Narcissists Are Limited
Typically there are certain things that a person who has Narcissism literally can not do.
Depending on the individual, these things can and may or may not include:
Compulsion and reaction control. A person who has Narcissism often has poor compulsion and emotional reaction control, but so do many non-Narcissists. The difference is that a non-N. can admit it, even if it takes a while, and can see it for what it is. A Narcissist will usually rationalize, defend, and try to justify any and all behaviors, no matter what they are.
Tell the difference between one's own opinions, feelings, bias, beliefs, and point of view, and objective reality. Narcissists typically think that if they believe something is so, then it actually IS "so".
"The rose is beautiful" or "Roses are ugly" is the same to them as "The rose is red" or "The rose is a flower".
Think logically and calmly, without prejudice, resentment, emotion or histrionics clouding their thoughts.
Depending on the individual, empathy. People who have Narcissism may be able to empathize, but their interpretations of the feelings and experiences of others are often way off, and are frequently more like assumptions based in a biased "picture" of the other person.
Understand respect and boundaries. Those who are Narcissistic typically feel entitled to all kinds of liberties, indignities, possession and control over others, and the closer a person is to them, the more they tend to feel entitled to disrespect, invade, boss, and criticize them.
Understand that gender roles and other types of character roles are made-up, or why they would be made up. It's common for Narcissists to embrace any kind of bias against either sex, and instead of questioning biases, stereotypes and prejudices, defend them adamantly.
Understand why triangulation, playing favorites, gossip and backstabbing is destructive or wrong.
Understand why manipulation is wrong.
Understand why micromanaging and criticizing another person is wrong.
Comprehend simple and straightforward communication.
Understand what the big deal is about being respectful, considerate, or compassionate toward other people.
Comprehend the difference between "respect" and "fear", or "respect" and "adulation", or "respect" and "hero-worship", or "respect" and "sexual attraction".
Understand the difference between a romantic relationship and a solely sexual relationship.
Comprehend that there is no "natural human hierarchy" based on a person's social "power", or lack thereof. Chimpanzees of course still have hierarchies, but they are a primitive species in a primitive environment.
Reciprocate normal, every-day mutual exchange in relationships.
Follow someone else's lead (whom they don't designate as a "Leader Type" person).
Assist another person without condescension: trying to give lots of advice, or trying to take control.
Understand why humans need positive interaction with other humans.
Refrain from lying when they feel even slightly "backed into a corner".
Refrain from blaming other people for anything and everything.
Understand why mentoring and kindness to girls and boys is so important, or why it's important to NEVER reject or ostracize a child.
"Connect" with another human being on a genuine level; all connections must be modified to fit the N's comfort, expectations, and ego.
Depending on the individual, these things can and may or may not include:
Compulsion and reaction control. A person who has Narcissism often has poor compulsion and emotional reaction control, but so do many non-Narcissists. The difference is that a non-N. can admit it, even if it takes a while, and can see it for what it is. A Narcissist will usually rationalize, defend, and try to justify any and all behaviors, no matter what they are.
Tell the difference between one's own opinions, feelings, bias, beliefs, and point of view, and objective reality. Narcissists typically think that if they believe something is so, then it actually IS "so".
"The rose is beautiful" or "Roses are ugly" is the same to them as "The rose is red" or "The rose is a flower".
Think logically and calmly, without prejudice, resentment, emotion or histrionics clouding their thoughts.
Depending on the individual, empathy. People who have Narcissism may be able to empathize, but their interpretations of the feelings and experiences of others are often way off, and are frequently more like assumptions based in a biased "picture" of the other person.
Understand respect and boundaries. Those who are Narcissistic typically feel entitled to all kinds of liberties, indignities, possession and control over others, and the closer a person is to them, the more they tend to feel entitled to disrespect, invade, boss, and criticize them.
Understand that gender roles and other types of character roles are made-up, or why they would be made up. It's common for Narcissists to embrace any kind of bias against either sex, and instead of questioning biases, stereotypes and prejudices, defend them adamantly.
Understand why triangulation, playing favorites, gossip and backstabbing is destructive or wrong.
Understand why manipulation is wrong.
Understand why micromanaging and criticizing another person is wrong.
Comprehend simple and straightforward communication.
Understand what the big deal is about being respectful, considerate, or compassionate toward other people.
Comprehend the difference between "respect" and "fear", or "respect" and "adulation", or "respect" and "hero-worship", or "respect" and "sexual attraction".
Understand the difference between a romantic relationship and a solely sexual relationship.
Comprehend that there is no "natural human hierarchy" based on a person's social "power", or lack thereof. Chimpanzees of course still have hierarchies, but they are a primitive species in a primitive environment.
Reciprocate normal, every-day mutual exchange in relationships.
Follow someone else's lead (whom they don't designate as a "Leader Type" person).
Assist another person without condescension: trying to give lots of advice, or trying to take control.
Understand why humans need positive interaction with other humans.
Refrain from lying when they feel even slightly "backed into a corner".
Refrain from blaming other people for anything and everything.
Understand why mentoring and kindness to girls and boys is so important, or why it's important to NEVER reject or ostracize a child.
"Connect" with another human being on a genuine level; all connections must be modified to fit the N's comfort, expectations, and ego.
GUN CONTROL? CAR CONTROL! Right To Bear Arms And Drive Cars Vs. Gun Nuts And Bad Drivers
Of course you'd be "anti-gun" if you've never been exposed to what responsible and normal gun ownership looks like.
If the only gun ownership you've ever seen is either in the news or on Crime shows, or by people around you who only own guns because they think it makes them cool or tough, then that's what you might think gun ownership is about.
That's not what the "right to bear arms" is talking about, not at all.
The right to bear arms is talking about RESPONSIBLE citizens having a right to bear arms. Like your very sane and responsible grandparents (or maybe someone else's.) It's not about people who think guns are toys, or use them for crimes, or use them as status symbols or to scare other people.
Those people should NOT own guns, but they're usually the ones who want them the most.
Just like CARS and MOTORCYCLES and other power-engine vehicles.
That's like saying you can't own a car because so many people drive them like idiots, literally killing other people on the road with them every single day, and using them to commit all manner of crimes.
YOU don't drive like an idiot, and YOU'RE not a criminal, so you should keep your license and your car. I don't think you're going to smash into me with your car, or drive through my house, or use your car to rob a bank, transport drugs, or traffic human slaves.
So since you're not using it for CRIME or to hurt people (like other people do), you should keep your license and your car.
It's not really a RIGHT to own a car, like the right to bear arms; it's a privilege, but it's your right to own property, and it's your right even if I don't LIKE you having a car because I think it's dangerous for you to have one.
Do you weave in and out of traffic, drive fast, ride other cars' bumpers, bring aggression and hostility to the road, act like you "own" the road, think you're the "best driver" on the road, endanger other people, ignore traffic laws, cut people off, or use your vehicle for criminal behavior?
If you said "yes" to any of the above, I want you off the road, you're a direct danger to all the other people on the road, as sure as you're pointing a loaded gun but saying "Oh I'm not really gonna shoot it."
I'm personally much more terrified of people who drive cars on the same road as me than most of the people I know who own guns.
An irresponsible owner of either one is a danger to everyone around them.
Who's with me for CAR CONTROL?
NOT joking.
If you're taking Gun Control seriously, then you should take Car Control a lot more seriously.
A LOT MORE violent criminals own cars and endanger others with them every day than own guns.
It's not even a "Right", and it should already be regulated much more strictly than it is.
The only reason it's NOT is because those who like to regulate and control things don't want to have restrictions put on THEM about irresponsible vehicle usage and ownership.
If the only gun ownership you've ever seen is either in the news or on Crime shows, or by people around you who only own guns because they think it makes them cool or tough, then that's what you might think gun ownership is about.
That's not what the "right to bear arms" is talking about, not at all.
The right to bear arms is talking about RESPONSIBLE citizens having a right to bear arms. Like your very sane and responsible grandparents (or maybe someone else's.) It's not about people who think guns are toys, or use them for crimes, or use them as status symbols or to scare other people.
Those people should NOT own guns, but they're usually the ones who want them the most.
Just like CARS and MOTORCYCLES and other power-engine vehicles.
That's like saying you can't own a car because so many people drive them like idiots, literally killing other people on the road with them every single day, and using them to commit all manner of crimes.
YOU don't drive like an idiot, and YOU'RE not a criminal, so you should keep your license and your car. I don't think you're going to smash into me with your car, or drive through my house, or use your car to rob a bank, transport drugs, or traffic human slaves.
So since you're not using it for CRIME or to hurt people (like other people do), you should keep your license and your car.
It's not really a RIGHT to own a car, like the right to bear arms; it's a privilege, but it's your right to own property, and it's your right even if I don't LIKE you having a car because I think it's dangerous for you to have one.
Do you weave in and out of traffic, drive fast, ride other cars' bumpers, bring aggression and hostility to the road, act like you "own" the road, think you're the "best driver" on the road, endanger other people, ignore traffic laws, cut people off, or use your vehicle for criminal behavior?
If you said "yes" to any of the above, I want you off the road, you're a direct danger to all the other people on the road, as sure as you're pointing a loaded gun but saying "Oh I'm not really gonna shoot it."
I'm personally much more terrified of people who drive cars on the same road as me than most of the people I know who own guns.
An irresponsible owner of either one is a danger to everyone around them.
Who's with me for CAR CONTROL?
NOT joking.
If you're taking Gun Control seriously, then you should take Car Control a lot more seriously.
