#syscourse subsection

[fagsystem]

"did formed to help me survive" and "did is a disorder" and "did helps me live my life" and "did disables me" all are true statements that can and do coexist at the same time!

[fagsystem]

(Cannot describe currently, let me know if you need it.)

I am not OP, but I really do feel as though you are misinterpreting the post. OP is free to correct me if I end up having misinterpreted anything, but I am quite confident that I have not.

(Cannot describe currently, let me know if you need it.)

These were the tags on the original post.

This post is not saying, "Oh, make sure your sense of self has absolutely nothing to do with external media or your pseudomemories!"

This post was addressing very anti-recovery mindsets where people view themselves as their source, not an individual, and refuse to ever begin to work on that.

We do not have any non-introjects who are not fragments or dormant. Yet, almost all of us have worked really hard on letting ourselves be our own person in a way that extends past the canonical source.

Fearne, for example, recently took up knitting. After beginning to wonder if she wanted to start knitting, she did end up remembering that her nana taught her how to knit in source. That is part of why she picked it up. It is because she remembers doing it and wants to, not because she is trying to emulate what she feels as though her source should do.

I, for example, have multiple sources. They are quite AU. I look different to how the canonical characters do, I speak differently, and things get altered and changed sometimes because I just would not have done what they did. But even back when I just had the one source and it was quite canonical, I learnt to not restrict myself by it. A source mate of mine used to do a certain hobby and really loved it, so we began to do it. And I found that I loved it. I let myself begin to do it even though it was not something based on source, I let myself be my own person with my own interests.

And that sourcemate I mentioned did not actually like it, not how he expected to. That hobby is an inseperable part of his source, but it is okay that he did not like it. He stopped doing it because it just made him frustrated and upset and he did not have to do it just because his source did.

That is what this post is about. Allowing yourself to be your own person. You do not have to be a brainmade alter to do that, and the idea that you do is honestly most likely part of why this post was made.

Some of y'all haven't experienced the joy and freedom of crafting an identity that is entirely your own, and it fucking shows

[princess-auklet]

My “new” syscourse stance. Anti-Generalizations. Stop making broad statements about a whole group off of a small subsection of that group. This goes every way. Don’t make generalizations about; endos, traumagens, CDD systems, pro-endos, anti-endos, endo-neutrals, etc. A few bad examples don’t define a large group.

[calico-constellation]

Hi! Feel no pressure to answer, but I have a few questions (regarding DID)

So I'm aware of what an endo system is, but I'm a bit confused on why it would be considered valid since the condition is directly caused by trauma, which is the thing that endos lack. Could you please explain your perspective on it? And maybe your perspective before you became pro-endo?

Hey! I've been sitting on this ask for a few days now. I do want to start out by thanking you for reaching out to me and asking about my perspective. Please note that you are not obligated to agree with me, or to change your mind just from my answer to your questions. I like having you as a mutual, and I will continue to do so regardless of your syscourse stance.

I'm going to grab a term that some of my mutuals in the DID community have used, and say I'm really more pro syscourse conversation than I am pro endo- pro endo is just the easiest way to communicate my basic stances.

I think the most important thing to understand here is that a lot of the time, the "are endos real" debate suffers from both sides fundamentally misunderstanding what the other's stance actually is. While there is a small subsection of the endo community claiming that DID isn't trauma based- which I vehemently disagree with, DID is absolutely trauma based, and that's backed by all of the research- that's not the majority.

Most endogenic systems are not claiming to have DID. They are claiming to experience themselves as more than one. I am by no means an expert on this, but I know that it is a very western-centric view to assume that everyone subscribes to being one singular self. If you want to learn more about non-western views on the self and on plurality, I would recommend looking at @system-of-a-feather's blog. They make great posts on the subject!

And- here's a real kicker- not everyone with a CDD- CDD standing for complex dissociative disorders and including the likes of DID, OSDD, P-DID, UDD, etc- actually identifies as plural. Not everyone with even DID identifies as plural. So if someone with a CDD can identify as one, what's stopping someone who doesn't have a CDD from identifying as more than one? This post puts it pretty well, so I'm just going to link it here! And if you're looking for scientific backing on endo systems? Dr Colin Ross, one of the very well known DID researchers, believes in non-traumagenic self states.

Basically, I'm choosing to believe people when they talk about their subjective personal experiences.

