This sounds to me kind of like saying Jesus Christ will literally come back to Earth as a ghost for the rapture in 2012. I wouldn't put my money on people not just using the government to make something else happen.

People already wanted to distrust technology; there are plenty of personally fulfilling narrative roles people would gain from simply attempting the ordinary governmental intervention efforts humans have always tended to. I'm not saying it will be competently executed but it would probably be at least as good as internet- and automation-assisted feudalism.

I'd distinguish 'imparting information that happens to induce guilt' from 'guilting', based on intent to cooperatively inform vs. psychologically attack.

Mhm, and in practice no one who accuses of guilt tripping actually cares about that distinction; if someone is being made to look bad then they basically never wonder if it's right. I'm not objecting to the 'guilt-tripping' framing for no reason; it's a thought-terminating cliche in 99.99% of cases where it's used.

[reading what I actually wrote here] ... And anyways 'inducing guilt' is what the most relevant informing-act looks like; if you're doing something wrong then you don't necessarily change it without attending to the exact details which would induce guilt. I never even said anything about 'guilting'; OP explicitly discouraged a correct thing to do without even mentioning 'guilting'.

In a well-founded marriage, spouses don’t try to induce internal conflict within their partner (e.g. shaming or guilting them) to win fights.

So I would expect that giving others a list of true information which connotes their relevant wrongness in some way on some topic (and may thereby induce guilt especially when the problem is explicitly stated) is not well-founded, according to you. Under well-founded environments, those with the advantage of existing unchallenged multi-prejudiced ideology would never be held accountable to their mistakes because all conscientious objectors can just be made into annoying squares.

Even worse, you contend that the opposite is to be "coherent" "like North Korea" "because everyone listens to the same person". So in your option model there's just no position corresponding to being virtuously willing to contend with guilt as a fair emergent consequence of hearing carefully considered and selected information.

Strong downvoted for not just saying what you're really thinking to the person you have a criticism about which is almost definitely wrong.

Still I guess there should be a word for being mean to one or a few guys in particular against one's stated principles without an objectively justifying explanation. I would like it to be something else. Especially because your example does not involve predictable scapegoat targeting to match the way that this phenomenon happens in real life.

well, there are positive-sum games. also, it may turn out that acquiring power is more complicated, in an almost fundamentally benevolent way, than grabbing an object from someone else and pulling in hard with your arms; people don't like ceding power to individuals who seem myopically selfish.

This exchange reveals a pervasive mechanism: pseudo-principality—the selective application of principles based solely on whether they advance one's concealed interests while maintaining a facade of consistent ethical behavior.

While your analysis may fairly apply to the example you have constructed, in practice, it is important to be strategic about intrinsic value, people do not often have the framing of intrinsic value strategicism readily in mind to make their behavior explicitly consistent about, and all shortly specified principles which are not about being strategic about intrinsic value will tend to lead a person away from that — can be followed myopically.

So while it may be extremely unpleasant to not understand the behavior of an inconsistent advice-applier, especially one who chooses outcomes which have any amount (no matter if it's the option where the unpleasantness is most mitigated) of unpleasantness, inconsistency may be the only option for someone who wants to be good and not just predictably bad and doesn't have the framing available to them of strategicism of intrinsic value. 

I agree that it is better to have principles-enough with some sad exceptions than to be a predictable nihilist.

This reframes the act as a legitimate inquiry into whether stated principles hold up across relevant situations. We can reserve "whataboutism" specifically for bad-faith distractions. When someone earnestly

Bolding mine. Not that you'd be definitely myopic or definitely self-privileging upon close examination, but this is a lot of buck-passing ("passing the buck") going on here.

I propose we adopt a more neutral and accurate term: Principle Consistency Challenge (PCC). This reframes the act as a legitimate inquiry into whether stated principles hold up across relevant situations.

... When someone earnestly asks, "Why does this principle apply here but not there?", that question deserves respect and engagement, not ridicule. ¹

I love that; thank you.

Context Inflation: Excessive appeals to "unique circumstances" to justify inconsistency, especially when those circumstances conveniently align with self-interest.

If your model failed to account for vast sections of reality then it failed to account; that is simply sufficient cause for update, and not sufficient cause for incurring a reputation of not really meaning the good-when-universal features of one's given advice that they really meant, though I agree that one should not remain wrong in light of definite exceptions, and changing one's model may be seen as humbling.

This pervasiveness raises a provocative question: If economists try to estimate the percentage of counterfeit currency in circulation, what percentage of publicly stated principles are functionally "counterfeit"—applied selectively for gain?

Most principles should be applied selectively 'for gain' when comparing their total application across a multiverse of conceivable conditions, instead of given all the say in the outcomes all the time. Beauty should make room for Freedom, and if any person is deprived too severely of the former then maybe the latter should even make room for the former too, in some intelligently implemented way and not in just any way.

• girl prety
• personal desire to be worthy of being an example vindicating the hope that good guys can 'get the girl'; giving up on one means nothing will ever stay and doom is eternal

this is clearly polemical satire and not true, and I cannot readily infer about you a spirit of curiosity about the subject of the satire, so I will downvote, in an attempt of assistance of the spirit of LessWrong; nothing personal & i hope you fare well on this site generally :)