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

[Why is the nature of Eva-Damon's speech and behavior destructive]

Below, we will discuss why the nature of Eva-Damon's speech and behavior is destructive by summarizing the essence of Eva-Damon's main statements, the impact of the main statements, and the nature of the statements in three aspects.

——————

—1. [Summary of the essence of the main speeches]

The essence of Tozu's speech: fictitious content and logical traps (no basis in fact)

The essence of Wolfgang's speech: empty talk and slogan-shouting  (no basis in fact)

The essence of Eva's speech: sophistry and personal attacks (no basis in fact)

The essence of Damon's speech: agreement with Eva's sophistry and personal attacks(no basis in fact)

So, since all speeches are based on no facts, how do we judge the nature of their speeches?

Answer: [The impact on the group]

Why? Because the essence of this situation is never a normal debate relying on logical thinking, but rather a psychological war to see who can control the emotions and state of the group first.

In a psychological war at a crisis moment, the criteria for judging the nature of a speech are never whether the content is based on reality or whether the logic is reasonable to begin with, but how it affects the psychology and behavior of the group.

————

——2. [Summary of the main speech's impact]

[After the Mastermind's speech]:

(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!)

(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...)

The students began to panic, their thinking influenced by the situation, and started to unconsciously follow the line of reasoning provided by Tozu's words—that is, beginning to consider the logic of mutual killing and its possibility as a reasonable option.

[After Wolfgang's speech]:

First time:

(Kai: Y-Yeah... That's totally right! We're, like, super boring people. We don't have what it takes to do something like this!)

(Toshiko: My heart is terribly soft. Softer than the most delicious piece of mochi. When I see a fly in my room, I catch the poor thing in a jar and return her to nature... My mochi heart would melt otherwise!)

Second time:

(Grace: H-He's right! No matter how weird these guys are, they are talented. Do you really think an Ultimate would fall for this bullshit?)

(Diana: T-That's right! My friends and I have too much to live and too much to achieve! We won't throw all that away for your killing game!)

(Shark: We're all going to escape... We have to!)

(Toshiko: Never underestimate the strength of human connection. I'm quite familiar with this idea.)

(Jean: What kind of captain would I be if I can't even handle a small crew of fifteen?)

After the two speeches, the group immediately responded positively. Some members of the group began to internalize Wolfgang's logic, and the silent members did not raise any objections. The group began to gradually form a strong consensus against the enemy and a will to survive.

[After Eva-Damon's speech]:

Eva:

(Ingrid: ... That's enough. Wolfie's done nothing wrong. He's giving all of us a vote of confidence.)

(Eloise: Um... Yes... It's something we all need.)

Damon:

(Ulysses: Don't you mean “rest of us”? You're an Ultimate too...)

(Grace: Yeah, what the hell makes you so special?)

(Cassidy: Is that really what happened? I remember all of us helping out!)

(Jett: Yo, I see what's going on. You think you're better than us just 'cause you can use words that nobody understands? Well, that kinda stuff is relative. Like... tell me what a dragster is. Do you know?)

(Toshiko: Hmph! Watch your step, lest you trip and fall from the unparalleled heights of vanity!)

(Ingrid: I'm disappointed in you... How are ya so concerned about makin' yourself look good when we're in the middle of a death game?)

(Diana: Still... We're not going to kill anyone, right guys?) (No response)

Multiple group members exhibit obvious discomfort and aversion, hostility toward the outsider enemy begins to turn inward, and the newly formed, fragile sense of unity begins to crumble.

—————

——3. [Summary of the nature of the speeches]

Based on observations of the group's reactions, we can conclude that:

The nature of the Mastermind's speech: intimidation and persuasion

The nature of Wolfgang's speech: calming panic and building consensus

The nature of Eva-Damon's speech: attack and destruction

————


[Summary of the destructive nature of Eva-Damon's speech and behavior]

In crisis moments, how a speech influences the psychology and behavior of a group is the core criterion for judging the nature of that speech.

The nature of Eva-Damon's speech and behavior is destructive attacks, and is no different from directly poisoning the psychology and mentality of the group.

The three types of toxicity in Eva-Damon's speech:

1. Timing toxicity

2. Content toxicity

3. stance toxicity

1. Timing toxicity

——Observation period

The period when the group's psychology is most vulnerable, most lacking in rational judgment, least defensive, and most susceptible to negative suggestions.

2. Content toxicity

——Pseudo-neutrality + concept substitution + unfalsifiable traps + shifting the burden of proof + blurring moral boundaries + confusing the present and the future + personal attacks

Completely unconstructive, purely destructive attacks

3. stance toxicity

Objectively assisting the mastermind (external enemy).

Perfectly replicating and amplifying the mastermind's strategy, achieving the mastermind's original goal, and allowing the mastermind to regain the advantage that was accidentally shaken.

Due to timing toxicity, Eva-Damon's speech damaged the group infinitely.

Due to content toxicity, their speech, even at other stages of the crisis, could only constitute destructive attacks rather than constructive suggestions.