Now you did also ask about my anti-endo days and I will also gladly talk about those. I will admit, I was the worst kind of anti-endo. I was the type of person who would throw even other CDD systems under the bus as fakers because I wanted to seem more legitimate. Everyone who didn't present the "right" way was a faker. And endos, my goodness. They were the worst fakers of them all.

It was an extremely reactive position to take. I was suffering from my plurality, therefore everyone who wasn't had to be faking. They were making a mockery out of me! At least, that's how I perceived it.

And then I started interacting with endos, and pro endos. I realized that they were also real people, not just an abstract concept to make fun of to make myself look more legitimate. And I started reading blogs that had the rawest, realest content about CDDs that I'd come across thus far... and they were pro endo. And the arguments as to why were really good.

Somewhere along the way, I realized that the things that were leading me to being anti endo were the same things that made me into a transmed when in the 2010s. I believed that people had to meet a minimum quota of suffering to be real. In a way, I was defining people by it. And ultimately, if they are lying? It costs me nothing to believe them. I'd rather believe some liars than not believe people who are telling the truth. I've had enough experience with people not believing me. It sucks. I didn't want to keep doing that to others.

That's about the end of this yap session! Seriously, thanks again for asking, I really enjoyed writing this post. I hope I answered in a way that makes sense to you!

[fagsystem]

As underresearched as DID is, the most researched part of it is the fact that it is caused by trauma. There have been countless studies attempting to prove it is not caused by trauma (and therefore is not real). If DID was not caused by trauma, we would know.

[quoigenicfromhell]

To add to the headspace Discourse(tm), we are a gateway collective and believe our headspace (preferred term: inner world) to be real in at least some sense. There's differing opinions between us, largely depending on each collectivite's origin and their interaction with the inner world.

Whether or not this is a literal reality doesn't really impact our belief; we have no way of knowing, and assuming it's fictional or mentally generated and enforcing that belief would be harmful to collectivites who are from there, have family there, or have ongoing lives there.

Also: it isn't hurting anyone. Most people don't even know about our inner world, because what they see is the front, which is usually all that's relevant. We write about events that go on there in a personal locked journal, but again, it's certainly not anything we're forcing on anyone or trying to 'prove' in any way.

I think the discourse around the realness or unrealness of headspaces and inner worlds and the way it's framed is really indicative of how certain subsections of the syscourse community view the morality of sanity. We are naturally inclined to seeing the critical axis of judgement of any action or belief as 'is it harmful'. As long as someone isn't actually harming people, having an odd or untrue belief doesn't have any inherent moral weight, in our eyes. Especially for internal experiences. Someone believing they're hearing the voice of God or angels and not making that anyone else's problem is not hurting us. But are we judging discourse on real harm, or are we judging harm based on objective truth or 'sanity'? Who defines sanity and insanity, and are we reinforcing a certain worldview by reinforcing those judgements? Are we recreating ableist and saneist systems of oppression within our own communities on accident by bringing in unconscious biases about what is real or sane, and what is 'impossible' (or, if we were being more honest, what is 'insane'.)

[circular-bircular]

Out of wonder, what made you finally be pro-endo?

I'm anti-endo, but I've been looking more at stuff from endos. I'm still on the fence, but if you're okay with sharing, what kind of stuff convinced you?

Funny enough, I actually started as a pro-endo before shifting stances. I did the whole run of pro-endo to neutral to anti-endo to neutral to pro-endo pipeline.

Originally, I was pro-endo because I was completely misinformed. It's part of why I speak out so often about the misinformation in pro-endo spaces, which I still combat to this day. Then I shifted to anti-endo over the course of multiple years, but I only stayed at that point for about 6 months if I remember correctly.

Eventually, though, I really analyzed what I believed and what I knew. This is what I settled on, after discussions with a LOT of endogenic plurals:

I found that many of them acknowledged this as a very vague, personal identity sort of experience. A surprising amount actually have told me that what they're experiencing is just made up and pretend because they find it fun or relaxing.

Many (all but a small vocal minority I've found) accept and speak out about how endogenic plurality IS very different from DID, and how plurality in of itself is an identity label over an actual condition. This group also acknowledges that DID isn't inherently "plurality," and that plurality is a label you put on yourself.

These aren't just children who are at risk of mistaking DID for endogenic plurality; these are adults who have gone to therapy, have researched DID, and who have been found and have found themselves not fitting that criteria. Moreover, the children I do find in these spaces are willing to learn, because at the end of the day, they're in those spaces to figure themselves out.

