10 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2026
    1. He can see the darkness in you, and it’s in response to behavior he can be 100% sure is righteous. So any doubt he had about you is erased.

      Will says:

      Good summation. It simplifies the multi-step game theory to something quite get-able.

    2. unless some part of him suspects you’re not? That he might be harming someone who doesn’t deserve it?

      Will says:

      Maybe. Though I suspect mostly it’s that he fears the darkness in himself and to convince himself he is good, he must point to others who are more bad. Just like you wrote earlier.

      I agree (and fixed the wording a bit). The idea is that he fears that what he's doing is dark because you're redeemable / innocent. If you were just an object (like contempt says you are) then his behavior wouldn't feel dark.

    3. He was judging you from the very state he was judging you for.

      Will says:

      He’s not calling you going against your conscience, that’s the second stranger right? So not sure if this stands.

      My response: yes, he doesn't know he's doing it, but he's doing it. That's what makes this section so hard to write: we have to track that he knows that you knows that etc.

    4. You could tell he’s the kind of person who does this too—things he knows are wrong, while pretending they’re not.

      Will says:

      Might need to explain this a little. Like the kind of person who’s disingenuous, or unforgiving?

    5. Have you ever done something you knew was wrong at the time, but couldn’t fully admit to yourself until later?

      Will says:

      To be honest, no, I genuinely can't recall such an event. I think this needs to be softened to hook the reader. The “at the time” is the main problem here. Perhaps: have you ever done something you felt justified in doing at the time but it left a vaguely bad taste in your mouth for some reason