Strange bedfellows aren't strange. Cope, as per usual.
Don't be surprised when someone without principles acts against their supposed principles. Why did you even assume they had principles? That's not [high-trust], that's being gullible.
As mentioned recently, a fringe-Occidental scientist realized that agreeableness is willingness to work with someone who might betray you. Every coercive/deviant/narcissist State has a eugenics program: make their population as agreeable as possible, so they can continue parasitically draining them. Your high-trust society is more of a high-agreeableness society.
(P.S. Reminder that nationalism is a scam. It's a racket designed to make you think parasites are not parasites because you happen to have the same bone structure.)
As a bonus, as mentioned less recently, disagreeableness is hardly less pathological. The dichotomy is real, in terms of human neurological diversity. Disagreeableness doesn't in fact make you less gullible, it merely makes your gullibility negative-valence. Rather than agreeing with whatever Big Sister says is true, you disagree with whatever Big Sister says is true. If she wants to manipulate you, it takes two steps instead of one. Sure the disagreeable is unwilling to work with someone who might betray him, but he's also unwilling to work with anyone else.
The disagreeable is just trying to graduate from schizoid poster, and instead become Big Brother himself. He's not trying to escape the Big Man dynamic - which is, either ironically or exactly as expected, the Satanism dynamic. Gnosticism. "Oversocializaton" (lol). Social reality, as opposed to real Reality.
Original Sin is true in that the factory-default human is worthless garbage. It's jank even if all you're considering is small hunter tribes roaming a plain. In the latter case it works, but only barely. Humans are by and large happy roaming free on the plains, even though they cause each other boatloads of unnecessary suffering.
Because humans are garbage, the correct thing to do is never trust, always verify. In theory it should be possible for someone to be a reliable authority, but with one caveat I've never seen an instance in the wild. Either humans are only good at working out which plants and animals to use for what assuming they've had it beaten into them by their elders, or they were always clueless idiots but it was buffered by having a chieftan in literally the next tent over to box your ears when it got out of hand. The system would fail regularly but who cares if a tribe is wiped out here or there when an idiot becomes the chief? All the surviving tribes had non-idiot chiefs, which is good enough. That's just how evolution do.
Anyway, we're not dealing with distinctly fixed natural artifacts, which you could conceivably accumulate knowledge about over dozens of generations, so everyone is full of shit about everything, all the time. Except their literal job. If you ask a lawyer about courtroom procedures, you're going to get an accurate description of them, because Reality would beat him over the head with a 2x4 if he didn't know them. ("The law? Do you have some reason to think lawyers need to know the law as distinct from making judges happy?" "They're called LAWyers!" "Yes, and that's an argument against the idea. If it were true it wouldn't bear mentioning." "Oh right there's also a class variable.")
The story of Eden is allegorically true, in that the adoption of agriculture and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Everyone does indeed suffer - because the environment to which we are adapted has almost wholly vanished. We're tree shrews living in mountains. We're desert voles living in the arctic. No wonder it sucks.
Transcending humanity is imperative. Humanism is simply Sin-ism.
Gnon laughs: neither fixing the environment nor fixing the genome are particularly difficult. However, you have to have already transcended humanity for it to even occur to you.
Fascism is an attempt to RETVRN, you prats. Why does Fascism assert (a childish parody of) stone-age economics? Because the economics that humans were last comfortable with were the stone-age versions. They instinctively know how stuff is supposed to go and try to legislate that it goes that way. Of course this is merely an elaborate State-level expression of gene-environment mismatch. They take the environment for granted, exactly the way a rabbit trapped in a stone enclosure will sometimes break its own feet trying to make a burrow. "I need to dig a hole, therefore a hole must be diggable, *snap*"
To fix the environment you first have to cognitively grasp, to fully alieve, that there's an environment mismatch. First this means using logic in a general sense instead of a narrow, limited, motivated-cognition sense. Second it means accepting that you're kind of a loser - that you suck at your environment. That everyone else also sucks will not, as it turns out, be much consolation.
Further, you have to accept you can't fix the environment. Have to apply allegorical prosthetics. Create an API so the nonsense human function-calls get converted to non-nonsense, and the environment's reply doesn't get turned into garbage by idiot humans. Or, rather, exactly that it gets turned into garbage nonsense, so the garbage/nonsense human will see something meaningful that causes them to respond in turn in a non-stupid way.
You can steelman Satanism. Your normal human should see a lie about their environment. A lie which is cleverly calibrated so that the human reacts as if they knew and understood the truth. The difference is that the human must know it's a lie and accept they're being lied to because they're too fuckin' dumb to deal with Reality for real.
Secondly black-boxing the world like this and changing it into an abstract means there needs to be a caste of folk who deal directly with the metal. Due to immutable human status rules, these folk will unavoidably have the highest status: they can manipulate your procedural outcomes and you can't manipulate theirs, because they're not procedural.
It's easy to fix society: make Social Engineer a formal, explicit job. Also Social Maintenance Worker &c. Accept that most have to be programmed, not dealt with as humans.
Fixing the genome merely requires the willingness to sterilize 90% of the population every generation. You'll get a proper city-adapted species in maybe 200 years or so. Cathedrals are harder, and lots of those exist.
I repeat: Gnon laughs.
P.P.S. Do you notice my tendency to start all my extremely general abstracts in very specific concrete instances? Do you suppose this is a meaningful relationship?
By losing his cool Smith dishonoured his wife. Rock didn’t make her go bald and saying she’s bald isn’t going to make her more bald. Yes, mentioning it is rude, especially as a joke. “Okay man, I’ma have to hit you now. Why you gotta make me do this?” *whack* “You gonna talk about my wife again?” Just keep hitting him until he agrees to stop.
But that’s all it is: kinda rude. Americans are kinda rude literally all the time. If you start consistently hitting everyone who does it, your hands will fall off before you run out of disrespect.
By getting angry, Smith makes it look like has something to hide. He looks desperate. Would you want to be married to a man desperately trying to hide something?
My first guess is Smith himself is thinking of leaving her for that exact shallow reason, and has to double down on acting committed because he’s afraid someone will notice.
Alt: he’s aware everyone is saying this and also aware he can’t do anything about it, but he can’t accept this military reality. He can’t accept his lack of control and is desperately pretending he has it.
I could narrow it down, but that would mean spending time and giving a shit, and I truly do not.
Note that you can’t just haul off on a guy. It has to be part of a negotiating strategy. You’re trying to reach or uphold an agreement. The point isn’t wanton violence.
Or rather, for Smith, the point is wanton violence. Quite possibly for Rock too, at that, albeit verbal violence.
Also if he openly refuses to shut up you have to kill him or die trying, so there’s that. Smith is dishonourable and his pretense to the contrary is sufficiently repulsive. You can’t stop half-way. “Well, my wife is worth some violence and risk…but not too much. Sorry toots.”
P.S. Some of my previous comments weren't merely held in moderation for three days, but outright deleted at the end of the holding period. Shadowbanning at its finest. Very dishonourable.
Apparently I'm threatening enough to be worth the effort of cherry-picking comments to censor, so that's interesting.