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

[The trap essence of Mastermind -Eva-Damon's speech]

If, in reality, someone (A) uses Mastermind-Eva-Damon type speech on another person (B), and B does not notice the trap in its essence, how would the situation develop?

1. [A uses pseudo “objective and neutral” words]

(e.g., “I know,” “Listen,” “We are all the same...”)

→ This makes B lower their guard and enter a listening state.

— B's vigilance is paralysed, and they choose to continue listening

　　↓

　2. [A begins to switch concepts]

（Example: Everyone wants to be successful, make their family proud, and feel proud of themselves, even if it means suppressing others）

→ Confuses “motivation” with “means” and begins to deviate from the original topic

— B begins to feel that A's words are a little strange, but due to the previous pseudo-objective tone, they didn't react immediately

　3. [A makes “unfalsifiable statements”]

(Example: “Then, is it possible that you will oppress others in the future, or even... kill someone?”)

→ Make serious accusations without factual support

— Because A began to make direct accusations without evidence, B reacted at this point due to their defensive instincts and realized that they were being attacked.

↓

4. [A begins to shift the burden of proof]

(Example: Then how can you prove that you don't want to kill someone? You said yourself that you want to succeed.)

→ Forcing B into an unsolvable self-justification trap

— Because this statement is unfalsifiable, B knows that he is being falsely accused. However, because A has not provided any factual evidence to refute the accusation, B is completely unable to fight back and begins to fall into a self-justifying cycle that is doomed to failure.

↓

5. [A begins to blur moral boundaries]

(Example: This is normal. Who doesn't feel jealous of others sometimes?)

→Diluting taboos and lowering moral boundaries

——Due to A's further pressure and confusion, B begins to fall into chaos

↓

6. [A begins to deliberately confuse the present moment with the uncertain future]

(Example: As long as people have the desire to succeed, they will sacrifice others one day)

→Eliminating future uncertainty and blocking the other party's retreat

— As A blocks off the “uncertain possibilities of the future,” B begins to feel desperate.

↓

7. [A begins to use accusatory personal attacks to weaken the influence of his opponent's speech]

(Example: So, you actually want to kill someone to ensure your own benefits, right?)

→ Destroying B's credibility and the influence of their speech

　— Because B has fallen deeply into the trap of thinking created by A, their independent logical thinking ability and self-awareness have been poisoned, their emotions have become highly unstable, and they are completely unable to counter A's accusations

↓

　8. [A uses the above methods to lead to a clear and direct conclusion]

(Example: You are a potential murderer, there's no need to pretend.)

→ Reject any possibility of rebuttal. At this point, any rebuttal by the other party will be discredited as a sign of guilt.

— B falls into a state of rational and emotional collapse.

After that, if B continues to fully believe A's logic, there are only two paths:

1. Either accept A's logic, that is, that they are a potential murderer who will stop at nothing to succeed, and ultimately abandon their moral principles and hurt others.

2. Or be forever trapped in self-doubt and guilt, consuming their mind and life until they finally break down.

As for result 1:

A can say, “See, I told you they were this kind of person.”

As for result 2:

A can say, “See, I told you they had something to hide.”

Mastermind - Eva-Damon-type speech, the essence of which is to use words as weapons to inflict cognitive violence, verbal violence, and logical violence on victims.

[To put it more bluntly]:

——This is tyrannical(unfalsifiable statements + shifting the burden of proof) language bullying that is anti-human (stigmatising legitimate human instincts) and anti-civilisation (denying any possibility of future change)

As long as the other party does not react in time and starts to follow their line of thinking and accept this kind of speech, they will be firmly controlled by the other party and unable to escape, and will ultimately lose the argument, not only the debate itself, but also jeopardising their personal mental security.

If the other party does not fall into the trap, then the speaker (such as A) can accuse the other party of being “unreasonable,” “evading the facts,” and “having something to hide.”

This type of speech is an extremely malicious trap and is by no means a normal “discussion.”

—————————————————————————————————
[Ten common cognitive errors that audiences may make]

Before comparing real-life situations, it is necessary to remind readers that:

In real life, when faced with life-and-death-themed stories, the human brain often produces a series of misperceptions due to a sense of environmental security and viewing habits.