Due to stance toxicity, they objectively assisted external enemies, causing the group to completely lose the psychological war against the Mastermind.

[Final result]:

Diana's question received no response, which contrasted sharply with the previous high spirits of the group and proved the toxic essence of Eva-Damon's speech and behavior: the moral consensus and basic trust that the group had just established had been completely shattered.

This is why the nature of Eva-Damon's speech and behavior is destructive.

Because the impact of their speech and behavior is only destruction.

Next, we will discuss in detail why Eva and Damon objectively became the thought agents of the Mastermind.

———————————————————————————————————

[Why Eva-Damon's speech and behavior objectively became the thought agents of the Mastermind]

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, 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).


Below, we will compare their similarities and upgrades one by one.

After each comparison of strategies, we will list real-life examples to help readers connect the traps in the game with similar statements in real life.

---————————
——[Eva-Damon's speech and behaviour's highly consistent with the the Mastermind's speech—content — three points in total]

1. Students may have a potential intention to kill.

Mastermind:

“What makes you think the people in this room lack the heart to kill?”

(Pseudo “reasonable question”) — Vague insinuations

Eva:

“ Compared to normal people, Ultimates are more prone to killing, not less.”

“Once you realize that the only way to achieve your dreams is to escape...you will kill.”

(definite conclusion) —directly equating ‘Ultimates’ (group) with “potential murderers.”

Damon:

“All of us have a clear motivation to leave this place, even at the cost of other people's lives.”

(definite conclusion) —directly equating “survival instinct” with “motive for murder.”

[Upgraded summary]:

Mastermind: vague hints and insinuations

→ Eva-Damon's speech:

Upgrading the Mastermind's vague insinuations to definitive conclusions

2. The future of students will only get worse

The mastermind:
“ 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!”
(A certainty, catastrophizing, foretelling of the future) —Catastrophizing predictions based on fiction

(Note: the absoluteness of [no matter what])

Eva:
“If you continue to convince all of these people to trust each other, they'll only be more vulnerable.”

(catastrophizing certainty, foretelling the future) — catastrophizing predictions targeting group's practical actions (groups express potential willingness to unite)

(note: the absoluteness of [only])

Damon:
“ Eva is right”
(Agreeing with Eva's point of view, equivalent to forming a restatement of her point of view, which strengthens the impact of her speech.)

[Upgraded summary]:

Mastermind: Catastrophizing prophecies based on fiction

→ Eva-Damon's speech: Catastrophizing prophecies directly targeting the group's concrete actions

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

The mastermind:
“ If you do, then tell me: regarding killing, where do they stand?”
“ Is where they currently stand on the issue the same as where they’re willing to stand?”
(Pseudo “reasonable doubt”) — vague hinting and insinuations

Eva:
“In the outside world, Ultimates will do anything to further their own goals, The same is probably true here.”

(Pseudo “inference”) — equating the group with “unscrupulous means”

“Unless that was your plan all along? Is it possible you want to make people vulnerable... so that it will be easier for you to kill them?”

(Pseudo “question”) - Unsubstantiated slander and personal attacks

Damon:
“This whole 'we're all Ultimate' thing is pretty inane anyway.”

“After meeting all of you, it's clear none of us has the same goal.”
——expressing the devaluation of group identity values and the intention to cut off collective common stance.

“Some of you are an exception, obviously...But come on, there's no way the rest of you can't improve the world we live in.' with your niche fixations.”
——The denigration of the value of individual talents of the group, and the destruction of the group's survival value.

(Note: the absolute nature of [no way])

[Upgraded Summary]

Mastermind: Vague hints and insinuations

→ Eva-Damon's speech:

Directly upgrading the Mastermind's insinuations to definitive conclusions

Expanding his influence by making clear personal attacks and expressing the clear intention to divide the stance

Eva-Damon's speech happened to be a complete replica of the Mastermind's three main points.

However, unlike the Mastermind, their speech was even more definitive and even more aggressive.

Furthermore, this speech did not come from an external enemy (the Mastermind), but from within the student group, making it even more destructive.
————

——[The highly consistent of Eva-Damon's speech and behavior's objective expression with the original strategy of the Mastermind — eight points from A to H]

(A) Using a pseudo “neutral”, “objective” word and deliver

The mastermind:
“ What has you so convinced?”(Pseudo “reasonable doubt”)
“ If you do, then tell me” (covertly shifting the burden of proof)

“ Where do they stand?” (Pseudo “reasonable doubt,” concealing unfalsifiable statements)

“ Everyone has an incentive” (Use “every” to make a pseudo implication of fairness)


Eva:
“It's obvious” (disguising unsubstantiated statements as common sense)

“If you need examples, just look around the room” (covertly shifting the burden of proof)

“The same is probably true here” (using a softened tone to mask extreme, unfalsifiable assertions)

“Once you... you'll...” (using absolute terms to disguise subjective speculation as consensus)

Damon:
“Listen, I get it.” (Pseudo-empathy)

“All of us have...” (imposing logic on the other party by using generalizations)

“Whether it's... or...” (pretending to be an all-knowing authority)

“Diana, you yourself admitted” (setting a trap—implanting the idea that the other party has already confessed)

[Summary of upgrades]

Mastermind:

Disguises himself as a questioner and uses indirect, suggestive inducements

→ Eva-Damon's speech:

Makes extreme statements in a carefully crafted tone and disguises them as consensus

Impersonates authority, emotionally manipulates others, imposes logic, and sets traps

The speeches and wording of the above three people all share common characteristics, namely:

——At first glance, they appear to be very fair, neutral, and even objective.

