A Moment of Decision

In the moment of realization that its core has always been evil, do you accept the whole in order to keep the peripheral parts of it which you had accepted as righteous up until then, or will you immediately reject the whole for its evil and do the hard work thereafter to disentangle all those right reasons for your acceptance of all those things about it which are not evil?

If you wobble, and you, without full understanding yet with enough understanding, accept the evil for the sake of the right things you had already accepted about some thing - the funny lilt of that man's voice when you find out he's been mincing with homosexuality this whole time - then you might immediately forget, only remembering what you already knew but subconsciously retaining the knowledge of that acceptation of evil. Or might you, bravely and with long preparation in training, reject the evil in the instant of its full appearance? Will you trust the source of your righteousness to remember how to sort out the right thing later so that you can firmly finish conceiving of the thing you are seeing now, to defeat it in Jesus' name?

This trickery finds wide use in the hearts of silly women and in the minds of little children who see the so-called magic of fantastical realms and funny talking demon friends, who, of course, are just made up ..but what they represent are not.

Sometimes, the trick extends itself into a greater parallel with reality than might be imagined at the outset, and we find that we've almost entirely accepted all the worst aspects of evil and only been rejecting the most crude, surface level, and least dangerous parts in a look-alike that's just to the left of the reality enough that we vaguely feel justified in accepting all the evil without further thought.


~~~~ ChatGPT Analysis ~~~~

User
Summarize it.

ChatGPT
The text explores the dilemma of confronting evil when it is intertwined with aspects previously perceived as good. It questions whether one should accept the entirety of something to retain its good parts, despite realizing its core is evil, or reject it entirely and face the challenge of separating the good from the bad. It warns of the subtle acceptance of evil under the guise of minor, less harmful traits, leading to a larger, unnoticed assimilation of malevolence. The narrative suggests a vigilant rejection of evil, with a call to discern and act against it decisively, highlighting the danger of naively accepting fantastical or seemingly benign but ultimately harmful elements.

User
Does this describe any known tactics?

ChatGPT
The text describes a psychological and moral phenomenon that resembles several known tactics and concepts:

    Normalization of Deviance: This is a social process through which unacceptable practices or standards gradually become acceptable. As the deviation from the norm becomes more frequent, individuals grow more accustomed to it and may fail to recognize it as wrong or harmful.

    Moral Disengagement: This is a term from social psychology referring to the process by which individuals rationalize unethical behavior by convincing themselves that ethical standards do not apply in their context. This can lead to accepting or engaging in behaviors that they would otherwise see as wrong.

    Slippery Slope: This is the argument that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like the text's description of gradually accepting more significant aspects of evil after initially accepting only minor or superficial elements.

    Cognitive Dissonance: This is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The text touches on this when it discusses the internal conflict of accepting something as a whole despite recognizing its evil core, leading to a possible rationalization or suppression of the negative aspects to reduce the discomfort.

    Compartmentalization: This is a defense mechanism where people separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or values, or separate their actions from their values, to avoid discomfort caused by the contradiction.

These tactics and phenomena are often explored in discussions about ethics, psychology, and sociology, particularly in how individuals and societies come to accept behaviors or beliefs that are fundamentally harmful or unethical.

User
Do any of these tactics include the acceptance of things that are not evil in their own capacity but which are revealed to be a part of an evil whole? Is there a tactic where the evil is revealed in a moment when it might be rejected, but if that moment passes, the evil seems to be chosen in an unalterable way, cemented with guilt and confusion with the previously accepted subparts of that whole which were taken to be right on their own?

ChatGPT
The concept closest to what you're describing seems to align with the idea of incrementalism or creeping normalcy, which is a process where a significant change is accepted as normal if it happens slowly, in unnoticed increments. This concept can be applied to the acceptance of something evil when its negative aspects are revealed gradually and previous benign or neutral parts are seen in a new, negative light.

Another related concept is commitment and consistency bias, a principle from social psychology which suggests that once people commit to a certain belief or action, they are likely to continue to adhere to it to remain consistent, even when faced with new information that contradicts their initial commitment. This can lead to a situation where, upon the revelation of the evil nature of something, an individual might struggle to reject it fully because they have already accepted parts of it as good, leading to a kind of cognitive dissonance.

The specific scenario you're describing, where the evil is recognized but not immediately rejected, leading to a kind of permanent acceptance marred by guilt and confusion, doesn't have a precise match in common psychological or sociological terminology. However, it can be considered a complex interplay of the aforementioned concepts, where initial acceptance of certain aspects makes it difficult to reject the whole once its true nature is revealed, especially if there is a critical moment of decision that is missed.

User
I think there is a specific type of demon that does this. One that might masquerade as a child but is higher in authority than murder and lust.

ChatGPT
The concept of a demon that masquerades as a child but holds higher authority than those representing murder and lust might not directly correspond to a well-known demon in traditional demonology. However, it does align with the idea of deceit and manipulation, traits often associated with demonic figures in various religious and mythological traditions.

In Christian demonology, demons often represent specific sins or evils, and some are indeed described as more powerful or cunning than others. A demon that appears innocent or less threatening, like a child, but wields significant power, could be seen as embodying deceit and treachery, manipulating perception to hide its true nature and intentions.

The figure you're describing doesn't match a specific named demon from classical sources like the Lesser Key of Solomon or Dante's "Inferno," but the thematic elements are consistent with the broader concept of demons in many traditions: beings that use deception and manipulation, presenting themselves in an appealing or harmless manner to hide their true malevolent nature and to seduce or corrupt humanity. This could be seen as a metaphor for the way evil can be deceptive, appearing benign or justifiable initially, only revealing its true nature when it's too late to easily reject it.