When endogenic plurality can be something as simple as, "I can hear my character's voices in my head when I write," it would be ridiculous to say, "That doesn't exist." That's a well recorded phenomenon that people have now put a label to. At the end of the day, being pro-endo just means accepting that the thing exists. If people find that the label benefits them, then that really has nothing to do with me. So, there's no harm in being pro-endo and saying, "Hey, you know your brain better than I do, if you find it helpful to say that's plurality, then you do you."

At the end of the day, it doesn't impact me so greatly that it matters more than my trauma recovery, or my career, or my writing, or literally anything. Endogenic plurality does impact my life, don't get me wrong -- it's just that, by and large, so many other things matter so much more than what a small subsect of the human race labels themselves at. I have better windmills to tilt at, yknow?

I'll also add on, a large part of why I join so many "plural" servers, despite not really vibing with the plurality label most of the time, is to help spread information. Given the state of syscourse and the state of DID vs. Endogenic v. Plural, whatever have you -- a lot of echo chambers have popped up. A lot of incidental ableism takes place in a lot of places, purposeful or otherwise. By joining these spaces, I can learn more about them (and about how I view myself), but also, I can help share more information or correct issues. In one of my favorite servers, I recently mentioned that an article someone had cited was ableist and explained why, and got to have a very short and lovely conversation of the values of reading these horrible articles to learn more about those sorts of red flags. The potential is there that this wouldn't have happened without my presence.

Hope this helps clarify some! The TL;DR really is, "It hurts absolutely nobody to accept that people view themselves in a different way." I don't have sources to prove that it exists, but that's because it's a subjective experience. I can't "prove" I'm agender -- that's a label I chose for myself, and people accept that I say I am that. Why not accept endogenic systems too?

[circulars-reasoning]

In anon because I don't want my blog to be associated with syscourse at all.

I'm not even a tulpa or tulpamancer but I just have to say - isn't just renaming the term just like painting over it or being a mask on it?

It's going to be the exact same thing. People are still going to know what they are doing is tulpamancy and still going to be referring to old guides. Also I'm no expert but isn't there also like... Subsections of Tulpamancey? Like deamons and servitors? Are those words not also from the same origins?

(Preface; I am white as hell. If I say something wrong, please let me know).

As far as I’ve been able to parse, as someone who is attempting to get more involved in the various endogenjc communities, Daemons and Servitors are different altogether.

From everything I’ve seen, Tulpamancy is no different from created parts / thoughtforms / willogenics / parogenics / etc.. There are no actual practices taken from Tibetan Buddhism that make Tulpamancy different from other practices, according to tulpamancers I’ve spoken to — in fact, this was an arguing point from many vocal pro-tulpas for a long time. “The word is fine because the practice isn’t at all the same as Tibetan Buddhism.”

Since it’s the word that reflects the racist views of a white bitch who wanted to profit off of Buddhism — not the practice — then changing the term away from that would help cut down on racism within the thoughtform community.

However…

You’re right in that this isn’t “solving racism” or doing anything but changing a single word. There will be racist people in the thoughtform community, or the willogenic community, or— you get the picture. Just like there are plenty of racist anti-endos and CDD systems. It’s disgusting, and horrific, but it exists and needs to be addressed.

The issue is, we can’t stop racism by screaming “don’t be racist” at the top of our lungs. I’m of the belief we can’t stop it at all. But we can do our parts to uplift actual POC voices, and do our best to change what we can control — such as not using racist terms like “tulpa” and encouraging others to change as well. It’s about harm reduction in any way we can manage; those little steps are vital, not only to improve the culture of system (and potentially more) spaces, but to ensure that POC systems feel more welcomed in these communities (where racism is a major problem that goes frequently unaddressed).

[th-compl-x]

Okay, here's a list of questions for you!

Are you looking for more system friends or maybe a community? (I can try to get to know you because I'm also looking for a connection with someone who struggles with similar difficulties?)

About controversy. What do you think about syscourse? About pluralpunk, tulpas, fakeclaimers, endos…? If you don't want to comment, skip this subsection.

How did you discover that you are a system? What's the story behind it? Was it emotionally difficult for you to accept it? Did you feel like your life had turned upside down?

How do you deal with having so many alters? Do you think it's scarier than having a small number of alters? Would you like to have fewer alters?

How bad is your amnesia? How do you deal with it in your daily life when you're offline? Without a notebook, phone?