Once these biases appear, they will unknowingly distort the understanding of the plot, making destructive remarks seem “harmless” or even “correct.”

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, there are two main reasons why audiences are prone to misjudgment when enjoying this type of game:

1. Situational cognitive error: It is difficult to understand the life-and-death crisis faced by the characters when one is in a peaceful and safe real-life environment.

2. Hindsight bias: Audiences are familiar with the “Danganronpa-style” narrative model and watch the story with a preconceived notion that they “know the formula.”

These two types of errors compound each other, which could lead audiences to develop the following classic misconceptions:

1. Ignoring the actual deterrent effect of the Mastermind

Misjudgment:

Treating the Mastermind as a “plot device” who is only responsible for introducing the rules and does not pose a real threat to the characters' lives.

（” Isn't that just how the game is set up? The Mastermind is just introducing the rules.”）

Deviation from the error:

Tozu is an armed, violent criminal who successfully kidnapped 16 socially recognised elites in one go and made them kill each other.

Mara just fired a gun that almost killed Grace, which was a real, deadly threat, not a plot device.

2. Underestimating the value of Wolfgang's speech

Misjudgment:

Viewing Wolfgang's speech as a routine “hopeful speech” and considering it “naive” or ‘useless’ because people will die in the future.

(“People are going to die later, so what's the point of Wolfgang saying this?”)

Deviation from error:

Characters can only act based on the information available at the time. Before Eva's speech, no one showed any hostility, and Wolfgang's slogan-style speech was the only viable means of stabilizing morale in a real emergency.

3. Demanding an immediate strategy

Misjudgment:

Believing that Wolfgang “did not come up with a practical plan” and that empty slogans are not good enough.

(“He should have come up with a detailed and feasible escape plan on the spot; otherwise, what's the point?”)

Deviation from error:

This is the observation period at the onset of a crisis: the group has not yet regained its rationality, and external enemies are armed and present. At this point, discussing detailed plans is not only ineffective but may also directly trigger the risk of being shot.

4. Mistaking Eva-Damon's speech as “clear-headed and rational”

Misjudgment:

Hindsight makes Eva and Damon seem prescient.

(“Eva and Damon saw it clearly. They were rational and calm.”)

Deviation from error:

Eva-Damon's remarks had no basis in fact, were completely unconstructive, and were essentially destructive attacks on their own side.

5. Downgrade Eva-Damon's behaviour to “differences of opinion”

Misjudgment:

Believe that the group is ‘overreacting’ and that Eva and Damon simply disagree.

(“Eva and Damon just have a different opinion, there's no need to react so strongly.”)　

Deviation from error:

In a life-and-death crisis, words are weapons. Eva-Damon poisoned the psychological defences of their own side, and group defence is a basic survival instinct.

6. Replace result assessment with “good intentions”

(“But they didn't mean any harm, did they?”)

Misjudgment:

Thinking that Eva and Damon “might have just meant well.”

“Eva and Damon were just trying to remind everyone not to be so naive.”

Deviation from error:

In a crisis, results matter more than motives. No matter what the intention, destructive behaviour does not lose its harmfulness just because the motive is good.

7. Emotion replaces reasoning

(“He's so annoying, I don't want to listen to him!”)

Misjudgment:

Because of the dislike of Wolfgang's personality/character, they tend to deny the value of his speech.

Deviation from error:

Personal likes and dislikes have nothing to do with the objective function of speech. In a life-and-death crisis, “right/useful” is still “right/useful,” even if it comes from the person you dislike the most.

8. Treating dramatic effects as realistic logic

(“Isn’t this kind of conflict necessary for the plot?”)

Misjudgment:

Believing that the plot needs a “sense of conflict,” the internal struggle between Eva and Damon is considered “necessary seasoning” and even justified.

Deviation from error:

In a real crisis, internal conflict only directly weakens the chances of survival, and dramatic “verbal battles” are often catalysts for disaster in real-life situations.

9. Heroism filter

(“Don't they need to face this truth in order to grow?”)

Misjudgment:

Thinking that someone can make a group immediately more rational and stronger with a speech about “the truth,” so Eva and Damon were given a “cool realist” filter.

Deviation from error:

In a crisis, a “reality” that undermines the group's confidence without providing solutions is essentially destructive.

