Person A and Person B are having a discussion.
Person A and Person B disagree.
Person A claims that Person B should be kinder, i.e., friendlier, gentler, and more considerate.
Person B is doing no physical, financial, or material harm to Person A, and thus, cannot be considered to be causing harm.
Person A also has more social connections, more financial security, and more social leverage to use against person B.
As a result, Person B either has to capitulate to Person A or risk being damaged by the power Person A can impose on them, as Person A is in a better position to survive the attrition of Person B separating from them. This makes Person B beholden to Person A’s demand for kindness, even though, when demanding Person B be kinder, Person A is putting Person B in a position where they’re more likely to be harmed.
Thus, Person A is engaging in behavior that subjects Person B to their desires, which allows Person A to control them.
On a larger scale, given the power Person A holds (i.e., the number of networks they have, the financial security they have, or the social leverage they have), Person A can use this to manipulate a more significant portion of society, relative to that power. This causes the people of the population to become a subject to Person A’s desires by playing their desires against them; their desire for financial, social, and — ultimately — bodily security.
When used with cultural impropriety, if Person A is savvy enough, they can manipulate a greater portion of the population, relative to their power. When used with cultural impropriety, if the demand that the population is kinder is couched in the culture’s zeitgeist, Person A only has to leverage their position and count on social shame to inflict and impose their will on the people. As a result, this makes Person A’s ability to control others more potent.
What was just identified is indicative of narcissism, as those like Person A are making a demand of those like Person B, resulting in those like Person B being made subject to the likes of Person A, relative to their desires. This causes them to reflect the wishes of individuals like Person A, it also can (ultimately) be considered narcissism, as those like Person A are making a demand of individuals like Person B that the likes of Person A does not see the absence of in themselves; i.e., they wish to be reflected in their subjects by making what they have desirous on account of what their subjects are told they lack, even though the narcissist lacks it themselves.
This memetic loop can go so far as to lead to those like Person B feeling as though they are right in subjecting themselves to the likes of Person A, as those like Person A are — seemingly — serving as a protector for them, but indeed, are both the cause of their insecurity, and the root of the threat being imposed on them. The loop also drives them towards — what they blindly accept as — those like Person A’s aegis. This fact is juxtaposed with the reality that Person A is the problem. Therefore, demanding others be kind when you, yourself, are not, is a pathology resulting from those like Person B feeling powerless to Person A.
To boot, if those like Person B acknowledge this behavioral aspect in individuals like Person A, they face being told that, in not becoming kinder, they are only harming themselves. That is, those like Person A imply that it is individuals like Person B who are causing harm to themselves, a danger to themselves, and, thus, are the problem, even though it is individuals like Person A who are causing the injury.
As a result, unless harm can be clearly and definitely quantified, any demand for kindness, gentleness, friendliness, or claims of impropriety can be utterly waved away and should be waved away for the sake of one’s freedom, self-sufficiency, and personal responsibility. Otherwise, they are subject to someone else’s unjustified control over them, which — if they wished to be relieved of at any point — can be used to harm them, or cast them as a harm to themselves.
If one is inclined to feel as though this would serve their desires, they should be aware of the fact that such desires are only an illusion of a wish to be distinguished from the whole; i.e., the feeling of control one has over the other who has made them their subject only exists in so far as they feel — by serving the other’s desires — that they’re controlling the one who has made them their subject, but ultimately they're still the subject of the one controlling them, up to the point of their demise; i.e., they think they’re defeating the other by observing and redirecting their will to control the other through the one controlling them until it consumes them. This masochist’s desires are used against them, petering them between self-destruction and total subordination to the whims of the narcissist, irrespective of the masochist’s wishes, which ultimately defeat them. And because the narcissist’s supply of subjects is seemingly endless — until their scheme’s been found out — they won’t fret over losing control over the masochist and will most likely find a way to rationalize how the masochist harmed themselves, by themselves. This loop, sadly, would be correct only if the masochist deluded their thinking. If the masochist believes they get what they desire by being kind to the narcissist, they are what is known as a useful idiot.