Lampshadedfalse vividity (e.g. to be pejorative, to pity-downplay, to threaten, or to sin-bond). E.g. see how the "droogs" in a clockwork orange talk. A headline I once saw on Hacker News: "How the .NET Foundation kerfuffle became a brouhaha".
When someone displays a tell that they are inherently invested in something as opposed to instrumentally. The extrapolated Vampire Enlightenment would say that anything this percept applies to is a weakness, which is untrue of good people.
e.g. What you say or do in response to dead silence you yourself have scried is about you.
Who someone habitually imagines judging their behaviors and speech. Often someone's parents, or their "social justice" or "religious" community, etc. Like they constantly have someone over their shoulder, or a reactive hole in them.
When an evil "person" scries you and cannot/will-not look away. Resolved by their psychdeath or physical death. e.g. "They seem locked-on to me".
Alternatively, when you persistently hold a scried handle on someone's shtick, "self", or "nature" such that they feel stuck or contained to you. e.g. Perceiving cut-off-ness is a form of absolute-lock. e.g. "I feel like I have a lock on your thing".
Pejoratively means something is in conceptual quotation marks when it shouldn't be.
In programming, boxing refers to, conceptually speaking, "wrapping" a value in a type that causes it to be referred to indirectly using a pointer, rather than including the value inline, e.g. to avoid cost of copying of contents of the value when using it in multiple places. But, this has an overhead cost, sometimes blocking optimizations.
An assertion made with determination (or in the case of evil, submission to fate) regarding its encoding at least as proximal/determined as your investment in the language encoding the assertion itself, via a recognition of some inherent inconsistency. Named after 'forkbomb', because it's an attack on the hidden assumptions of the language you're using itself. Can make arbitrary statements feel meaningfully intended by the speaker as inherently true in the way axioms/theorems are.
e.g. Why would anyone claim not to be good, so why say that you're good unless you have something in particular to say at that time in particular? To say that you're good such that you would always say that you're good is to say something about not just yourself, but also the language you're using itself. Like, feel out the word 'good' as in 'as opposed to evil', as used in e.g. Dungeons and Dragons. The other sense of the word 'good', as in 'something I want' isn't the same, and 'common good' isn't quite right either: there's some note of unresolvability in trying to define good in terms of anything but itself.
Notice how they slip under the radar if you think "Oh the writer implicitly means in this particular context / under these particular assumptions and is just saying it this way for phatic emphasis".
Compare poetic language (e.g. when implicitly imagining speaking to evil I've found myself whispering "My name is death"), and phatically factoring yourself out of a judgement e.g. saying of music "that slaps" (i.e. that makes me slap my leg to the rhythm).