A LOT MORE violent criminals own cars and endanger others with them every day than own guns.
It's not even a "Right", and it should already be regulated much more strictly than it is.
The only reason it's NOT is because those who like to regulate and control things don't want to have restrictions put on THEM about irresponsible vehicle usage and ownership.
Why The World Is Screwed Up... And Why It Always Has Been
The world is screwed up because Humans generally are extremely dramatic, very over-confident, don't know how to separate their intellect and actions from their emotions, desire control, power, attention and recognition (praise), tend toward narcissism (caring about one's gain, comfort, and control over the well-being of others), and are just not very bright altogether.
That's all there is.
It's not complicated.
Destruction is obviously stupid, hostility and aggression belong in a cage not walking around on the street or in homes or in government or business, killing other humans in order to gain territory, or for any other excuse is obviously stupid and sick, enslaving other humans is idiotic, cruel and sick, rape shouldn't even exist, abusing other humans whether they're children or adults is obviously sick and twisted, extortion is obviously narcissistic, manipulation is obviously wrong, gossip and slander and libel are obviously wrong for a multitude of reasons, and yet humans do ALL THESE THINGS ALL THE TIME to other people.
NOT EVERYONE DOES THESE THINGS, but more than will admit to it, and still others will even defend these behaviors and actions, like there's nothing wrong with them.
Find people who have inner integrity if you want a real friend or someone genuine to talk to who doesn't have agendas or prejudices against whatever you are (sex, race, height, color, nationality etc etc), they're few and far between but they're worth looking and waiting for.
That's all there is.
It's not complicated.
Destruction is obviously stupid, hostility and aggression belong in a cage not walking around on the street or in homes or in government or business, killing other humans in order to gain territory, or for any other excuse is obviously stupid and sick, enslaving other humans is idiotic, cruel and sick, rape shouldn't even exist, abusing other humans whether they're children or adults is obviously sick and twisted, extortion is obviously narcissistic, manipulation is obviously wrong, gossip and slander and libel are obviously wrong for a multitude of reasons, and yet humans do ALL THESE THINGS ALL THE TIME to other people.
NOT EVERYONE DOES THESE THINGS, but more than will admit to it, and still others will even defend these behaviors and actions, like there's nothing wrong with them.
Find people who have inner integrity if you want a real friend or someone genuine to talk to who doesn't have agendas or prejudices against whatever you are (sex, race, height, color, nationality etc etc), they're few and far between but they're worth looking and waiting for.
Making One's Self An Obstacle: Narcissism
Narcissist
behavior that can also be found in immature adults who don't really
have the disorder, or otherwise mentally/emotionally ill people:
~Making it difficult for a person to get even simple tasks done:
creating extra steps, extra obstacles, extra hardship, extra drama, and even giving wrong or incomplete information or instruction.
~Inserting themselves in between a person and their goal, so the person has to go through them to get what they need or reach their goal. Making themselves an obstacle.
~Then projecting blame onto the person for not being able to get the task done, not getting it done quickly, or not doing what they need to in order to get past the extra obstacles.
~Getting angry at the person when they don't follow wrong information or instructions, or when they get past the extra obstacles, or when they get the task done another way.
~Projecting negative judgments on the person for being insistent that the N. does their job, or does it correctly, or stops putting obstacles in their way, or treats them with respect, or leaves them alone so they can do it properly.
Unfortunately there seems to be more and more people in the workforce and government who behave this way. Making one's self an obstacle is a common form of control, and it's also a way to be "involved" with other people, get attention, and create an image of "importance" for one's self. It's also a way to make money, or to collect a paycheck; making one's self a "middle man".
~If I can just go to the shed and get my lawnmower, I don't "need" someone to get it FOR me.
If I know how to check the oil and fill the tank, I don't need someone to do that FOR me.
If I can go get the oil and gas myself, I don't need someone to get it FOR me.
And that means someone else will NOT have the opportunity to give me wrong information about any of those things so when they're not around, I won't be able to do it myself.
Nor will they have control over any of those things, so they won't be able to keep any of them from me when I need them.
But if they can make themselves a "middle man" between me and my lawnmower, then they have all kinds of control over the lawnmower and my use of the lawnmower, and WHEN I can use it, and they're likely to tell me how and then try to charge me for that advice. And they can easily collect some sort of price from me either directly or in a hidden way because they know I need the lawnmower. I might just give up and pay them to mow the lawn altogether just to avoid the stress.
~Making it difficult for a person to get even simple tasks done:
creating extra steps, extra obstacles, extra hardship, extra drama, and even giving wrong or incomplete information or instruction.
~Inserting themselves in between a person and their goal, so the person has to go through them to get what they need or reach their goal. Making themselves an obstacle.
~Then projecting blame onto the person for not being able to get the task done, not getting it done quickly, or not doing what they need to in order to get past the extra obstacles.
~Getting angry at the person when they don't follow wrong information or instructions, or when they get past the extra obstacles, or when they get the task done another way.
~Projecting negative judgments on the person for being insistent that the N. does their job, or does it correctly, or stops putting obstacles in their way, or treats them with respect, or leaves them alone so they can do it properly.
Unfortunately there seems to be more and more people in the workforce and government who behave this way. Making one's self an obstacle is a common form of control, and it's also a way to be "involved" with other people, get attention, and create an image of "importance" for one's self. It's also a way to make money, or to collect a paycheck; making one's self a "middle man".
~If I can just go to the shed and get my lawnmower, I don't "need" someone to get it FOR me.
If I know how to check the oil and fill the tank, I don't need someone to do that FOR me.
If I can go get the oil and gas myself, I don't need someone to get it FOR me.
And that means someone else will NOT have the opportunity to give me wrong information about any of those things so when they're not around, I won't be able to do it myself.
Nor will they have control over any of those things, so they won't be able to keep any of them from me when I need them.
But if they can make themselves a "middle man" between me and my lawnmower, then they have all kinds of control over the lawnmower and my use of the lawnmower, and WHEN I can use it, and they're likely to tell me how and then try to charge me for that advice. And they can easily collect some sort of price from me either directly or in a hidden way because they know I need the lawnmower. I might just give up and pay them to mow the lawn altogether just to avoid the stress.
Scolders, Condescenders, Judgers And Advisors
A LOT of people in the current culture have developed a social habit of finding fault with others and judging them, and then feeling entitled to shake their finger at them, criticize them, give them unsolicited "advice", make all kinds of belittling assumptions about them, condescend to them and treat them like a lesser being.
It seems to exacerbate the growing Narcissistic culture by leaps and bounds, but it's not a new human behavior. It's been around for centuries, and always shows up in cultures that have both wealth and turmoil.
This behavior appears to be learned from older generations when they are disciplining youth, but it seems to get misinterpreted and exaggerated when mis-learned by youngsters as a social dominance weapon.
~~~
FOR EXAMPLE: Little Gerald sees Grandmother shaking her finger at his sister Margaret, scolding her for wearing her play clothes to school.
Instead of Gerald interpreting this scene as a lesson for himself and his sister about wearing certain clothing for certain things, what he takes away from it is:
"Scolding" is a way to make another person feel smaller.
"Scolding" is a way to dominate another person.
Margaret is a person who he might get away with doing this to, because Grandma had done it to her.
Margaret is a girl, therefore "Scolding" might be a way to dominate girls, not sure about boys.
"Scolding" others is a way to BE one of the 'authority people' like Grandma.
So Gerald DOES try it on Margaret, and gets away with it, in other words he doesn't get disciplined by adults for it.
It made him feel good even though Margaret didn't take him seriously, and now he thinks he can automatically be one of the adults, or an "authority person" just by SCOLDING other people.
Gerald needs to have an EXCUSE to SCOLD other people so he can get the feeling he likes, so he watches and learns how.
He finds out that SOME people get scolded MORE than others for no real reason, and if he picks on them, no one will stop him. Even better (for him), they might LIKE IT that he's doing it to that particular person, because everyone seems to be trying to put this person down for some reason.
He also learns how to CREATE EXCUSES to SCOLD other people by finding "flaws" in their behavior, their appearance, their choices, their friends, their pets, their car, their job, their skills, their opinions, their preferences, their diet, their pets, their children, their interests...or any mistakes they might have made, or by simply just making things up out of THIN AIR.
Gerald mostly only responds to people in order to counter them, criticize them, or give them "advice" which he likes to call "tough love" (because it's always oppositional, condescending, and sarcastic, and usually completely irrelevant.)
Gerald learned from some other "Scolders" along the way that saying things like "I call it like I see it" or "That's the way the cookie crumbles" or "I don't sugar coat" makes him sound like he's being "truthful" or "wise" for some reason, diverting and covering up what he's really doing (bullying).
Gerald's main motive is just to get that feeling of being one of the "authority people" like Grandma, and like his parents, teachers, and coach, and like the owner of the store his parents shop at, and like some other adult relatives, and like the parents of some of his friends. He also would like to be an "authority person" like some of the people on TV and in movies.
As Gerald gets older, he notices that some men do this "scolding" to women, so he takes a try at it himself. He tries it often just to see how far he can go, and if anyone will stop him. He learns that some women actually seem to respond to him as if he really IS an "authority person", just because of the way he treats them (poorly, disrespectfully), and that some men like him and think he's "cool" because of this behavior.
He also discovers that some people see what he's trying to do, so he avoids them or tries to make them go away somehow. He knows he doesn't LIKE people who don't think he's some kind of naturally privileged "authority person" who deserves "extra respect".