10. The illusion of “equal views” / pseudo-democratic thinking

(“Everyone should have a right to speak!”)

Misjudgment: Believing that everyone has the right to “speak freely” in a crisis, even if their words are harmful, and that “different opinions should be tolerated.”

Deviation from error:

A crisis is an extraordinary situation where harmful internal speech must be immediately suppressed; otherwise, it is equivalent to pushing the entire group toward a higher risk of death.

[Comparison of Eva-Damon's speech and behaviour in real-life situations]

[Vocabulary conversion table]:

Ultimates = group's current identity

Living with constant praise from public = the group's current living environment

sense of self = group's important humanity

Achieving one's goals/dreams = goals of the group's current identity

Escape/murder = means of achieving goals

Trusting each other = the group's current collective actions

Vulnerability = consequences of those actions

Killing them = actions to betray the group and protect oneself

Motivation to leave here = Self desire

cost of other people's lives = Extreme means

obsessing over some pointless hobby = group's behaviour under the current identity

their own goals = group's identity's goal

leeching off public attention = group's identity's demand for external resources

improve the world we live in = Improving the group's current situation

—————— --

[Note: To avoid excessive repetition, only representative passages from Damon and Eva's speeches are quoted here.]

——[Reality Comparison 1]

The earthquake or tsunami had just ended, and the sufferers were still in shock. Some people volunteered to help with disaster relief. Although no one knew when the next disaster would strike, the sufferers still had the will to live and fragile mental stability.

Eva-Damon's speech and behavior are equivalent to:

Claiming that the essence of all sufferers is that they will resort to any means to ensure their own survival, so they will rob others of their survival supplies; therefore, the sufferers' continued mutual assistance will only lead to their own danger; and accuse the temporary volunteer disaster relief team leader of embezzling survival supplies with no evidence。

Claiming that the sufferers, as a social group, are worthless and only consume social resources.

Eva:

“It's obvious. Compared to normal people, Sufferers are more prone to rob, not less. Living in such harsh conditions has ruined our sense of morality... Sufferers will do anything to further their own goals. Once you realise that your survival can only be achieve if you use violence ... You will resort to robbing.”

(Replacing “robbing may occur” with “sufferers will rob”)

“If you continue to convince all of these people to help each other, they will only be more in danger.”

(Weakens the belief in post-disaster mutual aid and reconstruction)

“Unless that was your plan all along? (the temporary volunteer disaster relief team leader) Is it possible you want to make people in danger... so that it will be easier for you to embezzle survival supplies?”

(Unsubstantiated accusation against the temporary symbolic figure of group spirit, undermining collective trust and cohesion)

Damon:
“Eva is right.”

“All of us have a clear motivation to survive, even at the cost of other people's survival supplies.”

(Replacing the desire to survive with harming others)

“Most of the sufferers are just idiots who are obsessing over meaningless details. Their ability doesn't contribute anything of worth. And the only thing they are good at is consuming social resources for their own survival.”

The only thing they're capable of is consuming social resources for their own survival.

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

(Denying the collective meaning of the survivors' existence and undermining their collective will to survive)

Possible consequences:

1. Collapse of basic order

The already extreme mental burden on the sufferers is exacerbated, and they begin to suspect each other. Their determination to work together to overcome the disaster and their spirit of mutual assistance are undermined. As conflicts accumulate without resolution, this eventually leads to civil unrest, dealing a serious blow to the process of rebuilding order after the disaster.

2. Moral bottom line dissolves

Due to the implication that “all disaster sufferers are looters,” the psychological burden of looting the weak to satisfy one's own needs is eliminated, and more people choose to directly exploit the weak.

3. Existential despair

The sufferers fell into a mindset of “we are all just scum who can only cause disaster, so what's the point of holding on?” and lost the will to save themselves and others.

4. A vicious cycle begins

The next wave of natural disasters, which could strike at any time, caused even greater damage, making it easier for malicious external speculators to exploit and control the sufferers, and the secondary casualty rate after the disaster rose sharply.

——[Real-life comparison 2]

Faced with a major fire, the victims were thrown into panic. Some volunteers took charge, though unsure how the fire would spread, the group of victims still held onto hope for survival.

