Why Eva and Damon's speech and behaviour are not harmless “ different opinions”

The following is the detailed analysis.

[Why Eva andDamon objectively become the thought agents of the Mastermind]

There are five main reasons:

1. The content of their speech is highly consistent with the content of The Mastermind's speech.

2. The way they express their speech and behaviour is highly consistent with The Mastermind's original speech strategy.

3. The impact of their speech and behaviour is also highly consistent with The Mastermind's original objectives.

4. Their speech and behaviour objectively upgrade The Mastermind's original strategy and objectives.

5. Their speech and behaviour perfectly filled the influence vacuum created after the Mastermind received an unexpected setback (Grace's physical counterattack).

Details will be provided below.

———————————————————————————————————
【Summary of The Mastermind (Tozu)'s speech】

1. Students may have a potential intention to kill.

2. The future of students will only get worse.

3. Students cannot truly reach a consensus and cannot trust each other.


【The Mastermind（Tozu）'s speech strategy】

In these two main speeches, Tozu actually employed a very skillful speaking strategy:

1. Using a pseudo “ neutral”, “ objective” word and deliver

2. Subtly shifting the concept

3. Use unfalsifiable statements traps

4. Shifting the burden of proof to the other party

5. Blurring moral boundaries

6. Deliberately confusing the “ present moment” with the “ future that has not yet occurred”

7. Using accusatory personal attacks to weaken the influence of the opponent's statements

8. Using the above methods to steer toward a clearly directed conclusion

【The Purpose of The Mastermind (Tozu)】

From The Mastermind's speech, we can conclude that The Mastermind's objectives are primarily threefold:

1. Disrupt the potential possibility of the students' unity

2. Instill the concept that mutual killing can be justified

3. Establish authority and deterrence in order to keep control of the game
———————————————————————————————————

【 Tozu speech analysis 】

(the Mastermind) Tozu's counter speech following Wolfgang's first speech immediately:

【-- “ Hmm... I see... That's your argument, is it?
So... What has you so convinced?
What makes you think the people in this room lack the heart to kill?
Do you even know anything about them besides their names and Ultimate talents?
If you do, then tell me: regarding killing, where do they stand?
Are they okay with murder if it’s for the greater good? Are they okay with murder if it guarantees their survival?

Is where they currently stand on the issue the same as where they’re willing to stand?

Go On. You had a couple hours to get to know everyone. That's plenty of time to get to learn their life stories, right?
... Should I take that as a “ no”?
Goodness, what a surprise...Not!
You wouldn't be here, all dressed up in that fancy shit, if you were so naive.” 】


[ speech influence ]
1. “ Do you even know anything about them?”

(insert suspicion again)

2. “ Regarding killing, where do they stand?”

(Blurring the distance between students and the Mastermind—the distance between civilization and barbarism)

3. “ Is where they currently stand on the issue the same as where they're willing to stand?”

(Attempting to undermine the potential for real unity of the group [now] by creating a fictional [unknown] “ future panic”)

4. “ You wouldn't be here, all dressed up in that fancy shit, if you were so naive.”

(By using a “ choose a label” type personal attack, forcing Wolfgang into a position of being seen as “ either naive or hypocritical”, completely avoiding the actual impact of Wolfgang's speech (some in the group expressed support), thereby further undermining the effectiveness of Wolfgang's speech.)

[Important supplement]

“ You don't know who they are, “ You don't know where they stand on killing, “ You don't know what they're going to do in the future.”
“ You don't know who they are.”“ You don't know their stance on murder.”“ You don't know what choices they will make in the future.”

At first glance, these statements may seem objective and factual—the group does indeed know very little about each other, let alone each other's inner attitudes and future choices.

[ But this is precisely the problem: Tozu's statements are unfalsifiable. ]

Even if the group gradually begins to know each other, they will fall into the trap of “ not being able to be omniscient.”

Even if they use supernatural means to be omniscient and know all the information about each other, they will fall into the second trap of “ not being able to mind-read.”

Even if they use supernatural means to read each other's minds, they will fall into the third trap of “ not being able to know each other's future stands.”

Even if they were to use supernatural means to foretell the future, they would still fall into the fourth trap of “ the future being infinite.”

Tozu's argument cannot even be falsified by supernatural means, so it naturally cannot be refuted by factual logic.