(Ironically... Gerald meets a woman he's attracted to who has also become a "Scolder", "Advisor", and "Condescender"... and falls madly in love because she looks like a movie star he had a crush on in second grade... they scold one another into the sunset, and luckily never have any children before they end up pulling one another over a cliff, arguing about who's FAULT it was, all the way to the bottom.)
It seems to exacerbate the growing Narcissistic culture by leaps and bounds, but it's not a new human behavior. It's been around for centuries, and always shows up in cultures that have both wealth and turmoil.
This behavior appears to be learned from older generations when they are disciplining youth, but it seems to get misinterpreted and exaggerated when mis-learned by youngsters as a social dominance weapon.
~~~
FOR EXAMPLE: Little Gerald sees Grandmother shaking her finger at his sister Margaret, scolding her for wearing her play clothes to school.
Instead of Gerald interpreting this scene as a lesson for himself and his sister about wearing certain clothing for certain things, what he takes away from it is:
"Scolding" is a way to make another person feel smaller.
"Scolding" is a way to dominate another person.
Margaret is a person who he might get away with doing this to, because Grandma had done it to her.
Margaret is a girl, therefore "Scolding" might be a way to dominate girls, not sure about boys.
"Scolding" others is a way to BE one of the 'authority people' like Grandma.
So Gerald DOES try it on Margaret, and gets away with it, in other words he doesn't get disciplined by adults for it.
It made him feel good even though Margaret didn't take him seriously, and now he thinks he can automatically be one of the adults, or an "authority person" just by SCOLDING other people.
Gerald needs to have an EXCUSE to SCOLD other people so he can get the feeling he likes, so he watches and learns how.
He finds out that SOME people get scolded MORE than others for no real reason, and if he picks on them, no one will stop him. Even better (for him), they might LIKE IT that he's doing it to that particular person, because everyone seems to be trying to put this person down for some reason.
He also learns how to CREATE EXCUSES to SCOLD other people by finding "flaws" in their behavior, their appearance, their choices, their friends, their pets, their car, their job, their skills, their opinions, their preferences, their diet, their pets, their children, their interests...or any mistakes they might have made, or by simply just making things up out of THIN AIR.
Gerald mostly only responds to people in order to counter them, criticize them, or give them "advice" which he likes to call "tough love" (because it's always oppositional, condescending, and sarcastic, and usually completely irrelevant.)
Gerald learned from some other "Scolders" along the way that saying things like "I call it like I see it" or "That's the way the cookie crumbles" or "I don't sugar coat" makes him sound like he's being "truthful" or "wise" for some reason, diverting and covering up what he's really doing (bullying).
Gerald's main motive is just to get that feeling of being one of the "authority people" like Grandma, and like his parents, teachers, and coach, and like the owner of the store his parents shop at, and like some other adult relatives, and like the parents of some of his friends. He also would like to be an "authority person" like some of the people on TV and in movies.
As Gerald gets older, he notices that some men do this "scolding" to women, so he takes a try at it himself. He tries it often just to see how far he can go, and if anyone will stop him. He learns that some women actually seem to respond to him as if he really IS an "authority person", just because of the way he treats them (poorly, disrespectfully), and that some men like him and think he's "cool" because of this behavior.
He also discovers that some people see what he's trying to do, so he avoids them or tries to make them go away somehow. He knows he doesn't LIKE people who don't think he's some kind of naturally privileged "authority person" who deserves "extra respect".
(Ironically... Gerald meets a woman he's attracted to who has also become a "Scolder", "Advisor", and "Condescender"... and falls madly in love because she looks like a movie star he had a crush on in second grade... they scold one another into the sunset, and luckily never have any children before they end up pulling one another over a cliff, arguing about who's FAULT it was, all the way to the bottom.)
Narcissists, Sociopaths, And Animals
Red flag for Narcissism and psychopathy:
How a person perceives and treats animals. Narcissists who are not sociopaths often treat animals like objects that they own, either doting on them as extensions of themselves, badges of importance, or status possessions, or projecting all kinds of personal motives, agendas, weaknesses, and emotions on them, and treating them like scapegoats or punching bags. Narcissists often "despise" certain kinds of animals but "greatly prefer" others, and believe that their preferences represent objective fact ("I can't stand cats because cats ARE annoying..." not "I find myself annoyed when I'm around cats".)
They are often dramatic about both their favoritism for certain animals and their disdain for other specific animals.
Sociopaths with Narcissism are on a spectrum, obviously with depravity being on the severe end, but on the more common end, they will have seem to have no qualms about an animal getting hurt or killed, even if it's someone's pet. Even if it's their own pet. They see animals more as things that happen to move and eat on their own, not so much "living creatures". This includes larger or smaller living things, from whales to brine shrimp and everything in between.
Many Narcissists and especially sociopath N's see animals as being in competition with them for dominance, territory, importance, resources, or attention, admiration, or affection from other people. This can be either on a larger scale such as "in the wild", or on a personal scale such as in the home.
Many also see animals as simply a resource for their own gain, such as animals they hunt for their fur.
One must understand that there is literally an absence of "empathy" in their brain, and a lack of cognitive ability as well. They CAN'T comprehend natural balances and cycles intellectually on a scientific basis, nor are they able to feel or understand the preciousness of life itself on either a scientific or a spiritual basis.
They also often project their own emotions and motives onto animals that they hunt, (Moby Dick), OR see them as being completely devoid of anything that resembles a "self", and therefore use that as validation for hurting or killing them.
It's not "Narcissism" or "Psychosis" for humans to eat meat, biologically humans are omnivores and require very large amounts of calories just for the huge brain function alone, it's not abnormal for humans to eat meat. What IS NOT normal is not having care or respect for animals that are killed for food, nor caring about the numbers of animals that are killed, or the way they are killed.
It's also not "normal" to kill or eat animals that are pets or types of pets in a given culture, or to harm animals that another person does not want harmed. That's about dominance and contempt toward other humans by way of harming animals they care about.
Narcissists whether they're pet owners or caretakers often opt to "put an animal down" INSTEAD OF something else when they have a problem with an animal; this is about control, dominance, and possession.
It's also not "normal" to harm animals that are known to have higher intelligence; that's about severe dominance, control, and narcissism.
Obviously harming animals (or humans) just for the sake of harming them is NEVER, EVER "normal". Many human children do this during childhood, but non-sociopaths learn that it's wrong, and why, and most of them learn it on their own after they've harmed an animal or insects. By the time a child reaches puberty he or she should know internally why harming for the sake of harming is wrong.
Several species have been completely wiped out by groups of humans led by Narcissists and sociopaths throughout human history, and it still happens today.
How a person perceives and treats animals. Narcissists who are not sociopaths often treat animals like objects that they own, either doting on them as extensions of themselves, badges of importance, or status possessions, or projecting all kinds of personal motives, agendas, weaknesses, and emotions on them, and treating them like scapegoats or punching bags. Narcissists often "despise" certain kinds of animals but "greatly prefer" others, and believe that their preferences represent objective fact ("I can't stand cats because cats ARE annoying..." not "I find myself annoyed when I'm around cats".)
They are often dramatic about both their favoritism for certain animals and their disdain for other specific animals.
Sociopaths with Narcissism are on a spectrum, obviously with depravity being on the severe end, but on the more common end, they will have seem to have no qualms about an animal getting hurt or killed, even if it's someone's pet. Even if it's their own pet. They see animals more as things that happen to move and eat on their own, not so much "living creatures". This includes larger or smaller living things, from whales to brine shrimp and everything in between.
Many Narcissists and especially sociopath N's see animals as being in competition with them for dominance, territory, importance, resources, or attention, admiration, or affection from other people. This can be either on a larger scale such as "in the wild", or on a personal scale such as in the home.
Many also see animals as simply a resource for their own gain, such as animals they hunt for their fur.
One must understand that there is literally an absence of "empathy" in their brain, and a lack of cognitive ability as well. They CAN'T comprehend natural balances and cycles intellectually on a scientific basis, nor are they able to feel or understand the preciousness of life itself on either a scientific or a spiritual basis.
They also often project their own emotions and motives onto animals that they hunt, (Moby Dick), OR see them as being completely devoid of anything that resembles a "self", and therefore use that as validation for hurting or killing them.
It's not "Narcissism" or "Psychosis" for humans to eat meat, biologically humans are omnivores and require very large amounts of calories just for the huge brain function alone, it's not abnormal for humans to eat meat. What IS NOT normal is not having care or respect for animals that are killed for food, nor caring about the numbers of animals that are killed, or the way they are killed.
It's also not "normal" to kill or eat animals that are pets or types of pets in a given culture, or to harm animals that another person does not want harmed. That's about dominance and contempt toward other humans by way of harming animals they care about.
Narcissists whether they're pet owners or caretakers often opt to "put an animal down" INSTEAD OF something else when they have a problem with an animal; this is about control, dominance, and possession.
It's also not "normal" to harm animals that are known to have higher intelligence; that's about severe dominance, control, and narcissism.
Obviously harming animals (or humans) just for the sake of harming them is NEVER, EVER "normal". Many human children do this during childhood, but non-sociopaths learn that it's wrong, and why, and most of them learn it on their own after they've harmed an animal or insects. By the time a child reaches puberty he or she should know internally why harming for the sake of harming is wrong.
Several species have been completely wiped out by groups of humans led by Narcissists and sociopaths throughout human history, and it still happens today.
"Right Wing" "Left Wing" You Don't Know What You're Talking About
Republicans are NOT "Right Wing"...
hellooo... there's a REASON for the term.