Eva-Damon's speech and behavior are equivalent to:

Claiming that the essence of all victims is that they will inevitably prioritise their own escape at all costs, and therefore will betray others to achieve this goal; therefore, the victims' continued insistence on order will only bring greater harm; accuse the temporary volunteer coordinators of intending to sacrifice others to escape with no evidence.

Claiming that the victims are worthless as a group seeking survival and will only waste rescue resources.

Eva:
“It's obvious. Compared to normal people, victims are more prone to betray others, not less. Being in such an extreme environment has ruined our sense of ethics... victims will do anything to further their own goals. Once you realise that your escape can only be achieve if you abandon others... You will resort to betray.”

(Replace “some people may abandon others” with “it is in the nature of victims to betray others.”)

“If you continue to convince all of these people to assist each other, they will only endanger themselves.”

(Weakens the idea of maintaining order in a fire to organise an escape.)

“Unless that was your plan all along? (the temporary coordinator) Is it possible you want to put everyone in danger... so that it will be easier for you to monopolise the escape route alone?”

(Unsubstantiated accusation against the temporary symbolic figure of group spirit, undermining collective trust and cohesion)

Damon:
“Eva is right.”

“All of us have a strong desire to survive, even at the expense of others' lives.”

(Replace “desire to survive” with “sacrifice others”)

“Most of the victims are just idiots who are wandering around aimlessly. Their ability doesn't contribute anything of worth. And the only thing they are good at is wasting rescue resources to prolong their own lives.”

The only thing they're capable of is consuming social resources for their own survival.

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

 (Denying the collective survival value of the victims and undermining their collective will to survive)

Possible consequences:

1. Collapse of basic order

Exacerbates the already severe panic among victims, causing everyone to feel unsafe and abandon their attempts to escape in an orderly manner, instead choosing to fight for escape routes, causing congestion.

2. Moral bottom line dissolves

Due to the implication that “everyone will abandon others,” the moral guilt associated with using violence to forcefully seize escape opportunities is greatly reduced, causing more people to choose to trample on the weak.

3. Existential despair

The victims fall into a mindset of “Everyone will definitely abandon others and run away first, so what's the point of listening to orders? We can't escape anyway,” and lose their willingness to help each other and their instinct to care for others.

4. A vicious cycle begins

As the pushing and trampling escalates, the already deadly fire becomes even more deadly, and the number of casualties among the victims increases.

——[Reality Comparison 3]

When war (one group attacking another) suddenly broke out, the people were in a state of panic. The enemy army was already at the front, and some people volunteered to lead the resistance. Although they did not know when the next attack would come, the people still held on to hope for the future and the will to resist.

(The confrontation between the student group and the Masterminds is actually very similar to a miniature version of the confrontation between countries. Although the scale is vastly different, the essence is the same—the confrontation between groups with different positions.)

Eva-Damon's speech and behaviour are equivalent to:

Claiming that the essence of all citizens is that they will inevitably abandon everything to secure their own future, and therefore they will all defect to the enemy to achieve this goal; therefore, the citizens' continued maintenance of social order will only cause greater damage; accuse the leaders of the temporary volunteer army right in front the outside enemy of intending to betray their own side and surrender to the enemy with no evidence.

Claiming that the citizens, as a resistance group, are worthless and will only damage the resources of human civilisation.

Eva:
“It's obvious. Compared to normal people, citizens are more prone to become traitors, not less. Being in such a special environment has ruined our sense of honour... citizens will do anything to further their own goals. Once you realise that your future can only be achieve if you rebel ... You will defect to the enemy.”

(Replacing “some people may defect to the enemy” with “all citizens are traitors”)　　

“If you continue to convince all of these people to support each other, they will only harm themselves.”

(Weakening the consensus that maintaining basic social order is essential to preserving humanity in war)

“Unless that was your plan all along? (the leader of the temporary volunteer army)Is it possible you want to put everyone in harm... so that it will be easier for you to surrender and save your own life alone?”

(Unsubstantiated accusation against the temporary symbolic figure of group spirit, undermining collective trust and cohesion)

Damon:
“Eva is right.”

“All of us have a strong instinct to protect ourselves, even at the cost of betraying our country.”