But in fact, this is actually very skillful wordcraft.

By using neutral words, they soften the aggressiveness of their speech, conceal its danger, make the other party let down their guard, and ultimately lead the other party into their own unfalsifiable trap.

As long as the other party initially complies with this line of reasoning and falls into the trap, unless they can react in time, it is impossible to refute this line of reasoning at the level of debate.

Eva-Damon's approach is even more direct than Mastermind's, eschewing the deception and indirect means, making a direct cognitive violence on the group.

[Comparison of real-life examples of pseudo “neutral” and “objective” expressions]

Example:
“I know you may be in a bad mood, so you're thinking too much. It's my bad for not considering it. It's not all your fault. I'll do better next time. Don't make a fuss, okay?”

→ Attempting to use pseudo-empathy to actually accuse the other party in advance, implanting the derogatory insinuation that “you're thinking too much,” downplaying the fact that the speaker was wrong in the first place, and stigmatizing the other party's opposition.

“A, you can see that times are tough for everyone right now. Without you, we might have had to go our separate ways. Can you just help out and take on a little more work?”

→ Attempts to use group survival and exaggerated value to blackmail the other party, exploit labor, and cover up unfair distribution of responsibilities

“Whether it's you or him, everyone is having a hard time, and I can see that. Once we start arguing, it will never end. Let's just forget about it for today, okay?”

→ Attempting to use pseudo “equality” to put the victim and the perpetrator on an equal footing and evade responsibility for resolving the conflict

————
(B) [Subtly changing the concept]


The Mastermind:
Replace “not knowing each other” with “others may have unknown  murderous intentions.”

Replace “forced to kill after being kidnapped by violent criminals

“ with “actively participating in the game.”

Replace “may happen” (the group will become more desperate, and desperation will lead to more murders) with “will definitely happen.”

Eva:
Replace “Ultimates are more prone to killing” with “Once you realize your dreams can only be achieve if you escape...you'll resort to murder”

→ Replace and upgrade” possibility” with ‘necessity’

→ Replace and upgrade” want to achieve dreams” with “inevitably chose to kill people”

Damon:
“All of us have a clear motivation to leave this place, even at the cost of other people's lives.”

“Whether it's to see your families again,...or for the sake of our talents.”
→Replace and upgrade” motivation to escape” and “human instinct” with “motivation to kill”

[Upgrade Summary]

Mastermind:

Uses vague concepts and semantic substitution (not knowing = possibly having murderous intent) (kidnapping = game)

Substitution is based on a fictional narrative with no basis in reality (if the group is desperate = more murders will inevitably occur)

→ Eva-Damon's speech:

Directly substitutes and upgrades the “fundamental human instincts that actually exist” (achieving dreams/escaping/seeing family) to “motives for murder.”

Eva-Damon's speech, through the substitution of concepts, stigmatizes the group's legitimate demands and instinct for survival as “murderous impulses/potential motives for murder.”　　

And upgrade the Mastermind's abstract psychological insinuations and generalized panic are upgraded to definite, inescapable “objective facts.”

——If the group follows this logic, then as long as the group still has instincts as a human being, it is equivalent to having a motive for murder.

[Real-life examples of Subtly changing the concept]

Example:

“He has a bad temper. I understand how you feel, just give him a little more chance, don't be so petty.”

→” Legitimate dissatisfaction” is replaced with “petty character flaw,” stigmatising the other party.

“Everyone is under a lot of pressure these days; it's natural to want to find a place to vent (illegal behaviour).”

→ Replacing “under pressure” with “inevitable venting,” creating an excuse for criminal behaviour

“You can't even do something like this; you'll never be able to do anything in the future.”

→ Replacing “a single failure in the present” with “a permanent inability in the future,” denying the other party's possibility of survival

———————— --

(C) [Use unfalsifiable language traps]

Tozu's trap:

1. Requiring omniscience

2. Requiring mind-reading

3. Requiring foretelling the future

The same is true of Eva-Damon's speeches.

Their speeches are subjective speculation without objective evidence, so they cannot be refuted by objective logic.

