Three Men Walk Into A Bar

Many women who grow up in communities that overtly disrespect, diminish, and belittle females will take on these attitudes and perceptions against their own sex as well. Even put themselves down, and buy into negative stereotypes about how ditzy, weak, and incompetent they are.
 (Haha, that's so funny... look at that dumb bitch... who does she think she is...look at her, trying to be all tough... look at her, thinking she's so smart...)

That's how strong the instinct is for human beings to fit in.

A person who grows up in a community where discrimination, bias, and prejudice has been normalized will often take on those biases and prejudices themselves, even if and when they're against their own race, sex, body type, or racial features, and even when they're against members of their own family.

To belong, to fit in, and to be liked and accepted by those around them means adapting to whatever the group around them does, says, thinks is funny, thinks is important, and believes. To stand up for "what's right" usually means getting rejected or attacked by the rest of the group.

So if the Status Quo in a certain community is bias against Hispanics, then anyone, including non-Hispanics, who stand up against it or who refuse to participate will be REJECTED by the group.

If the Status Quo in a certain community is bias FOR males and AGAINST females, then jokes that are disrespectful to men and boys are taken with great offense, and jokes that are disrespectful to women and girls are "hilarious".
The budget for the schools and community will be imbalanced in favor of activities, business, recreation and opportunities for males, and if anyone point it out, or even brings it up, they will be REJECTED by the group.

If the Status Quo in a certain community is bias against certain Caucasian ancestry or racial features (like Italians, or Irish, etc.) then EVERYONE "has to" go along with the bias and racism, including those who are of the ancestry, and even if that bias means they LOSE education, career, business and housing. Anyone who stands up against the bias will be REJECTED by the "group", with malice, because fitting in with the group, no matter how ridiculous and blatant the bias is, is more important to them than real values and doing what's right.

Whatever the Status Quo of the community is, that's what everyone who wants to fit in will adapt, and will NOT stand up against, no matter how ridiculously and blatantly wrong it is. Those who are USING the community's obvious bias to make MONEY for themselves will always instigate and perpetuate the local prejudices, and be the first ones to try to insult and belittle anyone who stands up against it, or who refuses to go along with it.

This is the basis for the "big picture" of Narcissism.

If there is prejudice and bias in a given community, organization, business, or other group, either sexist, racist, or any other "ist", you can bet that there is Narcissism and corruption underneath. They need the group bias to keep control and power.


 

Turning On Those Who Support Him

A person who turns on you when you're nice to them, when you are supportive of them, OR when you seek support FROM them is reacting negatively to specific things:
support and connection.

They seem to react when you seek their support, and they also seem to react negatively when you give them support, whether it's right away or soon after.
The common denominator is "Support".

They might perceive support itself as a threat, possibly an attempt to control them or dominate them, or as a way to show superiority, elitism, authority, or entitlement.

(They might have had a narcissist or two in their childhood who disguised control as support, or humiliated them when they either gave support to others, or sought it for themselves.)

Therefore, it's not possible to have a mutually supportive relationship with them, which means one can not have a "real" peer-relationship with them at all. Every time you seek support from them, they turn on you; every time you show support for them, they turn on you... There's not much left in the way of personal connection.

You might be able to work with them, do some activities with them, as long as it was kept on a less personal, more formal level. But intimacy or even close friendship might not be possible, since both require mutual, genuine, and open supportiveness.

One such experience a person related about this was when he inherited a rather large sum of money, and he offered to give his best friend some of it, especially in light of his friend's immediate hardships that he seemed very depressed and anxious over. Instead of his friend accepting the money gratefully or even refusing it politely, his friend reacted with disdain and disparaging comments about the man's money-sense, and then started giving him financial advice. Of course the man was shocked and hurt by his friend's very rude reaction.

After a while it became clear that the "friendship" had been based on some kind of "leader and sidekick" scenario that his friend held regarding the two of them, and when the "sidekick" friend ended up with more money, the scenario didn't hold water anymore, and so his "best friend" turned on him. HE had to be the one who was supportive and who knew "better", and the arrival of the money exposed the agenda, which the "sidekick" man was completely unaware of (but had been confused about for years).

The "support" and "advice" that the man's "best friend" had been giving him all these years had just been a display of control and ego. And now he understood WHY, when he ASKED for help and support, his "best friend" would either be suddenly too busy, or too broke, or too sick to help.

