This is not universally accepted, and I don't necessarily agree. Definitely think this is a terrible way to word your point, even if you had a decent one.
> So you're demonizing me based on your own context. Which is dark and toxic.
No, I'm demonizing you for what you said. I don't know "your own context". I know what you said, and it sounded entitled and bigoted.
Some background: We constantly hear people say these things. We recognize the ideology that tends to go with these ideas and are rightly suspicious and critical.
I'm not going to try guess your best intention. You should use language that doesn't make me think you are an arrogant narcissist or a fascist. I'm not trying to insult you, but here I think it's important for clarity.
> So please don't.
No. I always will. Your comment was terrifying. This talk of "superiority" is a problem from the start.
> who compares themselves with others in such a way?
Lots of people. It's awful. Hence the purpose of my response.
> Who's scared to be compared?
Huh? I thought comparing is bad. Now being "scared" to be compared is bad?
> And who's after those who compare?
What?!?! Are you having some victim complex and saying people are out to get you? I have no idea what you're talking about here.
> All that is meant by superior here, is your superior can fire you, and you can't fire them. If this fact is damaging to your world view, I'd say your world view may need repairing.
Did you write this on a projector? BTW, your "superior" can't necessarily fire you, nor should they be able to any more than you can fire them. I don't think that many teams give a single person dictator powers to do this anymore.
So while it might be true that some manager has an easier time firing a less powerful employee, it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, in the real world managers often feel like they can't fire anyone, and sometimes employees do have recourse.
In fact, you're wrong, you can get your manager fired! It happens more often than you'd think.