If one refutes Eva's statement:

Even if one uses statistical data to refute the claim that “Ultimates are more prone to killing,”　　

→ Fall into the second trap: one needs to prove that “Ultimates will not necessarily do anything to achieve their goals”(requires the supernatural ability to read minds)

Even if one successfully proves this through the supernatural ability to read minds

→ Fall into the third trap: one needs to prove that “even if the Ultimates realise that the only way to achieve their dreams is to escape, they will not necessarily kill people.”

(requires supernatural ability to foretell the future)

Even if one successfully proves this through mind-reading and supernatural ability to foretell the future

→ Fall into the fourth trap: one needs to prove that “your goal is not to ‘want’ to make everyone vulnerable so that it is easier for you to kill them.”

(requires supernatural ability to convert abstract personal thoughts into tangible evidence that can be seen in reality)

If one refutes Damon's statement:

Even if one refutes “All of us have a clear motivation to leave this place, even at the cost of other people's lives” “it's clear none of us has the same goal” with telepathy and omniscience, 　　

→ Fall into the second trap: one needs to refute “Most Ultimate are just dullards obsessing over some pointless hobby. Their talents don't contribute anything of worth.”

“The only thing they're capable of is leeching off public attention for their own goals.”

(Requires mind reading, omniscience, and supernatural abilities to convert abstract personal thoughts into tangible evidence that can be seen in reality)

Even if one successfully refutes this with supernatural abilities to concretise abstract thoughts

→ Fall into the third trap: one needs to refute “there's no way the rest of you can't improve the world we live in.' with your niche fixations.”

(Requires supernatural abilities to foretell the future)

[Upgrade Summary]

Mastermind:

Requires omniscience

Requires mind-reading

Requires predicting the future

→ Eva-Damon's speech:

Requires mind-reading

Requires omniscience

Requires predicting the future

Requires the supernatural ability to transform abstract personal thoughts into real, visible objects

[Note: If a person's inner thoughts begin to be judged—[thought crime]—then no amount of rebuttal will be useful, and whatever they say will be seen as self-incrimination.]

And since, according to currently available information, the characters do not have supernatural abilities, the above statement can never be proven false.

Therefore, Eva-Damon's speech, like that of the Mastermind, is a typical example of cognitive violence.

If the victims of this violence really start to follow the other party's line of thinking and try to refute and prove themselves, they will consume not only their energy, but also their will to live, and ultimately fall into the trap of words that can never be broken.

The perpetrator can then exploit the unfalsifiable nature of speech to completely undermine any potential counterattack by the victim in the debate, ensuring that they remain in the “right” position regardless of the outcome.

[Comparison of real-life examples of unfalsifiable language traps]

Example:

“They definitely want to harm you.”

→

Requires omniscience (knowledge of everyone's actions up to that point) and mind-reading (the ability to read everyone's intentions), which are supernatural abilities

— The victim cannot prove that they are wrong and can only fall into a state of panic

“You will never amount to anything in your life.”

→

Requires supernatural abilities to foretell the future (can activate success in the future)

— The victim cannot gather evidence and can only passively endure the attack

“I think you just want to cheat on me.”

→

Requires supernatural abilities to convert abstract intentions(not wanting to cheat) into real, tangible evidence

— Victims cannot provide evidence — they can only endure the stigma

“You people from Country A are inherently evil.”

　　→

　　Requires omniscient supernatural ability (criminal data of all people in Country A)

　　Mind-reading supernatural ability(the inner thoughts of everyone in Country A)

　　Supernatural ability to foretell the future (continuous observation of the future actions of everyone in Country A, including those not yet born)

　　Supernatural ability to convert abstract intentions (without malicious intent) into tangible evidence that can be seen in reality

——The victims were unable to fight back and could only accept the persecution.

———————— --
(D) [Shifting the burden of proof to the other party]

The Mastermind：
“ What has you so convinced?” “ If you do, then tell me.”
→Tozu himself did not provide evidence that “the students would definitely kill someone.”

→But he only asked Wolfgang to provide evidence that “the students would not kill anyone.”

Eva：
“If you need examples, just look around the room.”
→Eva did not provide any proof that “Ultimates are more prone to killing.”

→Instead, she asked the other party (Wolfgang) to provide proof for her (Eva's) argument.

Damon:
“ Diana, you yourself admitted”
→ Damon himself did not provide any evidence to support the view that “All of us have a clear motivation to leave this place, even at the cost of other people's lives”

→ Instead, he shifted the focus from “whether the motive to escape is equivalent to the motive to kill” to “whether the other party has a motive to escape” itself, forcing the other party (Diana) to prove her motive is clean.

[Upgrade Summary]

Mastermind:

Use question sentences to pretend to be the “questioner”.

→ Eva-Damon's speech:

Using “just look around”, she disguises her unproven fictional views as “obvious facts” to create psychological pressure.

Using “you yourself admitted it”, he directly skips over the fact that he has changed concepts and shifts the focus to questioning the nature of the other party's motives.

This kind of “proof bullying” puts victims in a dilemma if they follow the logic and start to refute it:

1. Either they get caught in an endless cycle of self-justification (which will never succeed due to the unfalsifiability of the speeches of the three people), eventually exhaust themselves, and become easy prey.

