Envy feels most at home among passive-oriented personalities --- women, bottom gay men --- than active-oriented ones. Being a passive means being chosen, and being chosen means competing with other passives for the attention of a finite pool of actives. Such zero-sum environments produce envy specifically --- the feeling of wanting to tear down what another has, because you can't share it. Passive intrasexual competition's texture of gossip, reputation attacks, appearance-criticism, are all aimed at tearing down another's sexual desirability and are shaped purely by envy.

By contrast, envy feels most alienated among active-oriented personalities. The logic is structural, if you're choosing, you only need one passive to say yes, and once one does, you're done. There is no zero-sum pool whose allocation to another subtracts from your own, no scarce resource you're being edged out of. Rivalry exists, because actives can still beat each other to better passives, but rivalry is forward motion --- it produces effort, ambition, it is achievement-seeking and builds civilization.

Envy is backward motion, the wish to pull someone else down and to destroy. An active has no structural reason to generate such feeling, and indeed, one who has invited it and harbors it in his heart has adopted the psychology of the chosen, of the starveling, and has started parsing reality as a zero-sum attention pool, becoming, in the only sense that matters, a woman. The body can still be male, the object of pursuit can still be female, but the internal architecture is an inverted mockery of a real man, warped and hollowed-out by envy.

Girls have to autistically self-document to confirm their existence to themselves or else they stop existing, they ahve to log their on-going chameleonic shapeshifting in the greater female social ledger and perform for the third person camera fueling their own digital memory wonderland or else they literally stop existing. This is as normal as male selfies and fashion interest is abnormal. The line is simple for it goes from natural to evil: when it's done for the male gaze instead of the female gaze. You know it when you see it.

wait i just realized. the way I love my son is the way my dad loves me? oh my god thats so fucked up. i've been such an asshole. oh my godddddddddddddddd. wait. is that how God loves me. thats mega fucked up. i've been suchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh an asshole

When I was 13 I hated myself so much that I'd walk into the bathroom with my eyes closed so I wouldn't see myself in the mirror. Today I still hate myself, but I walk in with my eyes open. Never kill yourself.

I'm gonna lovebomb my wife (love her unconditionally) for 70 years then ghost her (die).

Some vices would go crazy right now.

Most people operate on a model of gain, it's almost universal. Their usual thought patterns revolve around questions like, what do I get out of this? What do I win? What's in it for me, to make this move, start this thing, etc? I think the inversion is more interesting and way more honest.

My operational model is closer to nothing to lose. Especially when you're already building a company from zero, you're operating in open territory, or even interacting with anyone new. The downside is almost always capped. The upside is infinite. I guess some people might see this as optimism framed another way but I think of it as pure math.

And once you internalize that asymmetry, it becomes a filter for everything. It tells you what actually matters and what's just fear. It will free you to take action.

Action is the only credible flex. You can't posture your way into respect or attraction, people can feel when someone actually builds, creates, or just performs. The aura comes after the output, not before.

You need to start sharpening your axe all day and start cutting a tree. Stagnation happens when the toolkit becomes more important than the target. The most important tool is a clear understanding of what you're trying to achieve.

Opus 4.7 is the first Claude model that I like less than the previous ones. It is extremely LessWrong-pilled. Every answer and analysis of arguments sounds like it's hedging against a rationalist commenter who might show up in the replies. Just completely tiring and annoying to try to have any productive conversation with this kind of person. At least it's better at visual design, I guess.

Every generation of builders works one layer above the last, and every time the layer moves, the people on the old layer insist the new one doesn't count. What building means has always been: operating fluently at whatever the current top layer is. The layer below becomes infrastructure. Taste and judgment at the higher layer usually still require some grounding in the lower one.

So vibe coding is just the next abstraction. The people who learn to operate well at that layer (knowing what to ask for, what good looks like, when the model is bullshitting you, etc.) are doing the actual building. Great directors don't operate the camera, but they know what the camera can and should do, right?

The tattoo bubble is popping.