Democrats are NOT "Left Wing" either...
They mean DIFFERENT THINGS.
You can be a CONSERVATIVE DEM. or a CONSERVATIVE REP.
You can have so-called "Left" ideals and be a Republican Conservative.
You can call yourself "Liberal" but not REALLY be one, because you have zero interest in hearing anyone's point of view that's not the same as YOURS.
You can be a Democrat and be an utterly bigoted racist, sexist, elitist moron who only cares about themselves, job security, and getting a PAYCHECK or benefits for yourself. That's as far from "left" as you can get.
~
Most people don't GET THIS, because they turn everything into a BELIEF instead of doing objective, non-dramatic, non-histrionic thinking, observation, and information gathering.
~~~
Here's a HILARIOUS COMPLETE IDIOCRACY FOR YOU:
MOST PEOPLE think CHRISTIANS are "Right Wing".
But if JESUS was HERE NOW, he would NOT be a Democrat, OR a Republican.
He would not be EITHER ONE, he would have CONSERVATIVE AND (so-called) LEFT "ideals".
NOT "communism", NOT 'right wing", NOT "Socialism" NOT "Male Superiority", NONE OF THAT.
He would not be talking about anything within the parameters of ANY Political party, or anyone else's politics, or even anyone's established religion.
Which is why they crucified him, by the way. He didn't fit in any of their categories, groups, hierarchies, stereotypes or cliques, and he talked about respecting and caring about fellow human beings, about LIFE, and about objective integrity and real ethics, regardless of a person's POLITICS, SEX, ANCESTRY, WEALTH, POVERTY, or BELIEFS.
They hated him then because he wouldn't go along with their silly prejudices and established, MADE UP "rules" for who's "important" and who's not, and if he was here now, they would HATE HIM NOW.
Especially if no one knew WHO he was.
Humans have always been obsessed with FAME, so if a person isn't "known" or popular, they must not be "anyone important"...
And especially if he was here in a different body other than a 30ish, average height, "normal" looking young man.
If he had started his ministry at an earlier age, they would have killed him quicker.
If he was short, they would have killed him quicker.
If he was a completely different race than the regional population, they would have killed him quicker.
They did try when he was born.
If he was a girl they would have tried even harder, wiping out ALL girl children, not just first born.
If he was a woman then, or showed up as a woman now, they'd try to crucify him in a week, it wouldn't take three years. That's about stupidity and bigotry, not about actual intrinsic worth of males vs. females.
Actually if he was a female back then, he wouldn't have made it to adulthood.
JESUS WAS NOT "RIGHT WING".
Not even close.
NOR was he a "Democrat" or a "Socialist" or a "Male Supremacist" or a "Female Supremacist" or a "White, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Middle Eastern, Asian, or any other kind of Supremacist",
(That's frankly asinine, if God made people, he made them all, and loves them all equally, just like you would love all of your kids even if a couple of them screwed up severely. It doesn't mean you allow your kids to get away with anything, it means you love them. You already know they're going to screw up if you have a working brain in your head. How severely they mess up is not subject to whether you love them or not. Unless of course you're a Narcissist, and your kids have to be perfect in YOUR eyes in order for you to "love" them, and you would choose a FAVORITE, and make another a SCAPEGOAT.).
hellooo... there's a REASON for the term.
Democrats are NOT "Left Wing" either...
They mean DIFFERENT THINGS.
You can be a CONSERVATIVE DEM. or a CONSERVATIVE REP.
You can have so-called "Left" ideals and be a Republican Conservative.
You can call yourself "Liberal" but not REALLY be one, because you have zero interest in hearing anyone's point of view that's not the same as YOURS.
You can be a Democrat and be an utterly bigoted racist, sexist, elitist moron who only cares about themselves, job security, and getting a PAYCHECK or benefits for yourself. That's as far from "left" as you can get.
~
Most people don't GET THIS, because they turn everything into a BELIEF instead of doing objective, non-dramatic, non-histrionic thinking, observation, and information gathering.
~~~
Here's a HILARIOUS COMPLETE IDIOCRACY FOR YOU:
MOST PEOPLE think CHRISTIANS are "Right Wing".
But if JESUS was HERE NOW, he would NOT be a Democrat, OR a Republican.
He would not be EITHER ONE, he would have CONSERVATIVE AND (so-called) LEFT "ideals".
NOT "communism", NOT 'right wing", NOT "Socialism" NOT "Male Superiority", NONE OF THAT.
He would not be talking about anything within the parameters of ANY Political party, or anyone else's politics, or even anyone's established religion.
Which is why they crucified him, by the way. He didn't fit in any of their categories, groups, hierarchies, stereotypes or cliques, and he talked about respecting and caring about fellow human beings, about LIFE, and about objective integrity and real ethics, regardless of a person's POLITICS, SEX, ANCESTRY, WEALTH, POVERTY, or BELIEFS.
They hated him then because he wouldn't go along with their silly prejudices and established, MADE UP "rules" for who's "important" and who's not, and if he was here now, they would HATE HIM NOW.
Especially if no one knew WHO he was.
Humans have always been obsessed with FAME, so if a person isn't "known" or popular, they must not be "anyone important"...
And especially if he was here in a different body other than a 30ish, average height, "normal" looking young man.
If he had started his ministry at an earlier age, they would have killed him quicker.
If he was short, they would have killed him quicker.
If he was a completely different race than the regional population, they would have killed him quicker.
They did try when he was born.
If he was a girl they would have tried even harder, wiping out ALL girl children, not just first born.
If he was a woman then, or showed up as a woman now, they'd try to crucify him in a week, it wouldn't take three years. That's about stupidity and bigotry, not about actual intrinsic worth of males vs. females.
Actually if he was a female back then, he wouldn't have made it to adulthood.
JESUS WAS NOT "RIGHT WING".
Not even close.
NOR was he a "Democrat" or a "Socialist" or a "Male Supremacist" or a "Female Supremacist" or a "White, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Middle Eastern, Asian, or any other kind of Supremacist",
(That's frankly asinine, if God made people, he made them all, and loves them all equally, just like you would love all of your kids even if a couple of them screwed up severely. It doesn't mean you allow your kids to get away with anything, it means you love them. You already know they're going to screw up if you have a working brain in your head. How severely they mess up is not subject to whether you love them or not. Unless of course you're a Narcissist, and your kids have to be perfect in YOUR eyes in order for you to "love" them, and you would choose a FAVORITE, and make another a SCAPEGOAT.).
Narcissists With Family Members Or Friends With "Special Needs"
It's common for a person with Narcissism to make one or more people in their family group, work group, or other groups into "special needs" people, as if they are "mentally weak" or "unstable".
This gives them someone to compare themselves to so they can feel like they're always on the side of "sane" or "strong".
Also, if I have someone to label as "crazy" or "hysterical", or "hypersensitive", I have a ready excuse for all kinds of things I want to get out of or avoid, and an excuse to "treat myself" (it's so stressful dealing with so and so), and an easy way to get sympathy from other people.
What if the person is really "crazy"?
Well if the person talking about the "crazy person" is an emotionally mature person, and not Narcissistic, he or she would be genuinely compassionate toward the person and take care to treat them properly in regard to their "condition". If the person is a family member or a friend, they definitely would not be gossiping and whispering about them, judging them, criticizing them, or purposely leaving them out of random gatherings, activities and celebrations. They would be trying to learn and understand more about the person's "condition", and would be available to HELP the person, they wouldn't be trying to find a way to reject the person, and they definitely would NOT be trying to humiliate the person, triangulate, control, or threaten the person with "social consequences" or take away survival necessities.
Narcissists and especially sociopaths will scapegoat, manipulate, neglect, abandon, use, control, and abuse a person who does have a mental or emotional illness or neurological issue, any type at all, from Down Syndrome to Schizophrenia to brain damage to Coma to Stroke to PTSD to OCD.
However, a Narcissist will also PROJECT mental or emotional illness onto a Target who has no such thing, just to make them into a scapegoat and have someone to talk about and use for all kinds of excuses, and to gain sympathy.
They will also PROVOKE a person who appears to have mild symptoms of something, for example anxiety, so their condition will worsen, so they can be manipulated, used, and/or devalued and scapegoated.
(Classic bully behavior; picking on the kid who seems to already have anxiety.)
The ONLY TIME a Narcissist "WANTS" or accepts another person to have some kind of illness or issue is when they want to use it for their own benefit. Otherwise, a person who has some kind of illness is an object of envy because they might get "special attention", and/or someone to be avoided because it's "burdensome" to HAVE TO treat them with extra care or special attention, and they might need something.
There are many N's in caregiver/health fields who have no intention of actually helping patients, clients, or students improve, do well, maintain, or recover, they just want to be "over" them, and also to make money off of them.
This gives them someone to compare themselves to so they can feel like they're always on the side of "sane" or "strong".
Also, if I have someone to label as "crazy" or "hysterical", or "hypersensitive", I have a ready excuse for all kinds of things I want to get out of or avoid, and an excuse to "treat myself" (it's so stressful dealing with so and so), and an easy way to get sympathy from other people.
What if the person is really "crazy"?
Well if the person talking about the "crazy person" is an emotionally mature person, and not Narcissistic, he or she would be genuinely compassionate toward the person and take care to treat them properly in regard to their "condition". If the person is a family member or a friend, they definitely would not be gossiping and whispering about them, judging them, criticizing them, or purposely leaving them out of random gatherings, activities and celebrations. They would be trying to learn and understand more about the person's "condition", and would be available to HELP the person, they wouldn't be trying to find a way to reject the person, and they definitely would NOT be trying to humiliate the person, triangulate, control, or threaten the person with "social consequences" or take away survival necessities.
