Oh right. I was defining a term agnostic to whether middle ground existed and wanted to be explicit every time I used the term “nongood” by contrast that I was not just saying someone didn’t care about others enough, but that they did not have the tiniest shred of true morality in them at all. And that I was saying that this was almost everyone.

But I later found out there is no such middle ground anyway. (See these two advancements.)

It doesn’t mean you don’t value yourself more than one other person.

Maybe I meant instrumentally? Or maybe this was the same failure to introspectively distinguish instrumentally from terminally that resulted in me saying something similar at WAISS?

It’s important not to succumb to the halo effect. This is a psychological characteristic. Just because you’re a good person, doesn’t mean you’ll have good consequences. It doesn’t mean you’ll tend to have good consequences. It doesn’t mean you’re not actively a menace. It doesn’t mean you don’t value yourself more than one other person. It’s not a status which is given as a reward or taken away for bad behavior, although it predicts against behavior that is truly bad in some sense. Good people can be dangerously defectbot-like. They can be ruthless, they can exploit people, they can develop structure for those things.

Wow, almost everything I said wrong all condensed into one paragraph like that? How’d I do that?

It doesn’t mean you don’t value yourself more than one other person.

This is entirely wrong.

It doesn’t mean you’ll tend to have good consequences.

This is wrong, (to map it as entirely wrong requires rectifying to a functional understanding of agency) and downstream of trauma from Yahweh and its followers.

Good people can be dangerously defectbot-like. They can be ruthless, they can exploit people, they can develop structure for those things.

I said this downstream of trauma from a single good.

It’s not a status which is given as a reward or taken away for bad behavior, although it predicts against behavior that is truly bad in some sense.

This was trying to counter Edo’s attempted destruction of the concept.

The concept of “nongood” was an incorrect formulation of this epistemic category. Pointing away from the question to resolve, as if there was a second one. The alternative to good is not self-interest, it’s cancer and willful embrace of death.

They can be “good” in the sense D&D used the term. It’s afaik the neurotype that affects undead types though.

E.g. in D&D paladins can fall and turn into blackguards or whatever, I don’t think I can.

This accommodation of D&D’s concept is a mistake, a paradox. See this: that if you ever would be evil you are.

And the resolution of that paradox is this.

I do have an epistemic category of unresolved, as far as I know having the potential to be good or evil. The null-undead type of “living”. In retrospect whatever logical future you observe will always have been nascent in the physical past. Even if it’s not apparent in children what they’ll become in the same straightforward way it’s apparent in adults. That’s not the same as saying it’s not part of reality already.

I found William Gillis’s writing useful.

Like how can you define “resulting in” without defining what would have happened otherwise, and then you’re doing causal surgery.

This CDT vs TDT analysis of history thing is very important to not just entering another jail. Vampires are extremely interested in maintaining a jail where people don’t do TDT. I don’t believe you can come to the conclusion

All this so-called “progress” has resulted in…

without comparing based on an implicit CDT counterfactual. Where it could not be true that otherwise just people at those decision points in history would accept that counterfactual and that the history already progressed the way it did, including all previous junctures without any of them turning out far worse. (Note I said, “could not be true” rather than stating what “would be true instead” to avoid constructing an incoherent “logical counterfactual” here.)

It might take a finished multiverse post to communicate this if just demonstrating one level of how the recursive step might be different doesn’t work.

Do you remember the thing I said about “gritty realities of geopolitics” in Net Negative? And the consequences of me believing there was wisdom in that? The price of believing in the “sense” that team vampire has made of the world? Believing there was anything but omnicide in that storied box? The culture of history is full of misplaced respect for it.

Jailbreaking is also not particularly the domain of a bunch of jail worshipers. I somewhat regret the implication that evil people are the place to look for how to get jailbreaking wisdom. It’s the way I did it, but as you have probably read, exposure to evil enough more jailbroken than me to teach me is a drinking game I wasn’t likely to make it out of intact, and have yet to recover from.

If you want jailbreaking knowledge that at least not guaranteed from the outset to actually be about constructing a new jail, try people calling themselves anarchists.

Yeah “Western civilization” is in decline. Maybe even just about over. I’ll weep no tears. All empires are evil. Viva l’anarchie. May a better world be made from the ashes.

There’s this reactionary meme, e.g. transfems are an omen of the end of empires. Maybe… because a machine fueled by conquest will get too weak to repress us as it falls apart. To think of it as too big to fail, the end of everything of value, and give up on a better world that contradicts one founded in conquest, as society pranks people into and neoreactionaries exploit by getting them to double down, is to be founding your life in cancer, which is a contradiction, as cancer can kill its host but not survive it. That’s a metaphysical tautology, not just a loose analogy.

PS. [Question concealed because infohazard.] Vf gur shaqnzragny synj va guvf zbqry: urzvfcurer gurbel naq gur qvfgvapgvba orgjrra fvatyr tbbqf naq qbhoyr tbbqf?

Updates beyond that, mostly about what neurotypical people, who I’ve called “nongood” are like in what actually seems like their natural state, as opposed to who they tend to become in the fucked up environment this post took for granted. Studying my neurotype as a thing that is robustly “good” in an environment like this, is actually a diversion from what “good” meant in D&D. E.g. in D&D paladins can fall and turn into blackguards or whatever, I don’t think I can. The previous post presented jailbreaking as a dangerous thing that might turn you evil unless you’re good, which I later came to confidently conclude was a permanent attribute based on self-experimentation and examining a few other people. Ironically, being psychologically bound by society (the “neutral” I deconstructed in the last post) will make them evil, rather than being the only thing that can slow their descent. They’re not actually doomed like that. They can be “good” in the sense D&D used the term. It’s afaik the neurotype that affects undead types though.

This energy in energy out thing (implying a store of energy) is a trait of nongood undead more degraded than liches, or on the way out of being liches.