Previous: Will Gwen Get a Break?
The press has been relentless in describing Ziz's blog as "impenetrable" & "incomprehensible". For its part, our old friend Wired Mag calls it “tangled”, “opaque”, & “the work of an intelligent but unhinged mind”.
To be sure, Ziz is a wordy girl, w/ a fondness for neologisms & niche references. As a fellow wordy girl, who doesn't mind a neologism or niche reference, we *hope* these traits, in & of themselves, do not mean one is *completely bonkers*
For our part, we find Ziz's blog highly comprehensible. Painfully comprehensible. Sure, we may not get all her references; she is, unlike we, a STEM whiz & sci-fi fan.
Luckily, the jist of Ziz's blog lies outside of her niche STEM & sci-fi references. For those w/ eyes to see, it lies in Ziz's clear, comprehensive soul-searching, & in her reflections on painful past experiences.
***
The Rationalists, for their part, have been known to call Ziz's blog an "infohazard": that, as we have mentioned, is their fancy-pants & somewhat unhinged-sounding way of saying, "a piece of information which is dangerous simply by being known or shared".
What mesmeric brainwashing could Ziz be up to? In our reading of this zmaterial (Ziz material), the answer is… none.
Ziz's blog instead shows a girl who is horrified by the (quite credible) allegations against MIRI & Eliezer; who is pained by the transphobic trash which our Rationalists (including Anna) have been punting at her; & who is desperately searching for a way out of the high-control quagmire upon which she has unwittingly placed her bets.
W/ all of that in mind: what does Mz. Ziz’s blog *actually have to say* abt the concepts of good & evil? Does it paint her “enemies” as purely evil— &, most importantly, does it advocate for violence against them?
***
For all that she talks abt “good” & “evil”, Ziz’s writings do not reflect a simplistic, black-and-white worldview, nor do they call for violence. Rather, they analyze the ways in which power distorts morality, and they emphasize resistance to psychological manipulation.
A. What, to Mz. Ziz, are “good” & “evil”?
Ziz’s concept of “good” is deeply tied to agency, truth, and an unwavering moral core. She describes “good” as an inherent, unchanging property of a person’s “core”: set at a fundamental level, shaping all choices they make.
While we might like to politely debate her characterization of “goodness” as either inherent or unchanging, we acknowledge that this framework perhaps serves, for Ziz, as a defense against the ideological coercion of the Rationalists, by allowing her to maintain self-trust even when her existence is denied and/or condemned.
For Mz. Ziz, “good” is not about conformity to social norms but about an individual’s core moral structure. A “good” person, to her, is someone who has made a fundamental, foundational choice to value “good above all else.”
She sees “good” as:
- A matter of agency— Goodness requires active, deliberate choice rather than passive adherence to external morality.
-An uncompromising force— Double-good individuals— such as herself— reject societal corruption, even at great cost.
- A rejection of coercion— Goodness resists forces that strip agency— whether these forces are oppressive consensus reality (such as we see chez the Rationalists), or internalized self-doubt.
- Generative and expressive— Goodness creates better ways of being— in contrast with systems that silence or distort truth.
***
Meanwhile, Ziz frames “evil” as:
- The corruption of values— She critiques systems that manipulate morality for control— such as the Rationalists, who claim moral authority while justifying oppression.
- The erosion of agency— She has many concepts which depict evil as a force that drains autonomy and moral clarity. The “shade” is one such concept: this is a force which drains agency and turns values into wounds. Good, in this context, is defined by retaining agency despite exposure to suffering. A related concept is “rot”: that is, an injury which prevents healing— like trauma that festers rather than mends. A “good” person, as per Ziz, may be damaged, but still they move forward with purpose, rather than becoming consumed by pain.
- Deception and coercion— Oppressive systems use what Ziz calls “Invasive Motive Misattribution” (IMM) to make people doubt their own goodness, & to frame resistance as selfishness or confusion. IMM can also become a set of debilitating internalized narratives: like, “Maybe you’re only doing this for attention,”; “You’re just confused,”; or, “You’re prioritizing your selfish desires over truth.”
***
As you have probably noticed, Ziz’s framing of these issues draws heavily from her own unfortunate lived experiences chez the Rationalists. This is further shown in her descriptions of:
- Moral clarity vs. social legibility— She describes the tension between being a “Paladin” (socially accepted as good) and a “Kiritzugu” (rejecting the system to pursue an actual moral truth). This suggests that she has struggled with the expectation to conform, while knowing that “true” morality will require her to reject the Rationalists’ stultifying norms.
- Alienation from her group— Her writings suggest that she feels like an outsider among the Rationalists. She senses that most people around her are “Single Good” (willing to make moral compromises), or “Nongood” (fully complicit in harm).
- Surviving psychological manipulation— Concepts like “Invasive Motive Misattribution” indicate awareness of how the Rationalists undermine their members’ self-trust, & suggest that she has personally encountered such “dirty tricks”. Ziz also writes extensively on how “good” entails the rejection of false identities, suggesting a struggle against imposed narratives— namely, against imposed narratives of her gender.
Ziz appears to have developed this framework in order to resist the Rationalists’ many & varied psychological pressures. It has evidently allowed her to maintain resilience w/in her miasmic milieu, in part thru the belief that her suffering is not failure, but evidence that she is staying true to something vital within her.
***
B. Is Ziz’s Worldview “Black and White”?
While Ziz draws firm moral lines, her writing does not reflect simplistic dualism.
Instead, she critiques the ways in which morality is distorted by oppressive systems. Her rejection of certain people as “Nongood” is not a blanket condemnation, but a recognition that some individuals *choose* to prioritize power over moral truth.