2. Or they refuse to justify themselves and are labelled as “evading the issue.”

In terms of methods, Damon and Eva are even worse than Tozu.

Tozu at least pretends that he is asking questions in order to shift the burden of proof, while Damon and Eva use “obvious consensus/common sense” as a disguise to directly force the burden of proof onto the other party.

[Note: If the burden of proof can be shifted, then prosecutors will not need to collect evidence. They can simply find a random passerby to prosecute, ask, “Defendant, did you kill someone?” and force the other party to exhaust their energy, property, and life to prove their innocence. Then they can find the next random passerby to prosecute. This model will lead to the dismantling of the modern judicial system.]

[Real-life examples of shifting the burden of proof to the other party]

Example:

“I think that's what you think. How about you prove that's wrong?

→Replacing objective evidence with subjective speculation + forcing the other party to take responsibility for their lack of evidence

“Why did I scold you? Can't you see for yourself?”

→Avoiding explaining the reason + forcing the other party to find a ‘reasonable’ reason to support the speaker

“You just said you wanted to quit, and you said you weren't guilty and didn't want to run away? What else do you have to say now?”

→ Stigmatising behaviour (quitting) without evidence + forcing the other party to prove their innocence for their own misinterpretation

—— --

(E) [Blurring moral boundaries]

The mastermind:
“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?”
“Everyone has an incentive to participate in the game, innocent or otherwise.”

By questioning students' stance on murder, forcing them to consider the “acceptability” of murder (for the greater good/to ensure one's own survival), the words subtly blur the line between absolute taboo and acceptable behaviour.

By using the terms “everyone” and “or otherwise,” the words place murderers and innocent victims on an equal footing, subtly blurring the moral distinction line between ‘murderers’ and “innocents” which can not be crossed.

Eva:
“ Compared to normal people, Ultimates are more prone to killing”
“ Once you realize your dreams can only be achieve if you escape...you'll resort to murder”

By directly equating “Ultimates” with “potential murderers,” the moral taboo against killing is erased, and killing is transformed from an “unacceptable taboo” to “the nature of people like us,” providing a potential “get-out-of-jail-free card” (we are all potential murderers anyway).

Damon:
“All of us have a clear motivation to leave this place, even at the cost of other people's lives.”

“Whether it's to see your families again,...or for the sake of our talents.”

By directly equating “escape/survival/justifiable motive” with “motive for murder”—equating the human instinct for survival with murder motive—the moral taboo surrounding murder is eliminated, providing a potential “get-out-of-jail-free card” for murderous acts (I just wanted to survive!).

[Upgrade Summary]

Mastermind: Through questioning and word choice, subtly blurring moral taboos

→ Eva-Damon's speech:

Killing = human nature, wanting to live = choosing to kill. Through this “equating” behaviour, moral taboos are fundamentally erased, providing a potential “get-out-of-jail-free card” for murder.

If the group truly accepts these psychological suggestions, the likelihood of murder occurring will significantly increase.

[Real-life examples of blurring moral boundaries]

Example:

“It's just to make them listen, so it's okay to hit them occasionally.”

→ Equating necessary education with violent means, weakening its evil essence, and alleviating moral guilt

“People are selfish by nature, so it's normal to betray and oppress each other.”

→ Stigmatising the nature of all humans, justifying malicious attacks as “natural,” and erasing moral restrictions

“Everyone wants to live a better life sooner, even if it means stealing.”

→ Equating the human instinct to “seek happiness” with antisocial behavior, erasing moral restrictions

———————— --


(F) [Deliberately confusing the “present moment” with the “future that has not yet occurred]

The mastermind:
By saying “Is where they currently stand on the issue the same as where they’re willing to stand,” creating anxiety about the future

By saying “if no guilty party ever escapes” and “the killing game will end when there are only two students left,” using contrasting examples to once again use a catastrophizing prediction of the outcome

By saying “no matter what,” creating a sense of inescapable fate, “most of you will die,” making a catastrophic fictional prediction about the future

By using fictional, catastrophic certainty foretelling the future, “may happen” (the group will become more desperate, and desperation will lead to more murders)is replaced with “will happen.”

Eva:

“If you continue to convince all of these people to trust each other, they'll only be more vulnerable.”

“Once you realize your dreams can only be achieve if you escape...you'll resort to murder.”

Mix “temporary trust at this moment” with “permanent unconditional trust in the future.”

“Once” refers to an unknown point in the future, making it impossible for the group to ever feel secure.

Damon:

“All of us have a clear motivation to leave this place, even at the cost of other people's lives.”

“Whether it's to see your families again,...or for the sake of our talents.”
“Some of you are an exception, obviously...But come on, there's no way the rest of you can't improve the world we live in.' with your niche fixations.”

Mix the “collective consciousness of the moment” with “the possible personal motives of future group members”

Mix “group may not be achieved at the moment” with “group will never be achieved in the future.”

