🐈

The "No Excuses" stance has always felt oddly mean. The intent feels a corrupted form of its specific pieces. One being that the victim narrative is unhealthy, and another being that picking up yourself after failure IS the path to success vs making excuses.

Why it feels "mean" is b/c it's a stance taken by a higher authority. Just saying it means that "I" preside over some event as judge judging against a static measure of quality.

The "real" intent behind "No Excuses" IMO is something like "'God' will forgive and accept as long as you are being true to yourself, even if everyone else is calling you a failure." It emphasizes the Ultimate Judge who judges WITHOUT an orthodox of quality.

In Robert Pirsig's terminology, it's sth like "Only God can _judge_ dynamic quality. Static quality can be _measured_ without God." OR that's "Good" vs that's an "A+, good job kiddo."

Why it feels mean is that both God and No Excuses Person are both NOT listening to what "you" have to say. This is virtuous in the God role b/c of the Perfect Mirror effect but corrupted when another PERSON is pretending to be the same quality of mirror.