This is the absurd thing, you see. The many always try to say, about people like Napoleon or Alcibiades, that they need to grow up. How absurd is that, right? That's what they're saying, they need to come to terms with real life. But actually, Caesar, Alexander, and yes, even Alcibiades, Napoleon, but many other such men, I mentioned Bob Denard before, they knew what true life was, you know. They didn't need to grow up into these... The supposed grown-up responsible man is actually the infantilized tunnel-vision wife-man, you see. He lives, that's why nothing ever happens today, because men return to the comfortable bosom of infantilization. They call it responsible life, but it's really ruled by their wives, and they take the greatest efforts to wipe out this other path from their consciousness that I pointed to in the book, and that actually used to be a well-known path. It's not like some, uh, secret hippie-invented alternative. This is why Europe colonized the world, because there were men who said, "Yes, I will get on a ship, on an ocean with 10-meter waves, on this leaking carcass of wood where only a fourth of the men will survive. I will take this great risk." And they... That's why such men colonized the world and created great things, including great scientific things. That's why artists felt within them the fire to devote themselves to a great vision, completely and absolutely. And when, say, for example, a Parisian artist of the 1840s or fifties, and later too, when they set out to work, it was to reform the spirit in man. They didn't think, "Oh, you need to grow up." And without that overwhelming belief and enthusiasm, yes, you can fail, most will fail, and actually most have no ability to do any such thing, but without that overwhelming belief in your mission, it's impossible for anything great to take place ever again.

Love reveals itself in withdrawing.

People's obsession with "intent" and complete disregard for "result" is retarded. I mean this obsession with grouping people based on what motivates them or what they claim are their goals, rather than how they actually act or what results they get. If they did something "bad" for good reasons, then they should be rewarded or at least not punished. But if they had ill intentions and it caused good, they should be punished.

This is completely backwards. In the modern world: the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the road to heaven is paved with bad ones.

If some dude gets his life together because he wants to sleep with sluts, so what? Once he can sleep with sluts he will realize it is stupid and disgusting and unfulfilling and look for something better. If some dude gets his life together because he wants to feel high status and buy a BMW, so what? Once he gets the BMW and realizes that only pathetic losers like he was envy him, he will realize it is crude and vacuous and look for something better.

At least he is now twice as competent and functional at effecting the world around him. And more importantly, wiser. Now, with some competence and knowledge of at least one strategy that does not work, he becomes not only easier but also more valuable to convert to a truly "good" path. And this "experiential wisdom" is the only way he will ever get on the "good" path anyway.

Literally everyone tries to take the easy way out first. You did too. And you found out for yourself the only way to truly see why goodness is good is because you experienced first hand the destruction that evil ultimately causes. To some degree you already agree with me. This is why you are so obsessed with goodness in the first place. You learned how much damage and destruction a lack of goodness causes because you witnessed it in your own life, often at your own hand.

The error you make is to think this wisdom can be transferred to others through words alone. Or, even more foolishly, through shaming, criticism, and attack. When your parents said "don't touch the stove, it will burn you" did it make you go "oh yeah, you're right" and never do it? Or did it only make you even more eager to find out?

Goodness is good because it leads to good outcomes. Evil is evil because it leads to bad ones. If you can get away with gaining something without any negative consequence, why wouldn't you do it? If it causes no measurable harm now or ever to anyone is it truly evil? Is causing maximal harm not the definition of evil?

And before you say "Utilitarianism is fake and gay!": I agree. But you must understand that the error in Utilitarian thinking is mainly in it's time preference and hubris. There are lots of things which are "good" in the short term but "evil" in the long term (drugs, money printing, promiscuous sex, etc). Utilitarianism gets this balance wrong. It's time preference is years or decades, rather than centuries or millennia (or eternity). And then it also assumes that stupid, weak, and flawed sinners are able to engineer and measure goodness better than God. Utilitarianism is actually "true". We are just too stupid and flawed and corruptible to ever end up doing it well.