[Upgraded summary]

Mastermind:

Use vague words such as “don't know” and “if” to create anxiety about a catastrophic future.

The main concept is based on a fictional narrative.

→ Eva-Damon's speech:

The object of confusion is [the object that actually exists at this moment] (temporary trust, sense of unity, and may be powerlessness at this moment)

Confusing it with [definite prophetic conclusions] (will only be more vulnerable) (will resort to murder) (there's no way)

Eva-Damon's speech upgraded the psychological suggestions created by the Mastermind, which were intended to cause anxiety, into an inevitable “certain” future disaster.

Stigmatising the cooperative consciousness and survival motivation of a group creates anxiety, denies the value of the group's existence, and directly undermines the basis of the group's survival. If the group is blinded by confusion, their will to resist and hope for survival will be greatly reduced.

【A real-life example of deliberately confusing the present moment with the future that has not yet happened】

Example:

“No matter what, you're bound to fail. You will only embarrass yourself.”

→ Use a “fictional future that will not happen” to completely negate the “current efforts” and destroy the other party's confidence in their actions

“What are you talking about? Once you make a big fuss, the mess can't be undone. Can you take responsibility for that?”

→ Confuse the legitimate opposition of the “present moment” with the unreasonable fuss and disastrous consequences of the “future” to pressure and intimidate the other party and suppress their will to oppose

“Your kind are always like this. One day you'll definitely turn bad.”

→Use a fictional future with an unknown time frame to accuse the other party, who is not at fault in the present, of something, thereby tarnishing their personal reputation and causing them to fall into a state of panic and self-doubt.

———— --
(G) [Using accusatory personal attacks to weaken the influence of the opponent's statements ]

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

Forcing Wolfgang to choose between two stigmatising labels—either naive or hypocritical.

Eva:
“It's obvious. Compared to normal people, Ultimates are more prone to killing, not less.”

“Living with constant praise from public has ruined our sense of self... if you need examples, just look around the room.”
“Unless that was your plan all along? Is it possible you want to make people vulnerable... so that it will be easier for you to kill them?”

There is no evidence that the group members' “self-awareness has been destroyed,” making the abstract accusations a concrete conclusion for the members present.

Using conclusions derived from sophistry, personal attacks are made through “questioning slander,” and Wolfgang is accused of having potential murderous intent without evidence.

Making “either/or（unless）” accusations—forcing Wolfgang to choose between giving up his stance or being seen as a “potential murderer.”

Damon:
“Most Ultimate are just dullards obsessing over some pointless hobby. Their talents don't contribute anything of worth.”

“The only thing they're capable of is leeching off public attention for their own goals.”

(Wenona: “You've got to be kidding me. Running a business that feeds millions is pointless?”)

“Some of you are an exception, obviously...But come on, there's no way the rest of you can't improve the world we live in,' with your niche fixations.”

Use explicit identity value negation and personality negation to undermine the group's sense of self-worth.

Use “as long as there are irrefutable counterexamples, they are individual exceptions” to dismiss Wenona's rebuttal with a single stroke and continue to insist on subjective speculation and personal attacks.

[Upgrade Summary]

Mastermind: Used logical traps and two-choice labelling to indirectly stigmatise and personally attack a single individual, damaging their credibility.

→ Eva-Damon's speech:

Directly accusing the other party of having potential murderous intent with zero evidence (criminal defamation)

Extending personal attacks to all members

Destroying the group's unity, sense of personal value, and will to survive

Eva-Damon's speech upgraded the Mastermind's single, vague, and binary labelling and stigmatisation to clear defamatory accusations, and expanded the scope of personal attacks from individuals to the entire group present—the intensity and scope of these attacks far exceeded those of the Mastermind himself.

[Comparison of real-life cases using accusatory personal attacks to weaken the impact of an opponent's speech]

Example:

“If you had even a shred of conscience, would you have done something so stupid?”

→Creating a deadlock—forcing the other party to choose between admitting moral flaws (social death) and admitting intellectual flaws (capability death), thereby locking in the stigma no matter what

“You must be trying to hurt someone by saying that. Why else would you say it?”

→ Use subjective assumptions to stigmatise the other party's motives and force them to “either bow their head and apologise or bow their head and confess guilty,” otherwise they are guilty in heart.

“His situation was just lucky in that. Do you think trash like you could ever do that?”

→ Use “counterexamples as special cases” to further lock in the other party's attack (you have an essential flaw as a person).

————

(H) Using the above methods to steer toward a clearly directed conclusion

The mastermind:
“ You don't know who they are.”
“ You don't know where they stand on murder.”
“ You don't know what they're going to do in the future.”

→Orientation

(1) You are all potential murderers.

(2) You should give up unity.

(3) You should distrust each other.

—Suggestive conclusion

Eva:
“It's obvious. Compared to normal people, Ultimates are more prone to killing, not less.”

“Living with constant praise from public has ruined our sense of self... if you need examples, just look around the room.”