Tozu's remarks may seem “ reasonable” at first glance, but they are actually a vicious trap to make the group fall into the cycle of perpetual suspicion.

By equating “ not knowing others” with “ others may harbour unknown, latent intentions to kill,” if the group were really to accept this concept, they would never be able to escape internal fight.

And if the group starts fighting internally, it equates to the Mastermind's control and authority growing.

The more intense the internal conflicts within the group are, the more hostility the group directs towards each other rather than towards the Mastermind, who is the common external enemy. The less control pressure the Mastermind has, the greater the benefits will be.

[Overall impact of the above three points]

1. Instill suspicion among students toward each other.

Create internal hostility and shift the focus of conflict (students vs. the Mastermind → students vs. students).

2. Instill anxiety about a “ fictional future” that does not yet exist.

Shift the group's focus from “ controlling the present” to “ fearing the future,” naturally reducing the group's psychological defences.

——If one is only preoccupied with anxiety about the future, they will never be able to take action in the present.

3. And implant ambiguity about one's own moral stance

Once the idea that “ everyone is a potential killer” is successfully implanted, the constraint of killing as a natural behavioural taboo will plummet.

——Ultimately, all of this serves one purpose: to dismantle the potential for student unity.

———————————————————————————————————

After striking a blow towards Wolfgang's first speech, Tozu's second speech:

【-- “ Oh, and one more thing.
That trial you just did? That was your preparation for the killing game.

And for good reason!
If one of you is killed... The remaining students will participate in the True Class Trial.
Your objective here is simple: uncover the culprit, if you can.

Using the evidence you gathered during the investigation, you will argue who you believe committed the murder.
The result will be decided by a popular vote, and if you choose the right person... They alone will be executed and the killing game will continue!
However, if you choose the wrong person... The guilty party will be set free and the rest of you will be executed instead!
Those are the rules of the game. Everyone understands?
(Eloise: A-All of us will be executed!? That's not fair!)
Really? I think it's one of our most beautiful rules.
Everyone has an incentive to participate in the game, innocent or otherwise.
(Ulysses: T-That's insane... You're treating us like pigs to slaughter!)
Nonsense! All of you have a chance to survive this game! Do you think the common butcher is so merciful?
By the way, if no guilty party ever escapes, the killing game will end when there are only two students left.
You may want to remember that. Or maybe you don't care. It depends on what kind of person you are.
(Damon[inner thoughts]: Out of the sixteen people here... only two would be allowed to survive?)
(Desmond: Two people... that's hardly better than if someone gets away with murder...)
I know! That's what makes it so funny!
Most of you will die, no matter what... and yet, with every passing class trial, you'll all cling to life more desperately... And that exact mindset is what causes more murders to happen!
Aren't these rules simply brilliant? A perfect test of the limits of human compassion?
I can't wait to see all of you in action! Ahahaha-Ahahahahahah-Ack!!”】
(After that, Tozu's speech was cut off by Grace's physical force.)

[ speech influence ]

1. By directly describing the brutal rules of the game of mutual killing, it imposes psychological intimidation on the students.

2. “ Everyone has an incentive to participate in the game, innocent or otherwise.”

Using “ everyone” and 'or otherwise' to create the illusion of “ equality for all.”

Subtly erasing the distinction between the identities of “ killers” and “ innocents.” (use“ otherwise” creating ambiguity)

3. “ All of you have a chance to survive this game.”“ Do you think the common butcher is so merciful?”

“ All of you have a chance” again creates the illusion of equality, implanting a sense of luck (maybe I'll get lucky and not get caught).

“ Do you think the common butcher is so merciful?”By contrasting himself with the fictional “ indiscriminate mass murderer,” he forcibly implants a rationalisation of the act of holding a killing game.

(My rules are much better than the unreasonable mass murderer; at least I give a “ fair chance” )

Forcing students to subconsciously choose the lesser of two evils makes it easier for them to accept his logic.

4. “ If no guilty party ever escapes, the killing game will end when there are only two students left.”

By contrasting “ if no guilty party ever escapes” with “ will end when there are only two students left,” again uses catastrophization outcome prediction, forcing students to weigh the “ pros and cons” of both “ choices”.

——One person or two? Others or myself? Are two people really that much better?

———This further implants the suggestion in students' minds of the rationalisation of choosing mutual killing.

5. “ Most of you will die, no matter what”

“ No matter what” creates a sense of inescapable fate.