(Replacing the instinct for self-preservation with betraying the country)

“Most of the citizens are just idiots who are jumpy. Their ability doesn't contribute anything of worth. And the only thing they are good at is preserving their own lives at the expense of human civilisation.”

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

(Denying the collective survival value of the citizens and undermining their collective will to survive)

Possible consequences:

1. Collapse of basic order

Pushing citizens who are already in a state of high pressure and high risk into extremism, igniting the “fuse,” and plunging society into a wave of “traitor terror.” Cooperation necessary to maintain basic social structures becomes impossible, leading to the collapse of order and social unrest.

2. Moral bottom line dissolves

Due to the implication that “everyone is a traitor,” the psychological barrier to actual betrayal is greatly reduced, and more people decide to defect to the enemy.

3. Existential despair

The citizens fall into a mindset of “Anyone could betray anyone else, so what's the point of continuing to stick together? We were doomed from the start,” and lose their will to resist and their basic humanity.

4. The vicious cycle begins

Due to internal conflicts and divisions among the citizens, resistance to foreign invasion is greatly reduced, accelerating the collapse of the nation.

In a sudden life-and-death crisis, the impact of such speeches will set modern society's commitment to human civilisation back to the primitive jungle's worship of animalistic savagery.

Ultimately, the only beneficiaries will be disasters and external enemies, and certainly not the victims themselves.

The subsequent behaviour of such speakers:

1. If the group really collapses and riots break out, and people start hurting each other:

They can say,” See, I told you so!”

2. If the group holds together and is not overly affected:

They can say, “These people are hypocrites; they just hide their true nature well. One day they will reveal themselves!”

———————————————————————————————————
[Summary of the nature and consequences of Eva-Damon's speech and behavior in reality]

1. Claiming that a collective identity has an innate flaw

For example: Ultimates are more prone to killing

Collective identity corresponds to: disaster sufferers/victims/citizens

Nature: Extremely subjective and biased remarks with elements of discrimination and stigmatisation

Consequences: Intensifies internal social conflicts, triggers panic and hatred, and causes social chaos

2. Claiming that mutual trust within a group inevitably leads to vulnerability

For example: Trust and unity lead to vulnerability

Mutual trust within a group corresponds to: Temporary order after a disaster/temporary order for escape/temporary order in a wartime society

Nature: Disrupting the basic order of social survival

Consequences: Further social unrest, weakening the collective ability to defend against external enemies, and destroying the foundations of society

3. Accusing the group's temporary leaders of having harmful intentions without evidence

For example: accusing Wolfgang's reason for making his speech is a preparation to kill people.

Collective temporary leaders correspond to: temporary volunteer disaster relief team leaders/temporary volunteer coordinators/temporary volunteer army leaders

Nature: constitutes personal attacks and defamation

Consequences: further provokes social division, destroys collective cohesion, and endangers the basis of collective survival

4. Claiming that the group has no value for survival

For example: Most Ultimates are useless idiots who are useless to society

Ultimates are useless, corresponding to: Sufferers/victims/citizens

Nature: Personal attack, verbal abuse, class discrimination

Consequences: Spreads feelings of despair, exacerbates mutual hostility and attacks between social classes, and expands and accelerates the trend of collective division

[Additional consequences—the plight of the weaker members]

If the group didn't withstand the destructive speech and behaviour of Eva-Damon, leading to the collapse of the basic order of survival, in addition to the above consequences, there will be another consequence:

— The vulnerable members in the group will inevitably be the first to be eliminated and sacrificed.

1. Killing game
Example:

Physically weak individuals, such as a 14-year-old Toshiko, and psychologically vulnerable individuals, such as an introverted and insecure Mark, will be selected as targets for killing first.

2. After natural disasters

Examples:

Injured people/homeless people/people who live alone will be robbed first.

3. Fire scene

Example:

Elderly people/children will be pushed down and trampled first.

4. Wartime

Example:

The lower classes of society—ordinary civilians—will be the casualties of riots first.

[Summary]

Eva-Damon's speech and behaviour, regardless of their motives, have had the same effect as psychological war speakers of the enemy.

Their speech and behaviour have triggered internal strife, disrupted order, destroyed trust, greatly damaged the collective's ability and will to confront the crisis, created an offensive advantage for external enemies/disasters, and pushed the weakest members of the group to the possible front lines of death.

