An excellent spergout by Fox on the Discord, with minimal edits.
About “we don`t want your kind around here, go somewhere else”: This is not, generally speaking, an aggressive or exterminatorist statement, but an attempt to reduce the likehood of (further) conflict whilst upholding one’s own territorial integrity. It’s a defensive move, an attempt to separate two groups which (apparently) can’t live in harmony together. What reasons could members of an outside group have for interpreting such a statement as an act of aggression (or as otherwise inacceptible)?
1) they think the relevant territory belongs to them – either totally or insofar as they have a right to live there, too.
2) they think that noone has the right to show them where the door is because they think of themselves as a superior type of human.
3) their way of life depends on living as a minority in the other group’s territory, therefore, what is a peaceful separation for the latter constitutes a severe disruption for them.
The principle of making citizenship mostly dependent on ethnic origin is the basis of what could be called “ethno-nationalism”. People who criticize this principle show that they implicitly regard citizenship of a specific country as a general “human right”, ie as wholly nonspecific, implying that they regard the aforementioned country not as the territory of a specific group, but as merely another region of a country called “world”. It’s the attitude of “it’s not your country, it’s just a country where you happen to be the majority. Therefore, we have a right to live here, too, and you don’t have the right to kick us out” What does it mean to not have the right to exclude some group from your territory?
Well, this question can be answered with another question: What does it mean to not have the right to kick someone out of your house? It means that it isn’t your house.
More on “we don`t want your kind around here, go somewhere else”: Everyone has experienced things like this growing up – some groups don’t want you (and/or people like you), for whatever reason. This is not a pleasant experience. However, it is one that is not atypical of societies at all. What distinguishes someone who cannot process being rejected by some groups from someone who can and moves on shortly thereafter? Narcissism. The narcissist cannot ever accept having the status position “zero” (= the no status position, the lowest status position, the position of “outsider”). He thinks not only that he’s the greatest of all, but that everything revolves around him, that he is the “navel of the world”.
Are there narcisstic animals? Is there any animal species whose members typically enter all kinds of territories (of groups of other animals, or of groups belonging to its own species) and don’t go away if the owners show up ready to defend their territory? I don’t think so. Animals know instinctively when to back down, they avoid needless fights. One exception: Some of the very small, “overbred” domesticated dog breeds. Tiny dogs with short legs who bark like crazy at dogs over twice as large, and seemingly cannot stop. Sure, if the large dog moves a bit they jump back – but a second later, they`re provoking him again. What I’m getting at is that these dogs are completely unnatural and wouldn’t survive on their own. Likewise, narcisstic people are a net negative for all groups they belong to because they behave in ways that are unnatural and detrimental to themselves and those dependent on them. Narcissism isn’t natural, it’s like a disease.
Maybe narcisstic/”proto-narcisstic” (better: “pre-narcisstic”) tendencies are natural, but full-blown narcissism is not, it’s a degeneration. Of course, the state of promethean mankind (mankind that uses fire) is unnatural as well, and agricultural, metal-using states even more so – not to speak of industrialized or transistorized mankind). Does this mean that narcissists are completely blameless? Of course not. They’re 1) weak enough to be turned that way, and 2) they have “proto/pre-narcisstic” tendencies. Narcissism should be contrasted with psychopathy, egoism, machiavellism and predatory traits, which are not unnatural.
Just think about how senseless narcissism is, how far it diverges from any reasonable or helpful impulse, how it glues and binds people to nonsensical goals and old, irrelevant conflicts. How narcissists are too triggered to successfully status-climb, how anyone with some skill can provoke a mental meltdown in them (and thereby make them make a fool of themselves in public situations). Psychopaths are the real demons, narcissists just broken toys.
Narcissism is the petty, stupid version of the melonback’s strive for power. Melonheads are always tempted to play petty little games instead of continuing on the path towards power. Neanderthals are always tempted to autistically focus on small, irrelevant details instead of continuing on the path towards understanding/completing the project. When melonheads compete, the one who succumbs to narcisstic tendencies first will lose.
Examples of the effects of narcissism: Narcissists find it insanely difficult to acknowledge that they were wrong, even if it is just a purely formal acknowledgement. They hate the idea of apologizing so much that even fake apologies are unbearable. But note that lying itself isn’t the problem here – they lie as easily as they breathe when it comes to inventing stories in which they’re the heroes, or “explaining away” things that make them appear less-than-perfect.
Melonheads switching from Machiavellian psychopathy to narcissism: This is a very unnerving trope. Almost all fantasy/superhero movies and animes have at least a couple of bad characters that turn narcissistic once they think they’ve won, and thereby become careless and dumb, laughing at the heroes, torturing and humiliating them instead of just killing them, which ends with the latter being rescued or powering up and beating them. Another thing is that they love to talk about their plans once they think they’re save, and thereby reveal very important information. There are some other traits thrown into this trope, like sadism and acknowledgement-seeking (care about other people’s views of oneself, wanting to prove oneself to others (thus the explaining of the plan). Nevertheless, I would argue that narcissism is the reason why such characters don’t act in the most effective way possible. Once the pressure is gone, they revert to their base narcissistic state of preoccupying oneself with petty conflicts.
Another interpretation is that they have a strong connection to their enemies and thus it’s difficult for them to just kill them (the connection has to be broken first). This interpretation makes it clear that even though narcissism is very much like a stupid version of melonhead striving for power, it is also more than that, and/or not everything that looks like such a stupid version is narcissism. [note: the above posts are more like a storm of ideas than a finished theory] Narcissists cannot face reality if the latter goes against their delusions. In many series, the villain wants to torture the hero because the latter defied him. It is not because of sadism itself, but because he felt personally attacked by the hero, that he has to “pay him back”, and paying back isn’t possible anymore if the latter is dead – so he has to keep him alive until his narcissistic urges are satisfied. He must do this because he is bound to the hero on a specific level. And as long as that connection exists, he cannot kill him.
The “explaining of the plan” is the same – the villain is on a “status” level with the hero, and in order to win on that level, he has to make the hero acknowledge him as the smarter one (ie acknowledge his superiority). Without this acknowledgement, he hasn’t won on the “status” level. Are there melonheads without “proto/pre-narcisstic” tendencies? Is the melonhead strive for power just narcissism writ large (and combined with melonhead cleverness and neanderthal patience)? I feel like I’ve got many pieces of the puzzle, and already put together some large chunks of it, but there’s still much to do.