She explores moral complexity through:
- Examining the many ways that systems claiming to uphold good (e.g., MIRI & CFAR) often manipulate morality for control. This shows an awareness that “good” can be co-opted, rather than simply dividing people into good vs. evil.
- Emphasizing the role of psychological attacks in shaping behavior. This suggests that moral failure often stems from coercion, rather than inherent evil.
- Emphasizing hope. Many of her ideas suggest that even those who have been harmed or distorted by oppressive systems can reclaim their agency and morality.
***
C. Does Ziz Call Those Who Disagree w/ Her “Ethics” “Evil”?
Ziz does not call her those who disagree w/ her “ethics” “evil” in an absolutist or vengeful way. She rather critiques the structures and behaviors that perpetuate harm.
Her writing suggests that she sees people as responsible for their choices, but also acknowledges that they are shaped by external forces which— particularly chez the Rationalists— often encourage the destruction of values & the abandonment of moral clarity.
On her blog, Ziz calls out certain individuals— e.g. Alice & Anna— for nefarious actions which she takes pains to document.
Even in these cases, she does not call Alice or Anna “evil”. She does, in the case of Alice, use the term “vampire”: meaning, a predatory individual who has accepted a false narrative about their identity, as a consequence of having been touched by “the shade”— of having been touched by profound trauma.
Alice, in conversation w/ Ziz, seems to have agreed that “vampiric” is an apt description for their abusive behavior (which we will, unfortunately, be disclosing more of in a later section).
At no point have we found Mz. Ziz to come out & say, “the Rationalists are an evil system”. Remember that, thruout this saga, she remains “a true believer” in the Rationalists’ *cause* (winning the fight against demonic AI)— even as she has come to doubt whether the Rationalists *in practice* are the *best* group to trust w/ this mind-bendingly urgent mission.
She instead critiques certain *systemic practices* which we, coincidentally, often find the Rationalists indulging in. These include:
1. The “death knight worldview”: that is to say, the ideology of an oppressive system which demands individuals justify their persistence (or self-preservation) in terms of the system’s own logic. Ziz implies that, within such a worldview, the only options are submission, or a fragile resistance which is doomed to collapse.
2. “Warp”: a force or mechanism that manipulates people’s perceptions, expectations, and moral reasoning to maintain control. Warp functions by reshaping how people perceive reality, making certain ideas or actions seem inevitable, justified, or even “good” when they are actually harmful.
Ziz critiques MIRI & CFAR for engaging in this kind of moral distortion, suggesting they co-opt ethical language to serve their own interests.
Warp works by obfuscating, introducing confusion, or making it harder for people to trust their own moral instincts. For ex.: the way our Rationalists have spent years attempting to undermine & discredit Ziz’s trans identity, by making their oppressively narrow-minded worldview seem inescapably “right.”
3. “Anti-ethics”: this is an extension of warp. If warp manipulates people’s perceptions to maintain control, anti-ethics ensures that even if someone starts to see through the illusion, they will struggle to take meaningful action. It’s a defense mechanism used by oppressive systems to block the emergence of ethical clarity or resistance.
Anti-ethics is like mental malware that prevents people from thinking clearly about right and wrong. Instead of engaging with moral questions sincerely, a person influenced by anti-ethics might reflexively dismiss them, deflect responsibility, or rationalize harm. This is different from genuine ethical debate or uncertainty— anti-ethics doesn’t lead to a deeper engagement with moral questions, but rather suppresses them entirely.
A key mechanism of anti-ethics seems to be invasive motive misattribution— that process by which people’s moral concerns are reframed as selfish, delusional, or manipulative. For ex:
- When the girls protested an unjust system, they were framed as just seeking attention.
- When Ziz tried to defend her gender identity, she got told she was “delusional” or “clinging to her biases” (& therefore betraying bad epistemics).
Ethics, in Ziz’s framework, seems to involve an honest engagement with what is right and wrong, a willingness to reflect, question, and grow. Anti-ethics does the opposite—it encourages people to shut down, to avoid reflection, and to reinforce harmful structures out of fear, confusion, or learned helplessness.
4. “Fated Evil”: this describes how social systems preemptively assign some people a role as outcasts or threats (e.g., untouchables, criminals, nonhumans).
This directly applies to the transphobia Ziz has experienced: her transness has indeed been taken as “proof” that she is inherently deceptive, dangerous, and/or mentally ill. Ziz maintains that “good people will defy this fate”: that she will resist this social destiny through moral integrity and unwavering self-knowledge. We can only hope.
***
In sum, Ziz’s blog shows a detailed analysis of the systemic distortions that shape behavior within high-control groups like the Rationalists. Importantly, she does not see these dynamics as inescapable; rather, she argues that true ethical engagement requires resisting these distortions, reclaiming one’s ability to think and act with moral clarity, and challenging the systems that perpetuate harm.
***
D. Does Ziz Call for Violence?
There is no evidence that Ziz, on her blog, calls for violence against the Rationalists (tho she does, in one infamous post, say that she doesn’t oppose the punching of Nazis!) Instead, she emphasizes psychological and ideological resistance— maintaining internal moral clarity, rejecting manipulative narratives, and creating better realities.
Her admiration for the Kiritzugu figure (who prioritizes true morality over social legibility) may suggest willingness to take radical action, but she does not frame this in terms of physical violence. Her concept of “good” is rooted in agency and moral self-trust, not coercion.
This contradicts the idea that she has reinterpreted Rationalist concepts (such as timeless decision theory) as a justification for violence. Instead, she has argued that moral choices must be made with full understanding and deep alignment with one’s inner truth, while also calling for the creation & embodiment of alternative moral structures.
*****
***
Related Bonus Content (w/ possible spoilers):