“ Most of you will die” is a fictionalised prediction of disaster in the future.

6. “ You'll all cling to life more desperately”“ That exact mindset is what causes more murders to happen”

Using fictional, catastrophic predictions about the future, it substitutes “ may happen”(the group will become more desperate, and despair will lead to more murders) with “ will inevitably happen.”

It further implants a sense of despair, helplessness, and panic.


[ summary of the Tozu speech tactics ]

Tozu first instils psychological shock in the group by describing the cruel and absurd rules of the killing game.

Then, through the illusion of equality, he implants a sense of “ what if I'm lucky”, erasing the distance between murderers and the innocent—erasing the distance between civilised behaviour and barbaric behaviour.

Next, by comparing himself to fictional mass murderers, he forcibly increases the group's acceptance of himself.

By placing “ if someone escapes through murder” and “ only two remain” on opposite sides of a scale, it forced the group to rationalise the distorted logic of the killing game themself.

By describing a fictional apocalyptic future, the group's survival instincts are further stimulated, forcing their already panicked minds to simplify their thinking further, prioritising animal instincts over human rationality.


[Key points of Tozu's speech]

1.

Repeatedly using the term “ game” to describe “ forcing groups to kill each other.”

By replacing the terminology, the unacceptable nature of taboo behaviour is weakened, and the group is implanted with the suggestion that the game of mutual killing itself, as well as the act of killing, is justified, thereby lifting the moral ban.

(This is just a “ game,” we are just “ players,” and killing is just a “ requirement to pass the game. “ )

By rephrasing “ being kidnapped by violent criminals and forced to kill” as “ actively participating in a game,” a false sense of control is granted to the group—a brain under high pressure and panic will instinctively grasp at any lifeline.

2.

Repeatedly emphasise the “ rules of the game” to instil in the group a “ false sense of fairness” and “ false sense of order,” as well as a false sense of control.

——As long as I follow the rules, I will be ok.

——To make them ignore the fact that they have been forcibly kidnapped and imprisoned, and that their survival depends entirely on the whims of the Mastermind.

3.
Use fictional narratives repeatedly, to make the group's thinking deviate from reality and enter into the predetermined psychological and mental model made by himself.

——That is, into a model where they assume that mutual killing is inevitable, the situation will only get worse, and only by participating in the “ game” will there be a glimmer of hope.

To make the group naturally ignore the third option between killing and being killed: uniting and finding ways to resist the Mastermind.

[The group's response proves]

1. Psychological deterrence success:
(Eloise: A-All of us will be executed!? That's not fair!)
(Ulysses: T-That's insane... You're treating us like pigs to slaughter!)

2. The rationalisation of the logic of the mutual killing, which is anti-human and should be instinctively rejected by normal people, begins to take effect:

(Damon[inner thoughts]: Out of the sixteen people here... only two would be allowed to survive?)

(Desmond: Two people... that's hardly better than if someone gets away with murder...)

In sudden, high-pressure crisis situations, the human brain is unable to process complex information, and thinking becomes simplified, making it easier to accept ideas implanted by the outside world without noticing their potential problems.

——Even basic concepts that would normally be strongly/absolutely rejected in a normal environment (such as betrayal/violence/murder) ——can be possibly accepted as long as they satisfy one's strongly stimulated survival instincts.

Through these two speeches, the Mastermind's three objectives:
1. Disrupt the potential possibility of the students' unity

2. Instill the concept that mutual killing can be justified

3. Establish authority and deterrence in order to keep control of the game

It has gradually begun to stabilise and take shape.

If Grace had not used force to interrupt Tozu's speech at this point and allowed the brainwashing to continue, the group's civilised identity recognition as modern people and moral constraints would likely have been quickly replaced by the Mastermind's logic of the law of the jungle, where the strong prey on the weak.

Even if the group did not immediately abandon their original values, this brainwashing would have planted a dangerous seed in their hearts.



[Important Note]

Explaining the rules ≠ Harmless neutral behaviour

Tozu's disclosure of the cruel rules of the game is itself part of a deterrence-induction strategy.

To reiterate, as the mastermind behind the “ game” that forces people to kill each other, everything Tozu says and does is ultimately aimed at “ accelerating the process of mutual killing.”

　　His 【intentions】 are the most important factor; whether his statements appear “ reasonable” 【is irrelevant】.