Narcissists and especially sociopaths will scapegoat, manipulate, neglect, abandon, use, control, and abuse a person who does have a mental or emotional illness or neurological issue, any type at all, from Down Syndrome to Schizophrenia to brain damage to Coma to Stroke to PTSD to OCD.
However, a Narcissist will also PROJECT mental or emotional illness onto a Target who has no such thing, just to make them into a scapegoat and have someone to talk about and use for all kinds of excuses, and to gain sympathy.
They will also PROVOKE a person who appears to have mild symptoms of something, for example anxiety, so their condition will worsen, so they can be manipulated, used, and/or devalued and scapegoated.
(Classic bully behavior; picking on the kid who seems to already have anxiety.)
The ONLY TIME a Narcissist "WANTS" or accepts another person to have some kind of illness or issue is when they want to use it for their own benefit. Otherwise, a person who has some kind of illness is an object of envy because they might get "special attention", and/or someone to be avoided because it's "burdensome" to HAVE TO treat them with extra care or special attention, and they might need something.
There are many N's in caregiver/health fields who have no intention of actually helping patients, clients, or students improve, do well, maintain, or recover, they just want to be "over" them, and also to make money off of them.
Narcissists And Children
Whether
they're parents or not, Narcissists don't have nor comprehend the
nature of a normal relationship between parents and children, or any
adults and children for that matter.
Narcissists, and especially sociopaths, see children as just some other person, and further, a person who is more of a BOTHER because someone has to take care of them. They need to be fed, sheltered, and clothed.
They don't understand relationships between parents and adult children either. "That kid is an adult now, they're on their own."
It's common for N. parents to get their kids out of the house ASAP so they don't have to be bothered with them anymore. The exception is if one of the kids is a favorite of theirs, OR a scapegoat they want to use as a servant; then they'll try to make sure the child can't leave. Other than that, they want the kid out and away, because they don't want to "have to" care for another human being.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the child's personality or behavior. Non-narcissists don't discard or devalue their children, period.
N's are not caring, empathetic, or supportive of other people's children either, whether in or out of their family, and even if they're job is directly with children. They JUDGE other people's children the same way they would judge an adult co-worker or a total stranger. There is no concept of "bonds" or "relationships" or "nurturing", because there's just not. They don't get it. It's not in there.
If a Narcissist has a seemingly good relationship with their own children, it's likely because they think of their children as Golden, as extensions of themselves in a positive way instead of a negative way. They are "Mini-Me's". (They walk a thin line, however; if they start to appear to the N. parent as "other", the N. parent will likely devalue them and stop doting on them abruptly, leaving them to have to figure out how to survive suddenly on their own, feeling abandoned. Some Golden Children reject their N. parents because they feel suffocated and puppeteered, and others turn around and try to dominate their N. parents and control them.)
N. parents who have made their kids into "Golden Children" often devalue OTHER people's children, both within the family and outside of the family. They'll do this also with Step-children who are living in the same household, often causing severe trauma to the children, and family as a whole.
In many parental couples, only one parent is the N., and the non-N. parent has to deal with the impact on the child's personality and behaviors later, all by themselves, without support, because the N. parent is not capable and makes themselves unavailable. In many cases, the non-N parent only married or dated a Narcissist because they're used to N. behavior from their family and/or community, so they won't have OTHER support in dealing with their child's impacted behavior or trauma either. No one will be supportive of them OR the child if they're surrounded by only various N's, and are instead likely to be targeted for more scapegoating, rejection, abuse or manipulation when they most need support.
(Really just simple Bully behavior, but the effects are much more serious when it's in one's personal life by the adults around them, and not left on the playground in second grade.)
Narcissists don't understand "respect", "care", "mentoring", "bonds" or "relationships" between people in general, it doesn't matter if those people are children or not. The only "relationships" they have with children is when they feel possession over them. Other than that, a kid might as well be a squirrel in someone else's yard raiding the bird feeder.
Narcissists, and especially sociopaths, see children as just some other person, and further, a person who is more of a BOTHER because someone has to take care of them. They need to be fed, sheltered, and clothed.
They don't understand relationships between parents and adult children either. "That kid is an adult now, they're on their own."
It's common for N. parents to get their kids out of the house ASAP so they don't have to be bothered with them anymore. The exception is if one of the kids is a favorite of theirs, OR a scapegoat they want to use as a servant; then they'll try to make sure the child can't leave. Other than that, they want the kid out and away, because they don't want to "have to" care for another human being.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the child's personality or behavior. Non-narcissists don't discard or devalue their children, period.
N's are not caring, empathetic, or supportive of other people's children either, whether in or out of their family, and even if they're job is directly with children. They JUDGE other people's children the same way they would judge an adult co-worker or a total stranger. There is no concept of "bonds" or "relationships" or "nurturing", because there's just not. They don't get it. It's not in there.
If a Narcissist has a seemingly good relationship with their own children, it's likely because they think of their children as Golden, as extensions of themselves in a positive way instead of a negative way. They are "Mini-Me's". (They walk a thin line, however; if they start to appear to the N. parent as "other", the N. parent will likely devalue them and stop doting on them abruptly, leaving them to have to figure out how to survive suddenly on their own, feeling abandoned. Some Golden Children reject their N. parents because they feel suffocated and puppeteered, and others turn around and try to dominate their N. parents and control them.)
N. parents who have made their kids into "Golden Children" often devalue OTHER people's children, both within the family and outside of the family. They'll do this also with Step-children who are living in the same household, often causing severe trauma to the children, and family as a whole.
In many parental couples, only one parent is the N., and the non-N. parent has to deal with the impact on the child's personality and behaviors later, all by themselves, without support, because the N. parent is not capable and makes themselves unavailable. In many cases, the non-N parent only married or dated a Narcissist because they're used to N. behavior from their family and/or community, so they won't have OTHER support in dealing with their child's impacted behavior or trauma either. No one will be supportive of them OR the child if they're surrounded by only various N's, and are instead likely to be targeted for more scapegoating, rejection, abuse or manipulation when they most need support.
(Really just simple Bully behavior, but the effects are much more serious when it's in one's personal life by the adults around them, and not left on the playground in second grade.)
Narcissists don't understand "respect", "care", "mentoring", "bonds" or "relationships" between people in general, it doesn't matter if those people are children or not. The only "relationships" they have with children is when they feel possession over them. Other than that, a kid might as well be a squirrel in someone else's yard raiding the bird feeder.
Harsh Truth, Male Vs. Female
If
you think of women as children with no experience, knowledge, logic,
ability or wisdom, and men as adults with automatic expertise,
knowledge, logic, ability, and wisdom, you're a
REALLY EASY MARK for con artists and other manipulators.
You are either not a logical or critical thinker, or you've been taught to believe these things in your culture or family.
If you think of men as "Natural Leaders" or "Natural Authority", or "Naturally Logical" etc. etc., you are much more likely to believe a man who's lying right to your face, just because he's a man. You are much more likely to follow a man and let him lead you, whether he knows what he's doing or not, and whether he's endangering you or costing you hard-earned money or not.
You are likely to believe what he says even if he's "teaching" you something that's completely untrue or wrong.
If you think of women as "Naturally illogical", or "Naturally Naive", or "Naturally Weak", you are much more likely to underestimate any female person you meet. You will assume way too much about them. You won't notice if they are a dangerous con-artist, or if they are a wise sage or a genius. You won't be able to discern their real personalities, or their emotional expressions, or comprehend what they're saying, because you'll be playing your own version of who and what they are in your head.
Blanket stereotype beliefs about either sex will BLOCK you from seeing another person's real personality, real character, real intelligence, real experience, real ability, and real motivations.
You will not see your own clearly either, unfortunately; you will likely assign whatever you believe about your own sex to yourself, for good or for ill.
You are either not a logical or critical thinker, or you've been taught to believe these things in your culture or family.
If you think of men as "Natural Leaders" or "Natural Authority", or "Naturally Logical" etc. etc., you are much more likely to believe a man who's lying right to your face, just because he's a man. You are much more likely to follow a man and let him lead you, whether he knows what he's doing or not, and whether he's endangering you or costing you hard-earned money or not.
You are likely to believe what he says even if he's "teaching" you something that's completely untrue or wrong.
If you think of women as "Naturally illogical", or "Naturally Naive", or "Naturally Weak", you are much more likely to underestimate any female person you meet. You will assume way too much about them. You won't notice if they are a dangerous con-artist, or if they are a wise sage or a genius. You won't be able to discern their real personalities, or their emotional expressions, or comprehend what they're saying, because you'll be playing your own version of who and what they are in your head.
Blanket stereotype beliefs about either sex will BLOCK you from seeing another person's real personality, real character, real intelligence, real experience, real ability, and real motivations.
You will not see your own clearly either, unfortunately; you will likely assign whatever you believe about your own sex to yourself, for good or for ill.
Humans Aren't That Bright...For The Most Part
Unfortunately, most humans are only capable of sympathizing with others who remind them of themselves physically or socially.
Most won't even listen to what another person is saying unless they identify with them in some way.
If they think of you as 'other', as not 'one of them', they are likely to ignore what you say and disrespect you, just because of primate-brain-driven identity issues
Most won't even listen to what another person is saying unless they identify with them in some way.