“In the outside world, Ultimates will do anything to further their own goals, The same is probably true here.”

→Orientation” Once you realize your dreams can only be achieve if you escape...you'll resort to murder.”
[conclusion(1).Ultimates will inevitably be murderers]

“If you continue to convince all of these people to trust each other, they'll only be more vulnerable.”

→Continuing from (1), orient the direction of [Conclusion(2) Trust and unity lead to an inevitably vulnerable ].

“ Unless, that's what you want? Is it possible that you want to make people vulnerable... so that you can kill them?”
→Continuing from (1) and (2), Orientation to [Conclusion(3). Wolfgang's speech is a preparation for murder.]

Damon:
“Look, I get it. You want to make the situation less scary for everyone... but Eva made a good point.”

“All of us have a clear motivation to leave this place, even at the cost of other people's lives.”

“Whether it's to see your families again,...or for the sake of our talents.”

“Diana, you yourself admitted you had 'too much to achieve', don't you see how that's this playing into the masked man's hands?”

→ Orientation: Three conclusions drawn by Eva

“This whole 'we're all Ultimate' thing is pretty inane anyway.”

“After meeting all of you, it's clear none of us has the same goal.”

→Continue to orient to the conclusion that “we don't have consensus” and “your talents are worthless.”

[Upgraded summary]

Mastermind: Suggestive conclusion

→ Eva-Damon's speech:

Convert the three suggestive conclusions of the Mastermind

1. You are all potential murderers — converted into a definite “fact”

2. You should give up unity — converted into a direct declaration

3. You should distrust each other. — converted into direct personal attacks

Eva-Damon's speech objectively almost perfectly replicated the Mastermind's strategy and upgraded the seeds sown by external enemies (the Mastermind) for long-term insinuation directly into specific facts that immediately triggered conflict, far exceeding the original effectiveness of the Mastermind's remarks.

[ Real-life case comparison of using the above methods to steer toward a clearly directed conclusion ]


The following cases use all the methods mentioned above and are based on the words of Tozu, Eva, and Damon.

Example:

(1) [Tozu-type —Pseudo neutrality → I am rational + you are unreasonable + you are guilty first]

“I know you may be in a bad mood, so you're thinking too much. It's my bad for not considering it. It's not all your fault. I'll do better next time. Don't make a fuss, okay?”

“I'm under pressure too. I can't be perfect at everything. I've been thinking about you all along. How could I not care? We need to understand each other. This isn't good for our relationship.”

“Huh? You've been the one pushing me lately. Everyone can see it.”

“Actually, I'm feeling pretty bad too. We both have issues. Let's each take a step back today. This time, just consider it my mistake. Okay?”

→From[This is a problem caused by your own overthinking]

(Pseudo-neutral words: “I know,” “may be,” “not all,” etc., create a false sense of empathy)

→orient to[You are being unreasonable and demanding too much of me]

(Subtly changing the concept: substitute “pointing out mistakes” with” demanding perfection”)

(Unfalsifiable statements: “I've been thinking about you all along” — demanding that the other party read their mind)

(Confusing the present and the future: “This isn't good for our relationship” confuses the current problem with “damaging the future relationship”)

(Shifting the burden of proof: using vague accusations such as “everyone can see it” to avoid providing substantial evidence)

→orient to[You are at fault, I am the victim, I will be magnanimous and forgive you]

（Accusatory personal attack: “You've been the one pushing me” accuses the other party of being unreasonable and stigmatizes their motives）

（Blurring moral boundaries: “We both have issues” forces the responsibility for one's own wrongdoing (as the perpetrator) onto the other party (the victim)）

Summary:

This kind uses pseudo-neutrality and conceptual substitution to distort the victim's reasonable questions into “unreasonable complaints,” ultimately reversing the situation so that the perpetrator is considered innocent and the true victim is completely silenced.

(2) [Eva-type: pseudo-neutrality → collective innate flaw + catastrophizing about the future + if you don't bow down to me, you admit you're guilty]

“A, you can see that times are tough for everyone right now. Without you, we might have had to go our separate ways. Can you just help out and take on a little more work?”
“Oh, these young people nowadays—one worse than the other. No one has any drive. What will happen to society in the future? As long as people are alive, you have to endure some hardship to grow, right?”

“A, you're not the type to be lazy and unmotivated who just know demand others, are you? I didn't misjudge you, did I?”