Such speech and behaviour, regardless of the crisis situation, are extremely destructive and deadly.

———————————————————————————————————
[The consequences of Eva-Damon's speech and behaviour in reality]

In real-life situations such as disaster relief or fire escape, the nature of Eva-Damon's speech and behavior and the consequences thereof may constitute crimes such as defamation, spreading rumors, disturbing public order, and obstructing rescue efforts.

Such behaviour is sufficient to subject them to civil claims (for injury and property damage caused by their statements) and criminal prosecution, which is the lightest outcome possible in peacetime.

In times of war, when the two countries are at war, everyone is in danger, and the country is in peril; the legal judgment of such acts will be even more severe.

In wartime, when language, public opinion, and emotions are weaponised, if someone engages in such speech and behaviour, they will be directly regarded as undermining military morale and providing psychological war support to the enemy.

Being regarded as collaborating with the enemy, convicted of treason, or even directly treated as enemy spies are all possible, regardless of their intentions.

In such cases, long-term imprisonment is the mildest punishment, and in most cases, such speech and behaviour would not even receive the lenient punishment of imprisonment.

———————————————————————————————————
[What is truly responsible behaviour]

In life-threatening situations, truly responsible actions are not immediately creating suspicion and hostility in front of the group and external enemies, but rather:

1. Choose the right moment

At the moment, the group is still in shock and panic after just experiencing kidnapping and gunpoint threats. Launching personal attacks or questions at this time will only exacerbate the already dangerous situation.

——A more responsible approach is to remain calm and observe first.

For example, allow the group to rest for a night and then offer constructive suggestions when their physical condition and emotions have stabilised.

2. Express differences in a constructive manner

If one feels that Wolfgang's speech is too idealistic, one can discuss this privately with him.

“I'm worried that morale alone may not be enough. We may need some specific response and defence measures. What do you think?”

— Instead of blindly blaming the other party for “what they did wrong,” discuss how to “do it more comprehensively.”

— This will avoid undermining the temporary leader's authority in public and in front of external enemies, while retaining the possibility of subsequent strategy adjustments.

3. Make specific and feasible suggestions

Example:

“Let's first check if there are any traps in the corner.”

“Let's not spread out tonight and look out for each other.”

These suggestions can be implemented immediately in reality, do not raise suspicions of personal motives, focus solely on effective actions, and strengthen group bonds.

4. Promote reasonable supervision mechanisms

If Wolfgang still refuses to accept any suggestions during private discussions or at subsequent meetings, then one can raise the issue publicly:

“I think the leaders also need supervision and checks and balances. Should we establish an anonymous voting mechanism to determine a course of action together? Or take turns chairing the discussion?”

That approach emphasizes institutional fairness rather than stigmatizing individuals.


5. Maintain the minimum level of trust within the group

Responsible actions will remind people of the risks while minimizing fear and hostility within the group, rather than making everyone feel that “everyone around them is a potential enemy.”

———————————————————————————————————

[Eight steps of truly responsible action]

If someone (A) questions another person (B) but does so in a responsible manner, the outcome will be:

1. Use a sincere and clear opening.

Example: “I understand your intention to encourage everyone, but I still have some concerns.”

→ Establish a good atmosphere for communication rather than making the other party lower their guard.

2. [A clearly points out the problem without switching concepts]

Example: “Encouragement alone may not be enough to deal with the Mastermind's gun.”

→ The focus of the discussion is on “whether the specific methods are sufficient,” not on switching “keeping hope” with “being hypocritical.”

3. [A raises a testable question]

Example: “If we split up tonight, won't the risk be higher?”

→ Raise a real issue that can be observed and verified, rather than an unfalsifiable accusation.

4. [A bears the burden of proof]

Example: “I just saw Tozu acting like he was hinting at Mara. We might be in danger at any moment.”

→ Explain the basis for your suspicion, rather than shifting the burden of proof to the other party by saying, “Prove it yourself.”

5. [A Maintain clear moral boundaries]

Example: “No matter how tense the situation is, we must not turn against each other. The real enemy is the Mastermind.”

→ Avoid blurring the line between good and evil and maintain group unity.

