Final Warning: Keep Your Damn Morals To Yourself

Simplest way to put this:

If someone thinks what you're advocating means they couldn't trust you if they knew you, then it's immoral to them.

If you are loyal to nobody, will betray when you need to, feel no empathy and you know of a guy who is just like you, you will think he is badass but you won't trust him. DTs don't trust DTs because they know themselves. To most people this lack of trust constitutes "immorality."

If someone can't trust you, you automatically become immoral to them (even if you help the environment.)

If you sound like you enjoy others pain, others rightfully assume you would enjoy their pain too, so they distrust you and then again, you're deemed immoral by that person.

Fuck ethics for a second, just go along with this basic premise: if you betray them, they think you're immoral. That's it. No elaborate codes or commandments, simply a "can they trust you?" question. No? What's that? You like fucking people's wives and they happen to be married or want to get married one day? Right, then they think you're immoral.

There's a reason these discussions are had ON THE INTERNET where you feel anonymous. Because in real life this shit would ruin your reputation. Why? Because people wouldn't trust you and that means they'd think you're immoral. Reputation is everything. And reputation is built on EXPERTISE and TRUST. If someone can't trust you, you're immoral to them. You could be the most cunning guy alive, if someone trusted you, they'd think your moral.

Sadism is deemed immoral by the vast majority. That's why when someone posts a thread saying "I fucked his wife and his sister and his mother and I laughed as he watched crying" you're wise to delete that just as much as you should delete the idiot questioning the morality of strategy (strategy is amoral - pointless to discuss it.) But when people tell stories, they don't hear strategy discussion, they hear something they relate to and they will inject their morals into that.

People can't and won't not inject their morals into stories. Even a psychopath does this, he'll think "why did he not just fuck the wife when she came over and flirted?" And then call the guy who doesn't fuck a married woman a faggot for not doing it. Most people judge you for being too sadistic, a psychopath judges you for being too altruistic (why do you care how this affects other people? It's good for you.)

If you don't delete the threads with guys talking about adultery, you will always get bro knighting. ALWAYS. Why? Because lots of people have empathy and they don't want to hear about how people who have little to no empathy will do whatever it takes to get what they want and don't give a shit about the consequences or collateral.

That will always wind people up. And if you start banning the empathic majority so the psychopathic minority can discuss optimal strategies, you're going to lose A LOT of people in the sub. I'm starting up a dark triad sub soon to discuss such things, but it's going to be private PRECISELY BECAUSE I know that kind of discussion isn't meant to be had out in the open, but with people who can cast morals to the side and speak PURELY ABOUT THE STRATEGY FOR THE SAKE OF REFINING IT. Regardless of my morals, I can do that. But this is not something most people can do, because their personality (usually religious morality) infects all their judgements.

IMO, ban the threads that sound overly sadistic and ban the threads that sound overly whiny and are all "should we really do this to people though?" and then you won't get any drama.

But when you let altruism or sadism shape any message, you're always going to have sadists call altruists ineffectual pussies, and altruists call sadists evil, demonic, or whatever. And that's a fucking shit show. That's what a lack of shared values does.