If they think of you as 'other', as not 'one of them', they are likely to ignore what you say and disrespect you, just because of primate-brain-driven identity issues
Envy And Judgment: Two Sides, Same Coin
The other side of Envy is Judgment. Those who are envious of others also tend to JUDGE others very negatively, about pretty much anything, especially things that they can see.
So they envy the person in the Porsche in the passing lane, and lambaste the person in the old slow-moving Oldsmobile in the slow lane.
They envy, or covet, the young woman with too-tight pants whom they found attractive at the mall, and viciously make fun another woman at the bank with tight pants.
They envy and snipe at the older man for the financial security he built over a long career, but call the younger man who hasn't had time or opportunity to build a career or assets a "loser".
They envy those who have good relationships with their spouse, and call them names like "Betty Homemaker" and "Whipped", but they're disrespectful or abusive to anyone they get in a relationship with.
They "despise" and name-call BOTH the wealthy and the poor.
BOTH the college student and the non-student.
BOTH the confident and the timid.
BOTH the outspoken and the shy.
BOTH the "attractive" and the "unattractive" (in their eyes)
BOTH the successful and the struggling.
BOTH the religious person and the non-religious person.
BOTH working women and stay-at-home mothers and wives.
BOTH politicians and people who stay out of government.
BOTH executives and low-level employees.
They envy and covet one, and try to diminish and belittle the other.
Either way, they resent, resent, resent, and put down, put down, put down.
Ironically they are often the FIRST ONES to call someone else "envious", "resentful", "hateful", "dramatic", "jealous", "annoying", or "self-centered", but that's simply because they LIKE TO CALL OTHER PEOPLE NAMES and put other people down.
It's a habit that they have; it gives them a chemical cocktail in their brain and body. It's likely they started doing it in early childhood and just never stopped, and very likely that they had someone around them who gave them reinforcing feedback about it. (I.E. doing it too)
It doesn't matter if the "shoe fits" the person they threw it at or not, they just want to throw it.
The "shoe" is about their OWN feelings and emotional reactions, not the reality of the other person.
So they envy the person in the Porsche in the passing lane, and lambaste the person in the old slow-moving Oldsmobile in the slow lane.
They envy, or covet, the young woman with too-tight pants whom they found attractive at the mall, and viciously make fun another woman at the bank with tight pants.
They envy and snipe at the older man for the financial security he built over a long career, but call the younger man who hasn't had time or opportunity to build a career or assets a "loser".
They envy those who have good relationships with their spouse, and call them names like "Betty Homemaker" and "Whipped", but they're disrespectful or abusive to anyone they get in a relationship with.
They "despise" and name-call BOTH the wealthy and the poor.
BOTH the college student and the non-student.
BOTH the confident and the timid.
BOTH the outspoken and the shy.
BOTH the "attractive" and the "unattractive" (in their eyes)
BOTH the successful and the struggling.
BOTH the religious person and the non-religious person.
BOTH working women and stay-at-home mothers and wives.
BOTH politicians and people who stay out of government.
BOTH executives and low-level employees.
They envy and covet one, and try to diminish and belittle the other.
Either way, they resent, resent, resent, and put down, put down, put down.
Ironically they are often the FIRST ONES to call someone else "envious", "resentful", "hateful", "dramatic", "jealous", "annoying", or "self-centered", but that's simply because they LIKE TO CALL OTHER PEOPLE NAMES and put other people down.
It's a habit that they have; it gives them a chemical cocktail in their brain and body. It's likely they started doing it in early childhood and just never stopped, and very likely that they had someone around them who gave them reinforcing feedback about it. (I.E. doing it too)
It doesn't matter if the "shoe fits" the person they threw it at or not, they just want to throw it.
The "shoe" is about their OWN feelings and emotional reactions, not the reality of the other person.
Love God, Love The People God Made
If a person believes in God, especially 'God of Abraham', then he or she believes that God created humans and life, and that's regardless of whether they link it to Evolution or not.
Whether God created evolution and made humans appear that way, or if God made each creature out of the Earth, it's still about God doing the creating, and having the intention. The process would be beyond human understanding anyway if it was God doing it.
Aside from how God "really" did it, which we could never understand anyway even if we saw it for ourselves with our own eyes, the bigger point is the fact that God created humans.
Obviously if you don't believe in God, you're only reading this for your own personal reasons, so going off on a tangent about whether God exists or not is way off topic and moot.
But for those who are believers in God the Creator:
God created every person, every single individual person, and God did it with purpose and intention, because God does everything with purpose and intention.
What does that mean for one of the people God created?
It means that you were created on purpose, because God wanted to, and intended to.
It means that every person you meet was created on purpose, by God.
It means that every person who's writings you read was created on purpose, by God.
It means every person you like, love, or admire was created on purpose, by God.
It means every person you don't like, despise, or are bigoted against, or disrespect, or disdain, or judge... was created ON PURPOSE, BY GOD.
Every person ever living was created on purpose by God.
If they squandered their precious gift of Free Will and became controlling, abusive, criminal, violent, oppressive, and greedy, that wasn't God, that was their own choice.
If they had "special needs" when they were born, or developed them after birth, we can rest assured that God intended for the people around them to voluntarily and willingly care for them with great effort and joy, cooperatively with one another, since they are God's creation.
If God created human beings, then God created human beings. There's no "well.... God created me, because I'm so cool and great and innocent and wonderful... but I'm not so sure about that other person over there..." No human will ever understand God's intentions or plans, there is no code that can "break it", that's just silly, if God exists, God is conscious and alive, not a giant computer or a physics equation, or a hidden code.
If God created human beings, then God created human beings, ALL human beings.
So, I wonder what God thinks when someone hurts one of these purposeful Creations?
When someone disrespects one of these Creations?
When someone rejects or abandons one of these Creations?
When someone is cruel, judgmental, controlling, mean, or violent toward one of these Creations?
When someone is arrogant, oppressive, and superior toward one of these Creations?
No human stands between God and one of his Creations; each is directly connected and watched by God.
God created each and every human; no human created other humans.
So if one tries to put themselves in such a position, they might want to think about the consequences of trying to overshadow and block the connection between God and one of God's purposefully intended Creations.
~M.B. 2014
Whether God created evolution and made humans appear that way, or if God made each creature out of the Earth, it's still about God doing the creating, and having the intention. The process would be beyond human understanding anyway if it was God doing it.
Aside from how God "really" did it, which we could never understand anyway even if we saw it for ourselves with our own eyes, the bigger point is the fact that God created humans.
Obviously if you don't believe in God, you're only reading this for your own personal reasons, so going off on a tangent about whether God exists or not is way off topic and moot.
But for those who are believers in God the Creator:
God created every person, every single individual person, and God did it with purpose and intention, because God does everything with purpose and intention.
What does that mean for one of the people God created?
It means that you were created on purpose, because God wanted to, and intended to.
It means that every person you meet was created on purpose, by God.
It means that every person who's writings you read was created on purpose, by God.
It means every person you like, love, or admire was created on purpose, by God.
It means every person you don't like, despise, or are bigoted against, or disrespect, or disdain, or judge... was created ON PURPOSE, BY GOD.
Every person ever living was created on purpose by God.
If they squandered their precious gift of Free Will and became controlling, abusive, criminal, violent, oppressive, and greedy, that wasn't God, that was their own choice.
If they had "special needs" when they were born, or developed them after birth, we can rest assured that God intended for the people around them to voluntarily and willingly care for them with great effort and joy, cooperatively with one another, since they are God's creation.
If God created human beings, then God created human beings. There's no "well.... God created me, because I'm so cool and great and innocent and wonderful... but I'm not so sure about that other person over there..." No human will ever understand God's intentions or plans, there is no code that can "break it", that's just silly, if God exists, God is conscious and alive, not a giant computer or a physics equation, or a hidden code.
If God created human beings, then God created human beings, ALL human beings.
So, I wonder what God thinks when someone hurts one of these purposeful Creations?
When someone disrespects one of these Creations?
When someone rejects or abandons one of these Creations?
When someone is cruel, judgmental, controlling, mean, or violent toward one of these Creations?
When someone is arrogant, oppressive, and superior toward one of these Creations?
No human stands between God and one of his Creations; each is directly connected and watched by God.
God created each and every human; no human created other humans.
So if one tries to put themselves in such a position, they might want to think about the consequences of trying to overshadow and block the connection between God and one of God's purposefully intended Creations.
~M.B. 2014
Lack Of Interconnectedness Between Healthcaregivers, Mental Healthcaregivers, Child/Student Caregivers, Etc.
In modern Western culture, one of the more obvious, in-your-face (SIGNS) of a growing problem with Narcissism is the lack of connection between various types of health caregivers (professionals and the facilities and organizations they work for) and also child and student caregivers.
The gap of communication between adults who are professionals in the fields of healthcare, mental healthcare, family services, child or student mentors, school staff, and caregivers, and also judicial and law enforcement groups, is unprecedented and extreme.
No one knows anything about anything unless they are getting directly paid for it, and they don't CARE TO KNOW anything besides what they themselves have written down about a person.
One can see this in divorced or even married Narcissistic parents; the Narcissistic parent doesn't share information or communicate with the other parent about the child, nor do they want to discuss any information or anything about the child's daily life, activities, events, schedule, or well being.
Narcissistic extended family show the same behaviors; no care or concern or exchange of genuine information (other than negative gossip or rumors) about certain family members whom they've deemed "lesser" than themselves.
Some TYPES of healthcare professionals share some information, but not easily, not often, only if they "have to", and usually not due to concern for the person or patient who's in their charge. Many also BURY information that they don't want, don't have a personal use for, or want to hide for some reason.