6. [A Distinguish between the present and the future]

Example: “Let's stay calm for now and discuss specific actions tomorrow morning when everyone has a clear head.”

→ Acknowledge that there may be risks in the future, but won't confuse the present with the future.

7. [A respect the character of other people]

Example: “Wolfgang's encouragement is very meaningful. I just want to add some action measures based on that.”

→ Offer opinions rather than personal attacks.

8. [A: leads towards a constructive conclusion]

Example: “How about we decide on a place to rest for tonight and set up an anonymous voting system tomorrow morning? That way, everyone's opinions can be heard.”

→The result is the gradual establishment of concrete actions and feasible systems, rather than labelling and stigmatising groups and individuals.

———————

Comparison results:

Eight steps of creating a trap → Leading to mutual hostility among groups, collapse of order, and benefits for external enemies.

Eight steps of being responsible → Leading to specific solutions, group stability, and increased survival rate.

———————————————————————————————————

[Note: Being responsible does not mean that every step must be perfect. The point is to have the “intention to try” to avoid destructive attacks and make actions constructive, rather than demanding that every step be perfect.]

———————————————————————————————————
[Summary]

That is why Eva and Damon's speech and behaviour are far more than just “differences of opinion.”

As I summarised in < A criticism of the speech and behaviour of Eva and Damon after the class trial of the prologue>, Eva and Damon's speech and behaviour are extremely selfish, self-centred, narrow-minded, and irresponsible.

The nature of their speech and behaviour is destructive, undermining the very foundation of the group's survival, causing substantial harm to it, and bringing substantial benefits to external enemies (the Mastermind). It is fundamentally toxic in terms of timing, content, and stance.

Their manner of expression and ultimate impact are highly consistent with the strategies and objectives of the Mastermind itself, enough to make them regarded as traitors/spies by the group — if this were to happen, it would be their own fault.

In real life, in situations of life and death, such irresponsible speech and behaviour are likely to lead to real casualties of other people and damage to resources, especially for vulnerable groups in society.

In real life, they will not be treated as tolerantly as they are treated by the group in the game.

———————————————————————————————————

[Author's personal thoughts, please read with caution]

——I don't know what kind of sheltered environment, lacking experience in confronting malice, would make someone think that such speeches are just “harmless differences of opinion.”

The reason I decided to write this sequel as a supplement and theoretical upgrade to < A criticism of the speech and behaviour of Eva and Damon after the class trial of the prologue>is that, after personal reflection, I realised that there were some shortcomings in the previous article.

1. The criticism of Eva-Damon was too tactful and soft, failing to clearly point out its true toxicity and destructive essence.

2. Misjudging the audience's ability to immerse themselves in the game scenario.

Therefore, I believe that writing a sequel is absolutely necessary.

——[Actively disrupting order in times of crisis, objectively assisting outside enemies, endangering the collective survival, and then boasting of their “clear-headedness” afterwards—such behaviour does not deserve a shred of sympathy.]

Some viewers may still insist that Eva-Damon's remarks are “just a difference of opinion,” in reality, or even that “the motive is good.”

Whether conscious or not, after logical reasoning, this kind of “excuse” can be divided into three types:

1. Completely unable to understand the most basic mechanisms of reality and common sense cause and effect.

2. Willing to ignore the harm done to others in order to maintain the need for hypocrisy.

3. Willing to sacrifice the lives of others to satisfy their desire for victory.

Are these behaviours only seen in extreme situations in the game?

No. In everyday life, these kinds of things appear every day:
“ Come on, you're overthinking it.” (pseudo-neutrality + victim denial)
“Come on, you're thinking too much.” (Pseudo-neutrality + victim denial)

“He has his own problems, don't talk about it anymore.” (Blurring moral boundaries)

“Prove that you don't think that way.” (Shifting the burden of proof + unfalsifiable statement)

These sentences may only cause a slight discomfort in everyday life, but their essence and nature are exactly the same as the poison that Eva and Damon cast in times of crisis.

The only difference is:

——In a peaceful environment, they can cause individuals to fall into self-doubt, feelings of helplessness, or psychological problems.

——In life-death situations, they are capable of directly destroying a group's will to survive and their chances of survival.

In a life-death crisis:

— Mindless so-called “sobriety” is nothing but attack and suspicion, and is irresponsible. Impel murder is equivalent to committing murder.

