Just some thoughts, I'll probably delete this post later. Shout out to Stratiyevskaya and Talanov for not being afraid to point out the worst in humanity and opening my eyes to things like this.

Aristocrats have a tendency to desire to censor and control others. This is manifested in a sudden impulse of malevolence, a desire to shut someone down, silence them. IEI and SLI express this the least, but the desire is still there--they just want someone else to do the censoring. The action of censorship establishes (or reinforces) a vertical power dynamic between the Aristocrat and the censored. It serves not only as an indication of power to the censored, but to any witnesses as well. The level of aggressiveness is increased when there are witnesses.

Aristocrats gravitate towards vertical power structures, where coercive power is distributed asymmetrically. Gaining and exercising the right to censor and control others is intrinsically desired. If no formal divisions exists, authority will be assumed by right of conquest ('I am the authority because I have decided I am the authority')--if divisions exist, there will be competition for the right to censor and control.

Methods used for censorship include:
--directly telling someone to stfu
--harsh glares
--expressing indignation, offense, and righteous anger
--attempting to make someone feel stupid, ashamed, and inferior, with belittling insults, sarcasm, and rhetorical questions ('did you seriously think that was an OK thing to say? are you that much of a fucking idiot?')
--forced removal from room/area, immediate disciplining
--ignoring someone's statement, continuing on as if they weren't there and hadn't said anything, as if they are not a human but an inanimate object

Democrats be warned. Potential triggers include:
--Speaking out of turn, or inappropriately in a formal setting
--Expressing your opinion without having earned the right to do so, and without contributing value to the group (in the eyes of the Aristocrat)
--Expressing opinions which detract from the Aristocrat's power, or from the power of the structure from which the Aristocrat derives their power (i.e. heresy)
--Criticism

All of these are magnified when in the presence of others. The same utterance could result in vastly different reactions depending on if it is in a private (1 to 1) or public setting. There is more mercy in private.

Bonus Section on Power Dynamics:
Allowing yourself to be censored without resistance (or with weak resistance) establishes a precedent and solidifies the vertical relationship. Resisting the censorship establishes one's independence from the censor's authority ('you have no power here') and can sometimes even reverse the power dynamic (by censoring the would-be censor). Sometimes resistance is more subtle, and sends the implicit message: 'this battle isn't worth it for me, but be careful how you treat me--I will punish you if you overstep.' Power dynamics are constantly evolving as individuals attempt to reify their place in the hierarchy through controlling and coercing others. Rivalries, when they occur, are usually between Super-Ego types who are peers in the same ecosystem and both refuse to concede to the other. This is not to say that Super-Ego types always experience rivalry. The underlying cause of rivalries is the automatic recognition in both people that they are playing a zero-sum game; they want the same thing(s), but they cannot simultaneously fulfill their desires. I'm not sure how they play out for Super-Ego pairs outside of my own so I won't write about that.

Disclaimer: This is just my perspective and not the Absolute Universal Truth. Don't respond, I don't care what most of you think. The End.