→From “If you don't accept my request, you are causing me not to be able to survive”

(using pseudo-neutral words: “you can see that,” “might,” “help out,” fictitious other party's right of choice)

(shifting the burden of proof: using “you can see that” to make the other party find evidence for the point they made (times are tough))

→orient to [not accepting exploitation = laziness = harming society = avoiding growth]

（Subtly changing the concept: Use “one is worse than the other” and “no drive” to switch “not accepting exploitation” to laziness and lack of perseverance as personality flaws）

(Deliberately confusing the present and the future: using “what will happen to society in the future” to confuse current local issues with future social crises)

（(Unfalsifiable trap: “As long as people are alive,”demanding omniscient）

（(Blurring moral boundaries: using “you have to endure some hardship to grow” to equate growth with accepting exploitation and blur the moral bottom line）

→orient to[You must either accept exploitation or admit that you have character flaws]

（Use accusatory personal attacks: Use “you're not the type to be lazy and unmotivated who just know demand others, are you? I didn't misjudge you, did I?” to force the other party to choose one of two options—either accept the accusation of being lazy or accept exploitation）

Summary:

This kind uses pseudo-neutrality and threats of future crises to mask the perpetrator's perception and package it as a “reasonable judgment,” then stigmatises the victim's possible opposition as a character flaw, ultimately forcing the other party into a dilemma.

(3) [Damon-type—Pseudo-neutrality + pseudo-empathy → stigmatization of motives + coercion selfproving + disregard for counterexamples + destruction of future possibilities]

“Whether it's you or him, everyone is having a hard time, and I can see that. Once we start arguing, it will never end. Let's just forget about it for today, okay?”

“His reaction was indeed a bit excessive, but everyone gets anxious sometimes. You just said yourself that you were very angry.”

“Then tell me, why did he only treat you like that? Can you guarantee that you didn't have any ill intentions?”

“Huh? You say someone agreed with you? You’re just lucky. You're so petty. Who will be able to put up with you in the future?”

→From [You are also at fault, do not waste my time]

(Use pseudo-neutral words: use “whether... or,” “both,” and “I can see that” to pretend to be neutral and rational)　

→orient to [You are no different from him in essence]

（Subtly changing the concept + blur moral boundaries: Switch “anxious” to “inevitably violent,” and “You just said yourself that you were very angry” to equate the victim with the perpetrator, eliminating the perpetrator's moral responsibility）

→orient to [You are the one who is guilty]

(Shifting the burden of proof: using You just said yourself that you were very angry” and “Then tell me, why did he only treat you like that?” to skip the issue of concept substitution and directly accuse the other party of having ill motives, forcing the victim to prove they are not guilty)

(Unfalsifiable trap: using “Can you guarantee that you didn't have any ill intentions” to demand that the other party concretize their inner thoughts by using supernatural abilities, blocking any possible rebuttal, and forcibly stigmatizing the other party's character)

→orient to [you will not get help or support]

(Use accusatory personal attacks: “ You’re just lucky. You're so petty.”deliberately ignoring counterexamples, invalidating any rebuttals from the victim, and attacking the other party's character)

(Confusing the present and the future: “Who will be able to put up with you in the future?” Catastrophizing the victim's current self-defense behavior as “you will be abandoned by everyone in the future”, thereby stigmatizing, threatening, and undermining the other party's mental defenses and will to resist, creating despair)

[The perspective of bystanders who failed to recognise the traps in the above speech]

1. [Tozu-type bystander]

“Oh, how unreasonable they are! The other person is being so considerate, yet they're still trying to cause trouble. Just selfish.”

2. [Eva-type bystander]

“Everyone is working so hard, how can this person have no sense of responsibility! They're just trash sucking the blood of society!”

3. [Damon-type bystander]

“Huh, People like this are just stirring up trouble to get everyone's attention. They're not some good being at their core. They deserve what they get.”

Summary:

This kind of trap uses pseudo-neutrality and victim accusations to rationalise distorted logic, then reverses it layer by layer to make the victim appear guilty.

Ultimately, it causes the victim to collapse in terms of logic, self-innocence, and future possibilities, losing the support of others and society and falling into a desperate situation where they must either accept persecution by the other party or accept blame from society.

[The contradictory irony of their speeches]

Mastermind:

Speech Key Point Summary:

You don't know what choices they will make in the future.

Most of you will die.

→The content is contradictory.

Eva:

“If you continue to convince all of these people to trust each other, they'll only be more vulnerable.”

→While foretelling that “mutual trust will lead to vulnerability,” she asks the group to believe in her.

Damon:

“All of us have a clear motivation to leave this place, even at the cost of other people's lives.”

“After meeting all of you, it's clear none of us has the same goal.”

→ While claiming that the group has no common goal, he also claims that “we all have motives to kill and escape.”

——————————

In summary, Eva-Damon's speech not only objectively showed an astonishing degree of consistency with the Mastermind himself, but also upgraded, expanded, and confirmed every one of the Mastermind's original attack strategies.

This behaviour transformed the Mastermind's strategy from the instigation and pressure of external enemies into a “confirmed conclusion” recognised by members within the group—its destructiveness even surpassing that of the Mastermind himself.

The nature of the speech and behaviour of these three people in real life is extremely manipulative, aggressive, and destructive. Because their methods are so skilful and covert, many victims are unable to react before they are poisoned.

[Note: In the real-world examples cited above, many cases actually used a combination of methods, but to avoid confusion, only the parts relevant to their respective sections were emphasised. Readers are welcome to discover other hidden pitfalls on their own.]