like, "Yes, I understand the limits of human power and I will be hardened in the face of defeat in the future," except veiled so it doesn't sound like you read your answer off the teacher's cheat sheet. Pretend you did some soul-searching and do an anecdote about how you folded to defeat earlier or something. Try to sneak in a subtle insinuation that your proctor did something specifically to help, without being so blatant it's obvious ass-kissing. Not: "I couldn't figure out the solution until Proctor Starbutt gave me the solution," but instead, "I hadn't considered picking the ball up with my left hand after dropping it until I saw P. Starbutt pick it up with they/thems left hand."

 -

Canadians Are Not Polite

 Canadians are passive-aggressive, but Americans are too self-absorbed to notice the Canadian is taking the piss. If a Canadian can say something insulting or self-aggrandizing, they will. An extremely unpleasant people. Don't forget that blue areas are worse, but Canada has blue areas and purple areas. As with all modern countries, there are no genuine rightists. 

 Canadians do say please and thank you a lot. I believe this is because of the guilt. They're obscenely rude because that's the culture, they're supposed to be, but they feel bad about. What they mean is, "Please don't hit me," and, "Thank you, I know I deserved it, but you didn't punch me in the face." They feel obligated to be awful to each other, but want to minimize how awful they're being without actually having to dissent. 

 Naturally the general atmosphere of abrasiveness forms wonderful camouflage for the genuinely sadistic and abusive. They blend right in. A regular Canadian will make a demand with a 'please' but will be too afraid of conflict to push the issue if you refuse. This means Karens can make a demand with a 'please' and it doesn't look out of place, but for the Karen, provoking a conflict is the point of the exercise; she will escalate until she finds something you won't tolerate. If you point out what the Karen is doing, all the other Canadians will leap to her defense, as they've all done the starting phases of the same thing; you just condemned everyone in the room.  

 Refusing demands isn't 'appropriate' if they said please, you see. "Please exsanguinate your firstborn and donate the blood to me." "Um, wat?" "I said please! Please sir! Don't be inappropriate!"

Being Explicit: Bad Ideas Arise From Bad Character

 Thinking about: Epicurus let women and slaves into his "Garden."

As per usual, Revenge is Sour. The condition of being able to get close enough to spread a good idea was that the listener already be acting it out. Indeed it's clear that knowledge has advanced in the past, but it's far from clear how that could be possible. Perhaps those with good techne character can get better techne, and that's the limit of the evolution. 

 

 Sogol. Caino hypocriens doesn't evaluate an idea and then adopt its consequences and conclusions, it evaluates the conclusions and then, if it was going to act out the conclusions anyway, adopts the idea that justifies it.

 When someone has a bad idea, in all non-autism cases (and most of those too) it means they are revealing the bad character which caused them to adopt the bad idea as justification. You can't argue someone out of something they weren't argued into. You can't argue someone out of their character. 

 

 They are cripples. They cannot even think long-term. It's entirely about relieving momentary impulses by allowing the pressure to drive their behaviour. In a sense we are all driven by our character - what can we be driven by but ourselves - but it isn't necessarily necessary to identity-maximize at every given moment. Short-term cooperation leads to more wealth in the long term.

 

 What about stuff like trans hysterias? They had bad characters but weren't aware of how to act out the degeneracy. When someone explains how to behave poorly, they enthusiastically adopt the poor behaviours. That's all "education" can accomplish: it lets them more quickly realize how to do all the things they were planning to do anyway. 

 

 This is why I generally favour execution. If the bad character cannot be cleaned up by argument, then it must be cleaned up by removal.
 Though of course Earth is the Cthonic underworld, if the characters weren't bad they generally wouldn't have ended up here in the first place. No matter how much sewage is mopped up, more effluent will flow out.

 In some limited sense either Asperger's or autism works differently, but my samples are too limited to delineate in what way they work differently. For example, autists who join public autism support groups are clearly identical to Caino hypocriens in having an immutable and typically bad character. 

 Being capable of impulse control is a superpower. Top 0.1%, easy.

 Of course Epicurus also had good ideas, which speaks of areas of good character.
 That's the tragedy of the underworld. Those who die are not perfectly evil. As their vile deathly behaviour drags them down, it drags down goodness along with it.

The Effects of the Inherent Evil of Social Status

 Grouping requires hierarchy. In Caino hypocriens, hierarchy is based on social status. Hypocriens social status is broken, inherently broken. Parasitic and treacherous. The hierarchy keeps collapsing, as it is adaptive to ignore or avoid social status. Selects against itself.