Few who mentor or care for children share much at all with parents or family members either, NOR are they interested in HEARING anything at all FROM parents or family members about a child or student.Unless maybe they're personal friends of theirs.
Very few mental health workers and caregivers seem to want to hear ANYTHING from any other source besides their own minds, and maybe, maybe, a co-worker or two in their facility. But they seem to have an aversion toward any information whatsoever that's outside of what they think they already know, and their own personal opinion which, like many humans do, they may view as "fact".
Apparently, there is a very large percentage of professionals in many of these "PEOPLE" fields who are only interested in their OWN observations, their OWN opinions, and their OWN "information", regardless of how valuable information from other sources actually is.
When any person does not value information from sources outside of themselves about the task/job they're doing ,the subject they're studying, or the person they're caring for, teaching, or counseling, it shows some discomforting possibilities:
~They may ONLY value their OWN opinion, and may view THEIR opinion and observations as the only possible source of "FACT". So anything anyone else says must be wrong or dumb, no matter who they are or what their level of expertise or experience is, or their relationship with the person.
~They may not really be concerned about the person, or the quality of their work, and don't CARE that there is information that they could use that might be extremely important or helpful.
~They may not be capable of abstract or critical thinking, which requires pulling information from different sources and putting them together, looking for both matches and mismatches, patterns, history, anomalies, and cause and effect, so they don't even KNOW that information OTHER THAN THEIR OWN would almost certainly be very useful.
~They may have no care for anyone but themselves at all, or not even for themselves, and only do the very minimum work they need to do in order to get paid and keep their job, title, or appearance.
~They may not LIKE the person they're supposed to be caring for or mentoring, or the child's parents, or the child or adult's sex or race, or the job they're doing, so they might be purposely avoiding doing their job, or caring for/mentoring the person; or even in sociopath cases, sabotaging the job or the person they're supposed to be caring for or teaching.
~They may have deep seated domination and control issues, and are "rebelling against" doing their job, sharing information, or speaking with other professionals. They may desire to dominate the people they're working with, and the people they're supposed to be caring for.
~
It has become VERY COMMON TO BLAME THE COMPUTER, and the RED TAPE, and the INSURANCE COMPANIES, and the UNION, and the BOSS, and anything else people can come up with to rationalize their lack of concern and care toward doing their job genuinely well.
People who work in "People" fields are not being FORCED to work there, even if they say they are (due to money and lifestyle issues?)
They all volunteered to work in those fields, at least in free countries, and in most other countries as well that aren't called "free". It was THEIR IDEA to work in a field that requires caring for or mentoring PEOPLE. They could have chosen something else, anything else, and they still can.
So don't let them fool you with "Oh the stress!" or "Oh the computer!" or "Oh the red tape!"
It's PEOPLE who govern their behavior and actions, who show whether they actually have CONCERN and RESPECT for the adults and children who they're supposed to be supporting, caring for, protecting, or teaching.
When an emotionally healthy person is genuinely concerned about another person, they seek more information, not LESS, and seek to contact other people that are in the person's life, reflexively, for more help and support for the person.
They don't try NOT to have contact with others in the person's life, whether they're professionals involved with the person, or personal relationships. They don't REJECT other people in the adult or child's life, nor do they reject information others want to share, even if they suspect the information isn't quite accurate.
(If it's not accurate, they will be able to discern that after a very short time IF they are mentally and emotionally healthy, and if they're professional; AND even that inaccurate information would give them more info. to reveal the larger picture and build the puzzle).
They will allow "red tape" and all that to be an excuse for their avoidance behavior and non-communication.
(My Dad said I can't play with you... my Mom said I can't go there... leave the turtle in the road, we're not supposed to cross...don't go out and save that man, we haven't received orders from the chief...my hands are tied, it's not my job...the computer didn't have that information...the computer did it...I can't talk to that person without a triplicate notarized release form...we don't need your information or observations... we don't need that data...)
ISOLATING PEOPLE FROM OTHER PEOPLE IS NOT NORMAL, whether it's a professional situation or a personal one, and in fact is a Narcissism behavior.
GOING ALONG WITH ISOLATING PEOPLE, and avoiding caring for them to the best of one's ACTUAL ability is not healthy-normal either.
The gap of communication between adults who are professionals in the fields of healthcare, mental healthcare, family services, child or student mentors, school staff, and caregivers, and also judicial and law enforcement groups, is unprecedented and extreme.
No one knows anything about anything unless they are getting directly paid for it, and they don't CARE TO KNOW anything besides what they themselves have written down about a person.
One can see this in divorced or even married Narcissistic parents; the Narcissistic parent doesn't share information or communicate with the other parent about the child, nor do they want to discuss any information or anything about the child's daily life, activities, events, schedule, or well being.
Narcissistic extended family show the same behaviors; no care or concern or exchange of genuine information (other than negative gossip or rumors) about certain family members whom they've deemed "lesser" than themselves.
Some TYPES of healthcare professionals share some information, but not easily, not often, only if they "have to", and usually not due to concern for the person or patient who's in their charge. Many also BURY information that they don't want, don't have a personal use for, or want to hide for some reason.
Few who mentor or care for children share much at all with parents or family members either, NOR are they interested in HEARING anything at all FROM parents or family members about a child or student.Unless maybe they're personal friends of theirs.
Very few mental health workers and caregivers seem to want to hear ANYTHING from any other source besides their own minds, and maybe, maybe, a co-worker or two in their facility. But they seem to have an aversion toward any information whatsoever that's outside of what they think they already know, and their own personal opinion which, like many humans do, they may view as "fact".
Apparently, there is a very large percentage of professionals in many of these "PEOPLE" fields who are only interested in their OWN observations, their OWN opinions, and their OWN "information", regardless of how valuable information from other sources actually is.
When any person does not value information from sources outside of themselves about the task/job they're doing ,the subject they're studying, or the person they're caring for, teaching, or counseling, it shows some discomforting possibilities:
~They may ONLY value their OWN opinion, and may view THEIR opinion and observations as the only possible source of "FACT". So anything anyone else says must be wrong or dumb, no matter who they are or what their level of expertise or experience is, or their relationship with the person.
~They may not really be concerned about the person, or the quality of their work, and don't CARE that there is information that they could use that might be extremely important or helpful.
~They may not be capable of abstract or critical thinking, which requires pulling information from different sources and putting them together, looking for both matches and mismatches, patterns, history, anomalies, and cause and effect, so they don't even KNOW that information OTHER THAN THEIR OWN would almost certainly be very useful.
~They may have no care for anyone but themselves at all, or not even for themselves, and only do the very minimum work they need to do in order to get paid and keep their job, title, or appearance.
~They may not LIKE the person they're supposed to be caring for or mentoring, or the child's parents, or the child or adult's sex or race, or the job they're doing, so they might be purposely avoiding doing their job, or caring for/mentoring the person; or even in sociopath cases, sabotaging the job or the person they're supposed to be caring for or teaching.
~They may have deep seated domination and control issues, and are "rebelling against" doing their job, sharing information, or speaking with other professionals. They may desire to dominate the people they're working with, and the people they're supposed to be caring for.
~
It has become VERY COMMON TO BLAME THE COMPUTER, and the RED TAPE, and the INSURANCE COMPANIES, and the UNION, and the BOSS, and anything else people can come up with to rationalize their lack of concern and care toward doing their job genuinely well.
People who work in "People" fields are not being FORCED to work there, even if they say they are (due to money and lifestyle issues?)
They all volunteered to work in those fields, at least in free countries, and in most other countries as well that aren't called "free". It was THEIR IDEA to work in a field that requires caring for or mentoring PEOPLE. They could have chosen something else, anything else, and they still can.
So don't let them fool you with "Oh the stress!" or "Oh the computer!" or "Oh the red tape!"
It's PEOPLE who govern their behavior and actions, who show whether they actually have CONCERN and RESPECT for the adults and children who they're supposed to be supporting, caring for, protecting, or teaching.
When an emotionally healthy person is genuinely concerned about another person, they seek more information, not LESS, and seek to contact other people that are in the person's life, reflexively, for more help and support for the person.
They don't try NOT to have contact with others in the person's life, whether they're professionals involved with the person, or personal relationships. They don't REJECT other people in the adult or child's life, nor do they reject information others want to share, even if they suspect the information isn't quite accurate.
(If it's not accurate, they will be able to discern that after a very short time IF they are mentally and emotionally healthy, and if they're professional; AND even that inaccurate information would give them more info. to reveal the larger picture and build the puzzle).
They will allow "red tape" and all that to be an excuse for their avoidance behavior and non-communication.
(My Dad said I can't play with you... my Mom said I can't go there... leave the turtle in the road, we're not supposed to cross...don't go out and save that man, we haven't received orders from the chief...my hands are tied, it's not my job...the computer didn't have that information...the computer did it...I can't talk to that person without a triplicate notarized release form...we don't need your information or observations... we don't need that data...)
ISOLATING PEOPLE FROM OTHER PEOPLE IS NOT NORMAL, whether it's a professional situation or a personal one, and in fact is a Narcissism behavior.
GOING ALONG WITH ISOLATING PEOPLE, and avoiding caring for them to the best of one's ACTUAL ability is not healthy-normal either.
Designating Value, Capability, And Destiny
A
typical Narcissist behavior is designating "value" and "capability" onto
others in one's family and community circles, and trying to assign
various DESTINIES according to a person's "value".
The N. aunt who went to Harvard encourages her niece not to go to Harvard like herself, but to a small community college near her house.