And he also understood finally why his "best friend" would somehow avoid and turn down any direct support he offered to contribute, even volunteering to repair a damaged section of a kitchen wall, or volunteering to babysit his kids.

The "best friend" had to be IN CHARGE of ALL "support" between them, and if he wasn't the one INITIATING IT, he would shut it down somehow, or completely take over so he would end up being the one 'in charge'.

Because it was never about actual, genuine "SUPPORT" or mutual connection, it was about control, power, and "status".

Hating People Who Hate

People who act rebellious against hatred, but also act hateful toward other people who don't FIT IN with their crowd at the same time, are apparently in some kind of mental and emotional boomerang pattern.
If they seem interesting and you want to connect with them, then "Proceed With Caution", or don't "proceed" at all, just keep a safe distance.
People who are in this boomerang state are often still reacting to trauma, unfairness, abuse, neglect, injustice from their own past, or from a shared cultural "story" (true or fictional, or both) that has been passed down. Staying in a state of reaction is not healing, but it does often provide a sense of personal power and independence from controllers, which is important for human beings. Keeping one's "self" and one's dignity intact is a positive; on the negative side, being a part of a group that's in a reactive state means that one is expected to abide by the group's mental and emotional tone, and the group's political and social agenda. (Which means if you don't act, sound, or look like you belong to that group, and if you don't go along with whoever the "leaders" are, you get attacked or ostracized.)

A lot of people stay in a state of reaction because they found a sense of personal power when they reached that point and/or found that group; a sense of belonging, a sense of getting respect and fair treatment, and a sense of independence, maybe for the first time in their lives. These are things that humans need to feel "real" and "effective", so it makes sense that a person would feel comfortable and want to stay in a group or state of being where they feel those things.

And for many, they have found like-minded people who "GET" them, who SEE things they see that others don't. Real and valid things about the world and about other people. They may also feel a sense of purpose and sense of mission, depending on the group and their own perception, which are also things that human beings tend to need and want as a matter of normal mental and emotional health.

So they're getting positive and normal benefits for their emotional and mental health, but they're also getting negative effects from belonging to a group where everyone has to fit in and go along with the group, or get rejected and attacked.
So whatever the "leader" types in the group say, do, and expect from others, the whole group follows in order to avoid tension and rejection, and ALSO to keep the sense of flow, cohesion, and solidarity.

Disagreement is seen as personal insult and attack;
not participating in an activity is seen as dissent, insult, or not being cool, or not being "smart", or not being "real". (ironically).

This can always be seen in various "Political" groups, in both the very large and the very small. If you don't agree with them completely and go along with their party line, agenda, and candidates, they will say that it's because you "don't get it", because you're "not one of them", because you are (pick any combination) : .... stupid, ignorant, too privileged, too poor, the wrong race, the wrong sex, the wrong religion, too non-religious, too religious, too tall, too fat, too short, too skinny, too high on drugs, too sober, too little education, too much education... from the wrong side of the tracks... too ugly, too pretty...

ANYTHING to paint you, the disagreeing person, as "NOT ONE OF THEM", and therefore "BAD" and "WRONG", in order to AVOID actually talking about whatever it is that your disagreement is about.

Being in a reactive state means a person is already reactive before anything even happens, before anyone even talks, like a wound up rubber band. So a group of people who are in reactive states can be dangerous in more ways than one, because they will often gang up on anyone who they see as refusing to go along with their agenda.

(Their agenda, no matter what it is. A reactive group might be PRO abortion, for example, or ANTI abortion, and anyone who disagrees with their EXACT agenda and line will probably be ganged up on, REGARDLESS of how courteous, considerate, kind, and fair they are, or if they have very important points that they genuinely want to discuss politely and objectively.
Because~ for the reactive group, it's not really about being Pro-abortion or Anti-abortion, it's about power, self-righteousness, and belonging to a group, all of which help a human being to feel "real", effective, and part of the world.
If it was REALLY about abortion, they would be open and willing to discuss it without hostility, defensiveness, bullying, or emotional displays, because it would be about information sharing and exploring other points of view, which are REQUIRED when trying to find real solutions or objective "truths" about anything....   Whether I believe in electricity or not, it exists; that's "truth". If I don't LIKE electricity and I don't want to talk about it with YOU because you don't agree with me, and I only want to talk to other people who don't like electricity, that's emotional reaction; it's got nothing to do with "objective truth" regarding electricity.)  