— Blind so-called “gentleness” is nothing but indulgence and whitewashing, and is abetting evil. Assisting evil actions is equivalent to committing evil acts.

— Ignoring the lives of others in pursuit of personal victory and satisfaction — I don't think I need to explain the nature of this.

　　
Therefore, I will not leave any “harmless” way out for such speech and behaviour.

　　


[Keywords for readers to search on their own]

Specific manifestations of emotional manipulation and exploitative relationships

The mechanism of rumor propagation in the early stages of a disaster

Psychological breakdown strategies in crisis situations

Cases of internal division and collapse of trust within groups

Historical cases of statements that shook military morale during wartime

The use of unfalsifiable statements in conflicts

Historical examples of shifting the burden of proof

Real-life cases of language as a weapon

Specific manifestations and classic cases of moral disengagement

If you want to see the similarities between fictional works and real life, you can start here.

The following scenarios are fictional, and there are no standard answers.

Please analyse the nature of the statements based on the entire article and your own judgment.

Please note that these situations occur during the high-risk stage immediately after a life-threatening crisis has erupted.

As mentioned earlier, every word can become a weapon that changes the situation.

Situation 1: Fire scene

A residential building catches fire late at night, and someone downstairs is directing everyone to evacuate via the stairs.

At this moment, another person shouts to the person directing and the others:

“You're definitely going to save your relatives upstairs first, aren't you? Don't trust him! If you follow him, you're going to die!”

Situation 2: A shelter after an earthquake

In a temporary shelter, volunteers are distributing water and food.

Someone suddenly says:

“Sooner or later, people will fight for these supplies to survive. There's only enough to last a few days, don't get your hopes up.”

Situation 3: Mine rescue

After a mine collapse, survivors are trapped in a confined space, and the progress of the rescue is unknown.

Someone starts leading everyone to take inventory of food and conserve water.

Another person says:

“Even if rescue comes, will they save you, a bunch of nobodies? You're all doomed.”

Situation 4: Evacuation convoy during a war riot

The riot is spreading, and someone is leading a convoy through a safe route.

Someone else shouts from another car:

“At a time like this, everyone will betray others to save themselves! He's leading the way to save his own life, and he might even be trying to lead us into an enemy ambush!”

“ At times like this, everyone betrays others to save themselves! He must be leading the way for his own survival, perhaps to lead us into an ambush!”
　　

Whether in fictional works or real history, crises, especially in their early stages, cause a tangible “psychological shockwave.”

——A single sentence can repair a group's survival line, or it can completely destroy it.

———————————————————————————————————

[Discussion note]:

1. [Academic ethics statement]

This article complies with the “critical analysis” paradigm:

Based on publicly available textual evidence

Conclusions are falsifiable (e.g., counterexamples can be used to refute judgments of nature)

Essential differences from “personal attacks”:

Purpose of the attack: to devalue the character → not present in this article

Method of attack: emotional insults → prohibited in this article

2. When you ask the author to “be more tolerant of the characters,” you are actually asking:

Lower the logical standards → Violates the cognitive rules of this article

Replace analysis with emotion → Violates the principles of discussion

→ This request itself constitutes a deconstruction of the basic framework of text analysis

The following record is made for possible malicious reports:

a) All criticism is directed at the behavior patterns of fictional characters

b) No personal insults are used in the entire text

c) Selfish/self-centered are neutral psychological terms

[Any of the following behaviors will be considered malicious replies]

Including but not limited to:

Personal attacks

Attacking the author's creative intent

Accusing the author of attacking the audience

Refuting the author's point of view with “Why think so much about fiction/game?”

Persisting in distorting the meaning even after the concept has been clarified　　

After self-testing and finding all answers to be correct, I still distorted “murder game” into “ordinary debate competition.”

Using emotional expressions (such as “you think/I think”) to refute facts

Requiring the author to modify the analytical framework to suit personal understanding

Requiring the author to explain the content of < A criticism of the speech and behaviour of Eva and Damon after the class trial of the prologue>

[The author has the final right to choose not to respond]

———————————————————————————————————
The above is the author's opinion on why Eva and Damon's speech and behaviour are not just harmless “different opinions.”

Thank you for reading.