 C. hypocriens tries to kill anyone who leaves the group. "Unity" and "Unions." C. hypocriens tries to have it both ways: no obligation to listen to those higher in the hierarchy, going for social egalitarianism, "Equality," yet nobody has to leave. Group membership without group obligations. Sucking blood isn't considered treacherous, while refusing to have your blood sucked is considered treacherous.
 This ""group"" doesn't move together, and can't be called a group.

 Result: internet denizens can't join a group, as they refuse to accept any group obligations. 

 At best you can form a loose group via selection. If you block or ban everyone who isn't like some reference individual, you get a group that moves together spontaneously, rather than because they feel responsible for the duty of moving together. 

 

 Gets worse: C. hypocriens actively fights against any non-blood-sucking group. Anyone without the ability to compel submission is held in contempt. Middle and lower-class members will actively demand oppression, like they have a tyranny quota, and become violent if you demur.

On Two Masters

 Serving two masters is not only possible, but easy, if the masters get along

 A servant of truth will never be forced to betray justice. A servant of justice will never be forced to betray truth. They aren't opposed to each other in any way.

 We can also consider secondary virtues like compassion, but compassion is a vassal of justice. When they conflict, compassion herself will tell you to accede to justice, as compassion is meaningless without justice.

Being Explicit: Hey you, what do you want that modern society doesn't provide?

 Feel free to be as detailed as you like. Kindly decide to like being thorough. 

 The comments do have a 4000 character limit, and it's inconvenient to post several, but I also follow links. 

 Being very thorough myself, let me ask again: what needs to change about society so you can be satisfied with it? What it is missing? What needs are unmet? What desires can't be pursued? 

 Caveat: I am kinda aggro, and I'm not going to hold back today. This is not a safe space.

Buried Lede of Theodicy

 Note that Epicurus was very firmly pre-Christian.

1. If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
2. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
3. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

 But wait, we can apply this to Man.

1. If man is unable to prevent evil, he is a pathetic loser.
   
2. If man is unwilling to prevent evil, he is not-good.
   

P.S. Don't give a man a fish, teach him to fish.

 Why is the problem of evil the gods' problem in the first place? It isn't. If your world is evil, that would be your problem. 

 There is nothing just about a "God" who prevents evil done unto you which you are unwilling to prevent being done unto yourself.

 

 Prayer is sufficiently scientific. Try this: pray for the cessation of your local evil. If you are praying seriously, you will get an answer. The answer will not be, "Oh man oh gee I forgot whoops let me just cancel that for you." The answer is extremely likely to be instructions. How to prevent the evil yourself. You will be told what to do next.

 Of course, the whole point of prayer is that I don't know what the answer will be. The idea is to talk to someone wiser or more informed than I am. P.P.S. Not my prayer, not my business. 

 To repeat myself: having evil is indeed better than having no evil. Imperfection is superior to perfection. The best of all possible worlds, even assuming comfort is the only possible value, has a significant amount of evil in it.

Selflessness is Evil, Round 2

 If I tell you I have a selfish wish, then I legitimize your selfish wishes. "I want $100 for that," you respond, and I can hardly argue that you're being selfish, now can I? Selfishness is cooperation and trade. Selfishness is (being required to) support and reward those who support you. Greed is not merely good, it is great and glorious.

 If I tell you it is "for your own good" then I actively deny your selfish wishes. I objectify and demean you, see? I'm claiming that I get to decide what you want. It's inherently traitorous.

 For some reason, when what you want is to give my friends money, calling out my selfishness never works rhetorically. Noticing that I'm overriding your judgment with my self's is a non-starter. This is why humanity is so detestable. 

 It's not about denying my wishes. I can launder whatever wish I want through [selflessness]. The only possible purpose of saying it's not about me is to deny your wishes. When you claim a desire - any desire - if my gambit works, I can call it selfish and discredit it. You're only allowed to receive what I deem fit to give you, and indeed disliking my choices is also...""""selfish."""" I put so much work into that mud pie...boo hoo....do you know how long I had to search for fresh hominid shit....

 The search for the antichrist is over: his name was Jesus. Rome did fall: he really did portend the apocalypse. And now it's falling all over again, because it didn't hit hard or painfully enough the first time. 

 Check: nobody claims to be selfless after supplying free stuff to someone who selfishly asked. It's always claiming selflessness prospectively. Inherently anti-replication. Selflessness is always fake. It is logically impossible for it not to be a lie. Obligatorily defection. Satanism.