The main sign is that you are stuck in time, reminiscing about a man who left you a long time ago and letting life pass you by.
The ‘narcissist’ is never identified.
He is always an ex.
He is always absent.
Nothing about him is said except that he was a narcissist.
The focus is on the ‘victim’s’ feelings, not on specific incidents.
The ‘victim’ is more than happy to post endlessly about the narcissist’s lascivious sexual practices and about her half-willing acquiescence to them. But if you ask one of these victims an utterly innocuous, strictly fact-oriented question, e.g. ‘how long did the relationship last’, they will respond with scalding accusations of ‘violating boundaries.’ This is because there was no relationship, and what the victim is embarrassed about is not lewd specifics—there were no such specifics—but is rather the absence of any such specifics to be embarrassed about.
If you ask for real life examples of narcissists, as a way of drawing a bead on these phantom narcissists, you are given facetious facetious and oft-repeated examples (e.g. ‘Hitler’, ‘Donald Trump’), which, in this context, represent personifications, not actual people, and which for that very reason show that the ‘narcissist’, as he is being conceived of in this context, is a personification of the ‘victim’s’ wishes, as opposed to an actual person.
The victim’s complaints about narcissism clearly indicate that she still longs for him, which belies her endless vituperations about him—especially since, when a women truly no longer loves a man, she will barely spare him a moment’s thought.
The ‘victim’ never acknowledges any complicity (except in a token and perfunctory way), and she only complains after it is clear that ‘narcissist’ is never coming back—this being when he finally earns that hallowed title.
Complaints about ‘the narcissist’ are grievance-porn, and they are no more a reflection of reality than any other form of pornography.