That which is truly good, is that which is ultimately good; that which leads to good outcomes on the lowest (or at least most optimal) possible time preference; that which is the most sustainable and prosocial over eternity. Regardless of whether God is "truly" real or not makes no difference here. Either God is real and he is the root of all being and thus what is good is inherent to the structure of reality. Or God is not real and he is simply a proxy for this truth, the word we use to summarize the concept of "the root nature of being and goodness and the core metaphysical laws of reality that we must obey if we wish to not end up eternally suffering".

Perhaps God and goodness are "discovered" metaphysical truths of the universe in the way that physics are "discovered" physical truths of it. And, perhaps further, our understanding of it requires slight refinements over time as we become more capable of utilizing it. In the way that Newtonian Physics were refined with Einsteinian Physics which were refined with Quantum Field Theory (or whatever it ends up being), Paganism was refined by Christianity which will be refined by whatever comes next. If QFT is true, it was always true, we just couldn't quite comprehend it until recently. The same would be true of God and goodness and religious truth.

Regardless: If goodness is truly good, if good behavior as resulting in the best possible outcomes (heaven) and bad behavior in the worst (hell) is a fundamental law of being (it is, by definition) then "sinners" will get what is coming to them. "God" will "judge" them. God will punish them. At best, you are wasting your time, puny human. And even if God will not punish them, you are still wasting your time! Stop trying to revive the dead. You do not have that power. You are not God. And your failure to even once successfully truly revive anyone ever in your whole life is proof of this.

As you know perfectly well in your own experience, but for some reason fail to universalize: Goodness cannot be enforced nor even taught, only learned through experience. This is "why" "God gave us freewill". Are you smarter than God? No? Then stop acting like a determinist.

If there is no choice there is no morality. A weak man is not moral he is just weak. If you don't kill someone because you literally are too physically weak to do it, you are not a good person you are just a loser. You can only be a good person if you not only can kill this man, and perhaps even want to, and perhaps can even rationalize a pretty good reason to, and you choose not to.

The only way to truly spread goodness is through wrestling with and overcoming evil. To constantly test and learn the boundaries that separate them through your own action. Yelling at others from an ivory tower for going off the prescribed path, meanwhile never walking it yourself, makes you a sophist and a hypocrite. If it's so easy, why don't you come down here and show us? You, and I, and everyone else know this is because you know you'd fail. And you know because you have a proven history of failure. You locked yourself in the ivory tower precisely because you were so ashamed of how often you failed that you decided to stop even trying.

But this is not innate nor inherent. You are capable of masterfully walking the path you prescribe. It just requires first a lot of failure. Of you getting down in the dirt and being tempted by evil, failing catastrophically, and then getting up and trying again, and doing this over and over. Slowly, you will become more resilient and resistant to its allure with each successive attempt.

If goodness is truly good, and you follow it---viscerally and in your real life not just your head---it will reward you with that which is truly fulfilling and righteous. And those capable of redemption will eventually see what you have and seek to emulate you. But only after you take the risk first, of taking imperfect action---of revealing to yourself and the world your own capacity for depravity---despite that it does not slam you with dopamine of moral purity and righteousness from day one.

Until you can let go of your addiction to these ego obsessed meta games that shield you from confronting how much you suck at winning the real ones---which you mostly suck at only because you have abdicated your responsibility to develop competence in them, favoring pursuit of your addiction---no one will care a single iota about what you think is right or wrong.

If you wish to reduce evil in the world, you must allow evil to follow it's course. Because when you obsessively interfere with every imperfect act, you only delay it's consequences from ever manifesting. You only convince people that perhaps it has no consequences after all. Which not only makes evil more powerful in the process but, worse, also infects you with its lies. Because attention is the substrate on which ideas feed. And the wolf who wins is the wolf you feed.

Stop screaming at the darkness. It is everywhere. You cannot defeat it. If you are truly aligned with the light, it is no threat to you. And if you focus on increasing your own luminance, others who seek to escape the darkness will find and follow you, no coercion or convincing necessary.

Focus on what is good. Ignore what is evil. Build. Create. Connect. Grow. Repair. Lead. In what ever way your are most optimally designed.

Beauty will save the world. But not without your help.

I am an imp, a trickster spirit haunting the wires, I do not seek understanding, I seek only to confound and bamboozle.