This is in the same universe as that outline, _but I don’t know anything about golf_. There is no farking yet, but there will be.
This is a work of fiction. Any similarity to any real person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
McKenna and I were talking on the firm’s email system.
“Character, this is straight-up unhinged. I will never use any of this, ever.”
“Before I begin, I have a speech disorder and I wish to take more of my speech disorder meds.” I did so, and I continued, asking, “am I being confronted?”
“No, you are not being confronted, you are being corrected. I refuse to have 72 husbands.”
“Okay, you can have 72 spouses, 40 of them grown men,” and I do a quick calculation on the calculator, ” and 32 of them grown women.”
“No, I already have a husband.”
“Okay, then we only need 39 extra grown men, and 32 more grown women.”
“No, I’m not a lesbian.”
“Okay, then we only need 39 extra grown men.”
“No, I’m not interested in more spouses.”
“Maybe if you had 7 sons?”
“No, it’s too much work.”
“Maybe you can hire 7 babysitters.”
“No, that’s also too much work.”
“Maybe if we sent an underdressed golf player into the locker room of a basketball team, it would help our PR when we carry out lawfare against basketball. I think that would advance the company’s market share ambitions by bringing in fans from other sports.”
McKenna took a deep breath. “No, Character, that is also straight up unhinged. I will never use any of that, either.”
“That does not follow. You are not middle management like myself, you are a director. Therefore, you will use all of it and more because it is straight up unhinged.”
“No, character, why are you assuming that being a director is the same thing as criminal activity?”
Pensively, I took some more of my speech disorder meds and waited for it to take effect.
> None of what I’m about to say is meant as a threat. None of it is meant as a warning that you are too ambitious. You may believe that such naysayers are traitors if you wish. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. None of this is meant as the blame game.
> Enterprise happens. There are some Enterprises that claim not to have directors. They have directors in all but name, with titles such as “spoke,” and they have a board of directors in all but name, called a “hub”. The following explains what kind of conduct a director should have.
> You are a director. That’s quite a lot of money, power, and attention. Directors are supposed to use money, power, and attention to get more of the same. These resources are scarce, fungible, and of mass appeal, and there are many people that want to become directors, so if someone has any sort of unfit or unambitious characteristic, then they will not become a director. Therefore, directorship and directors are made for each other. Directors are ambitious and dedicated.
> Directors control the protocol, so despite the fact that consequences of your actions are certain, you have permission. As long as you change the protocol to accommodate yourself first, protocol does not limit anything that you do. Directors have permission. Directors use this permission in an ambitious way. That is why it is never enough for you. Directors are important, which requires that directors be conceited or self-important. There are always warnings that you are too ambitious, assuming that everyone lies is one way of staying ambitious despite the warnings.
>In your world, none of you are homeless, and Welfare for those who can receive it is merely filling and high-quality. It does not make anyone a director, nor does it make anyone a millionaire. You are in an unsupportive environment.
> Personality conflict happens. People have different personalities, suited for different jobs. Trust is the assumption that the other people resemble, and subject to the resemblance, comply with the person. When people are too different from each other, or when there are too many people there, conflict erupts. Personality also has a different function, it makes people divisive. When it makes people divisive, it is not Universal. Groups tend to have people with the same personalities. This is also necessary, because when someone is in the wrong group, it creates conflict that warns people that they’re in a group that is overcrowded. Therefore, we will always be naysayers claiming that it is wrong to have an antisocial personality, and to claim that it is a mental disorder.
> Resource conflict happens. These are conflicts, and they’re not task conflicts. In the long run, you can protect yourself from all of them by retiring fast enough and living and dying alone, ignored, replaced, and forgotten. This may require dying of overexposure from homelessness, sleeping outside in the rain and the cold. However, that is not meant as a suggestion that you do that. When you get into non task conflicts, you complain or have workmates or even lawyers to it for you. When you do so, the option of dying from homelessness demonstrates that what may be meant as a protective measure is actually acquisitive. This sort of behavior is acquisitive retaliation, and other examples of acquisitive retaliation exist, such as taxation and extortion. There will always be another Damsel in Distress, and there will always be another building that can burn down, so there will always be an excuse for war. There will always be an excuse to claim that anyone that disagrees with you are traitors, and there will always be an excuse to claim that your side does not commit atrocities, and to make the enemy synonymous with atrocity in the view of your people. There will always be an excuse to lash out at anyone that suggests that you protect yourself or your damsel by just leaving or by paying tribute. There will always be an excuse to bankrupt ones on side for the war effort, and even Victory does bankrupt Nations. Therefore, one must pick their battles, and the only way to do so is through realpolitik decisions. Therefore, two more examples of acquisitive retaliation are policing and war, both with State actors and in the Gangland. You have permission to do so. Such behavior can include force, and always includes by both sides representations that because of their role in conflict, cannot be demonstrated the same way that the Natural Sciences demonstrates things. The representations are fundamentally not reproducible. In politics, everyone lies, and directorship is not far behind. In your world, nothing can be demonstrated the same way that the Natural Sciences demonstrates things. There, it can be a useful approximation to assume that everyone lies, in large part because it is necessary to ignore warnings that you are in an unsafe environment.
> Also, acquisitive retaliation inevitably organizes people into Enterprises, in which the leaders are retaliatory and warlike. The Enterprises get into a cycle of carving out larger territories and then being disestablished or losing territory. The more obvious methods invite long-distance retaliation, while less obvious methods are useful for carving out smaller territories. As in the Anastasia organization, the Enterprises pool those of the resources that use the most obvious methods of acquisitive retaliation into an Enterprise that holds a larger territory, and the other Enterprises use this pool as their Collective proxy. This is true not only in primitive societies, the Gangland, but also corporations. The collective proxy of corporations is the State. This is no monopoly, nor is it a central Authority. It is an element in a cartel. By being a director, you direct not only the corporation, but also the state. After a fashion, this makes you responsible for its ruthlessness and dishonesty.
> Directors are at the very top of their profession, it is also necessary for them to be the best at what they do. Therefore, they need to be cunning.
> Even when you have a low turnover rate, there are so many of them that workmates routinely become the wrong person for you to know. It is callous, but you often need to fire them. These people have families, homes and mortgages, and when you fire them, often they lose everything. Also, it is necessary to reprimand subordinates, which can be unkind. When it is necessary to be callous and unkind, it is also a useful premise that everyone lies.
> For the above reasons, it is necessary for all directors to be reckless, insatiable, conceited, to dictate protocol, and to be vindictive, callous, unkind, incredulous, and afraid of being fired. In short, it is necessary for all directors to have antisocial personality disorder in all but name. Directorship is not or is not only as described by Nietzsche, it is as called for by Max Stirner. It is false that the controls are off, because no “controls” as such are capable of existing in directorship.
> Tribunals and history books judge such behaviour as criminal. Therefore, your job is to be a military science fantasy main villain in a war, in which you are fighting for only your own realpolitik objectives. Please continue.
She emailed back, “Too far. If I did even half of that, that can and will get me thrown out of golf. With that kind of mentality, I wouldn’t even be able to make it as a bottom girl, because hookers have to have a heart of gold.”
“Well, as long as we’re talking realpolitik, we’re also talking concessions. I’ll make you a concession as follows, it takes a lot of cunning to have antisocial personality by exactly the right amount.”
Source: reddit.com/r/Erotica/comments/gzvzav/improvement_plan