The N parent who owns a grand old Cape house with several acres keeps talking to their child about getting a cheap apartment in a run down building.
The N uncle constantly shows off his boats and cars, and says things to the young people in the family like "Bet you wish you could have something like this someday, huh?"
The N parents go on expensive vacations by themselves, but "can't afford" to take the kids to the beach, or to Theme Parks, or skiing locally, etc.
The N. music teacher puts one child up on a pedestal and makes them their "star student", mentoring them and giving them extra attention, and ignores another student who has just as much, if not more talent and potential as the "star student", because the teacher doesn't really "take a shine" to the pupil.
The young person who's goal is to become a software designer is told by N. family and community that they'd be "better off going for something simpler and less difficult".
The woman who is interested in building and developing is told by N. family and community that she "should be looking into something less overwhelming and difficult". (i.e. kindergarten teacher, homemaker)
The man who is interested in child psychology is told by N. family and community that he "should be looking into something that makes more money and has a real future". (i.e. stockbroker, racecar mechanic)
The N. aunt who went to Harvard encourages her niece not to go to Harvard like herself, but to a small community college near her house.
The N parent who owns a grand old Cape house with several acres keeps talking to their child about getting a cheap apartment in a run down building.
The N uncle constantly shows off his boats and cars, and says things to the young people in the family like "Bet you wish you could have something like this someday, huh?"
The N parents go on expensive vacations by themselves, but "can't afford" to take the kids to the beach, or to Theme Parks, or skiing locally, etc.
The N. music teacher puts one child up on a pedestal and makes them their "star student", mentoring them and giving them extra attention, and ignores another student who has just as much, if not more talent and potential as the "star student", because the teacher doesn't really "take a shine" to the pupil.
The young person who's goal is to become a software designer is told by N. family and community that they'd be "better off going for something simpler and less difficult".
The woman who is interested in building and developing is told by N. family and community that she "should be looking into something less overwhelming and difficult". (i.e. kindergarten teacher, homemaker)
The man who is interested in child psychology is told by N. family and community that he "should be looking into something that makes more money and has a real future". (i.e. stockbroker, racecar mechanic)
Forgiveness, Understanding And Compassion Toward An Abusive Person
Forgiveness, understanding, and compassion are part of recovery for the SELF, and if there are children involved and other family members, for their well-being and mental and emotional health.
Forgiveness, understand and compassion have NOTHING TO DO WITH ALLOWING ABUSE, OR SYMPATHIZING WITH AN ABUSER, OR ENABLING ABUSE.
(You don't let a vicious dog sleep in your bed or your kid's bedroom, or even in your house, even if the dog is vicious because he or she has been abused. You would only do that to yourself if you have unhealthy boundaries, or to your child if you're a Narcissist.)
WIthholding forgiveness, understanding and compassion does nothing to a narcissistic abuser, they couldn't care less, they WANT their targets to withhold those things, because it makes them feel like they're AFFECTING the target, and weakening the target.
Withholding them on purpose because one wants to use them as a weapon is just about control and retaliation, which hinder recovery.
Narcissists carry mental and emotional weapons around against other people 24/7 because they feel compelled to; they can't put them down no matter how heavy they get.
NON-narcissists have the blessing of being able to choose NOT to carry mental and emotional weapons with them, and can put them down whenever they choose.
Forgiveness, understand and compassion have NOTHING TO DO WITH ALLOWING ABUSE, OR SYMPATHIZING WITH AN ABUSER, OR ENABLING ABUSE.
(You don't let a vicious dog sleep in your bed or your kid's bedroom, or even in your house, even if the dog is vicious because he or she has been abused. You would only do that to yourself if you have unhealthy boundaries, or to your child if you're a Narcissist.)
WIthholding forgiveness, understanding and compassion does nothing to a narcissistic abuser, they couldn't care less, they WANT their targets to withhold those things, because it makes them feel like they're AFFECTING the target, and weakening the target.
Withholding them on purpose because one wants to use them as a weapon is just about control and retaliation, which hinder recovery.
Narcissists carry mental and emotional weapons around against other people 24/7 because they feel compelled to; they can't put them down no matter how heavy they get.
NON-narcissists have the blessing of being able to choose NOT to carry mental and emotional weapons with them, and can put them down whenever they choose.
I Say Jump You Say How High! Authority Image Issues
Trying to be one of the "authority people" like a parent, a teacher, a law or court officer, upper management, tough-gang-member, mafioso, etc., and wanting to be SEEN as a such an "authority person" can be seen commonly in children when the ego/self is developing.
("When I walk into a room, everyone is aware of my presence.
When I speak, everyone listens to me because they know I'm important. What I say goes, what I say is law. When I speak, animals listen, children obey, and adults who fear me obey. If they don't obey me, I want to punish them.")
When this developmental stage is not grown out of, it can look like Narcissism, and can feed an individual's Narcissistic or abusive issues.
When a person who has this authority issue does have a job that gives them some type of authority, or for example is a member of a bike club that non-members typically think of as "tough", they aren't just DOING THE JOB, or BEING IN THE CLUB. They are PLAYING A ROLE, PLAYING A CHARACTER.
When a person with this issue DOES NOT respond to the image they're trying to create of "authority", (I say jump, you say how high) they will usually react with ANGER.
(You're supposed to be afraid of me, or be in great admiration of me, and you're supposed to do what I say... you're not doing it right!)
("When I walk into a room, everyone is aware of my presence.
When I speak, everyone listens to me because they know I'm important. What I say goes, what I say is law. When I speak, animals listen, children obey, and adults who fear me obey. If they don't obey me, I want to punish them.")
When this developmental stage is not grown out of, it can look like Narcissism, and can feed an individual's Narcissistic or abusive issues.
When a person who has this authority issue does have a job that gives them some type of authority, or for example is a member of a bike club that non-members typically think of as "tough", they aren't just DOING THE JOB, or BEING IN THE CLUB. They are PLAYING A ROLE, PLAYING A CHARACTER.
When a person with this issue DOES NOT respond to the image they're trying to create of "authority", (I say jump, you say how high) they will usually react with ANGER.
(You're supposed to be afraid of me, or be in great admiration of me, and you're supposed to do what I say... you're not doing it right!)
ONLY MEN ARE ALLOWED TO SWEAR
Just a reminder: ONLY BOYS AND MEN are allowed to cuss and use the "f" word, because it indicates dominance and bad-assness.
Girls and women are NOT allowed to ever use them, or risk SOCIAL REJECTION..
But it's perfectly okay for men to use them whenever the HELL they feel like it, in any situation, in front of anyone and TO anyone, including children and elderly people, because it shows that they're TOUGH.
(Apparently one must show that they're "tough" or else no one will believe it.)
ALSO. Men are allowed to use cusswords, name-calling, and snotty language AT women and girls, however women and girls are NOT allowed to say the same words or language, or use the same tone BACK.
Who made these "rules"? I guess it was the AIR, or the SUN, or the UNIVERSE, or maybe it was the turtle in the pond at the end of the street, because no one seems to want to take responsibility for them.
These rules are directly related to the rules about only boys and men being allowed to openly express their views, opinions, and emotions such as anger or frustration, or physical pain.
DON'T FORGET! THESE ARE RULES!
FROM WHERE? WHO CARES? WHO KNOWS? .
Girls and women are NOT allowed to ever use them, or risk SOCIAL REJECTION..
But it's perfectly okay for men to use them whenever the HELL they feel like it, in any situation, in front of anyone and TO anyone, including children and elderly people, because it shows that they're TOUGH.
(Apparently one must show that they're "tough" or else no one will believe it.)
ALSO. Men are allowed to use cusswords, name-calling, and snotty language AT women and girls, however women and girls are NOT allowed to say the same words or language, or use the same tone BACK.
Who made these "rules"? I guess it was the AIR, or the SUN, or the UNIVERSE, or maybe it was the turtle in the pond at the end of the street, because no one seems to want to take responsibility for them.
These rules are directly related to the rules about only boys and men being allowed to openly express their views, opinions, and emotions such as anger or frustration, or physical pain.
DON'T FORGET! THESE ARE RULES!
FROM WHERE? WHO CARES? WHO KNOWS? .
Using Aggression To "Get Things Done"
A habit of using aggression, hostility, threats, and dramatic displays does NOT "get things done" unless you're dealing with other people who are also drama kings and queens and control freaks with entitlement issues. Those people are disordered or mentally ill, that's why they only respond to fear of aggressive or larger people, or male voices.
If you treat a respectful, intelligent person with HISTRIONICS and MONKEY DOMINATION DISPLAYS in order to "get them to do what you need them to do", or to "make them respect you", all that's going to 'get done" is that you are going to lose their respect, they will STOP taking you seriously. Probably avoid you as much as possible. Go act like a Silverback Gorilla with the other gorillas, but you're a fool if you're a grown adult acting like a hostile 'tough" MONKEY at actual thinking human beings. It doesn't make you look tough or bad-ass, it just makes you look like you have some kind of issue.
If you treat a respectful, intelligent person with HISTRIONICS and MONKEY DOMINATION DISPLAYS in order to "get them to do what you need them to do", or to "make them respect you", all that's going to 'get done" is that you are going to lose their respect, they will STOP taking you seriously. Probably avoid you as much as possible. Go act like a Silverback Gorilla with the other gorillas, but you're a fool if you're a grown adult acting like a hostile 'tough" MONKEY at actual thinking human beings. It doesn't make you look tough or bad-ass, it just makes you look like you have some kind of issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)