HEALING from this is just a matter of becoming more self-aware, other-aware, and developing and healing one's own boundaries. People who act rebellious against hatred, but also act hateful toward other people who don't FIT IN with their crowd at the same time, are apparently in some kind of mental and emotional boomerang pattern.
If they seem interesting and you want to connect with them, then "Proceed With Caution", or don't "proceed" at all, just keep a safe distance.

Rage And Narcissistic Injury Vs. Anger About Disrespect

"Narcissistic Injury" rage vs. standing up for one's self with an emotional expression, in simplified analogy:

This can be seen in real life if one goes to a Poker tournament or a Chess tournament, especially where the stakes are very low and the "prize" is just winning the game, not money or another significant award.

The player who suffers humiliation because he or she did not WIN the game, and goes into a rage (either a quiet, seething rage or an obvious ranting rage), is experiencing Narcissist Injury. He or she is perceiving an injury to the ego-identity as The One Who Is The Best At Chess or Poker, or The One Who Always Wins, or He/She Who Is Unbeatable, or Smartest One, or Most Skilled in the room. They are humiliated to be seen as being beaten, as losing, as not the winner.
They mentally place labels and titles on themselves and on others, so when those labels and titles are upturned, they are thoroughly humiliated, embarrassed, and angry, which they react to with rage.

Standing up for one's self would be more like showing annoyance or anger (not rage) that an opponent is cheating, or that an opponent is not playing by the rules, or that an opponent is trying to use personal attack in order to bully other players and cause them to lose focus (like sexist or racist remarks, insults about a person's family, or trying to insult a person's body, looks, or personality).

When one actually rages in self-defense regarding things such as another person cheating, bullying, threatening, or making personal insults, it may be from PTSD.
Those with Narcissism may also rage for these reasons, but they are more likely to rage in reaction to being caught or called out about doing one of them.

Psychology, Diagnoses, and NPD vs. BPD

It may help conceptually to think of "NPD" as more ego, power, and arrogance about intellect, ability, entitlement, and privilege, compared to thinking of "BPD" as more about emotion, social interaction, feelings about fairness and righteousness, and resentment. They can be seen in the same person, however BPD (borderline personality disorder) was "discovered" as a cluster of behaviors that seemed to show up together, hence the name "borderline"... the origin of the behaviors was not understood, it kind of seemed like this or that, like it was in between, so (for real) it was called "borderline", as in being on the "borderline" between different apparent disorders or illnesses.

Psychiatry and psychology are practiced theoretically. If a person's "condition" has not been tested medically and found to have a specific biological origin, then it's not being treated as a biological health problem. It's being viewed and treated theoretically as a psychological issue. In other words, not medical and organic, but more abstract.

As one psychiatric nurse in a well-known psychiatric hospital said,
"If you went to six different psychiatrists here you would probably get six different diagnoses."

Psychiatric diagnoses are not engraved in stone, they are theoretical. Neurological conditions are investigated biologically, as in looking at the brain to see if it there is disease or injury. If there has not been given a neurological diagnosis, then the client is being diagnosed and treated theoretically. It LOOKS LIKE bipolar, so here's a prescription, let's see if it works, and how well. It LOOKS LIKE BPD, so here's a prescription, let's see if it works.
It LOOKS LIKE depression. It LOOKS LIKE schizophrenia. It shows the signs and symptoms of what we have been saying is this certain condition, so we'll treat it as such.
When a person is given a psychiatric diagnosis, it's not the same as a medical diagnosis. And further, the amount of medical misdiagnoses that occur should give an indication about how it can occur, and how often, with a psychiatric diagnosis. These things need to be carried out with humility and the understanding that it's theoretical (on the medical practitioner's part AND the patient's part, and also the people in the patient's life), until it's proven scientifically with accuracy. Like a blood test for a specific chemical, for example.

All health care practitioners are human beings who have limited amounts of information, and limited ways of obtaining information. They are not gods, and should not be expected to perform like gods, to know everything, to be perfect like a god. Expectations like that (from both people as patients and individuals in the medical community) cause a lot more problems than solutions. On one side of the coin, a practitioner who sees themselves as above others is prone to make errors in judgment about colleagues, patients, and medical science or theory, because arrogance does not double-check itself. On the other side of this coin, a patient can have confidence in one's health care practitioner, because they have seen their ability for themselves, without expecting them to be perfect and omnipotent.