What metaphor would you use to describe your being a system? If you had to explain this to a small child with an open mind?

Is there anything you disagree with the experts, popular opinion on having DID/OSDD? What is your hear me out? What would you tell people who have any misconceptions about being a system? What misconceptions annoy you the most?

What do you think about the portrayal of DID/OSDD in popular culture? Like the movie "Split." Or anything else? What would be your perfect portrayal of being a system in the media? What do you want people to understand?

Do you have a favorite alter? A pet in the system? An alter who does the most useful thing and other alters like them? An alter who you admire, comforts you?

Do you think reality is more complicated than just saying you're trans? Do you prefer to call yourself a woman even if you have a lot of male alters? How do you see that? Does the term "genderfluid" seem appropriate? Or "queer"?

What do you think about SimplyPlural/Pluralkit and other apps that are supposed to help people who are a system?

Have you ever wanted to just delete your blog? Have you ever had doubts about your work? Has one of your alters wanted to do this?

How good is the communication in your system? Do you have headspace? How does it feel? (I don't know if I have headspace or I can't see it vividly so I'm asking! It's gray for me.)

Do you have a lot of denial? Do you try to deny that you are a system? How does it affect you? Do you forget what DID/OSDD is and everything you've read in, for example, a medical article? Or do you forget that you are a system and then you painfully realize it? Are you covert or overt? Do you ever feel ashamed of who you are? Are you open in public about being a system?

Has your headmate ever intimidated you, threatened you or said horrible things to you? Have you ever felt seriously threatened by this? Do you tend to forget conversations with alters? Do you seek support from your parts when things are difficult, or ask them to front?

How often do you split (split tolerance)? How does it feel for you? (This is the system that rarely splits, does not notice it and does not remember it.)

Do your alters have very different views from each other? Are they so contradictory that they irritate you and you start to feel ashamed?

Do the people around you know that you are plural? Are they supportive or are they ableist? Do your irl friends know how they react? Or how any coming out as a system went?

Have you been diagnosed? Are you going to get diagnosed? Is being a system a private knowledge for you? Do you see a therapist? What would you do if you did not really turn out to be a system for any reason, how much would that change, would you be scared?

What would you do if you found out that during a blackout you killed your friend? You wouldn't know what was happening and the police were on their way?

I think these are all the questions. They are not mandatory, take them calmly. If some questions are unpleasant, you don't want to say anything, skip them. And if you answer all the questions, you will get a yapping award from a big yapper like me.

See you soon!!!

I will answer all of these as best I can, but I'll reply to them one at a time via reblogs and tag you, if that's okay! 😅 (I think that'll work best for me)

But either way, tysm for all of this! I'm excited to grind through these and give you my/our responses 🥰

[sysmedsaresexist]

im a system trying to learn more about endos.

so far in syscourse ive only seen proof of cdds being traumagenic but they dont disprove non-cdd plurality, so what sources are there that have evidence of endogenic systems, if you have any?

Right now? There isn't any hard evidence that would satisfy anti endos. There's TONS of papers and articles talking about the recent emergence of endogenic systems, but they're mostly interview based. I debunked a lot of them when I was still anti. Small sample sizes, personal bias about dysfunction levels, all interviews. Those won't stand for those who are skeptical.

Now that I've calmed my gender neutral tits, though, I can look at where all this research is heading, and I can look back and find all the different terms that have been used to describe this same phenomenon. Those terms don't fall under psychology, they appear in journals about consciousness and self and philosophy, and they go all the way back to the 1800s, developing right alongside theories on hysteria and split personality, and the TOSD.

I don't need to do the work for you (/nm), just Google multiple self theory and fall down the rabbit hole. Trust me. One Google search, move at your own pace. It'll mean more when you find all this yourself and make the journey on your own. It was way more effective when I went alone.

That said, I'm not heartless.

The most promising research coming out is the tulpa studies.

Tanya Luhrmann and Michael Lifshitz are incredible, but it's Luhrmann who really stole my heart. She has a long list of work on religious communication with God and "others", and was a huge part of putting tulpas, and several other different voice hearing, religious communities into the fmri scanners to see what's going on. The reddit AMA is being passed around now, and it's largely being ignored by antis, without understanding what it was.

The tulpa studies began... shit, 5 years ago? Covid put a hold on the project, but it's back up and running and they're working on the final paper. The AMA was a chance for people to ask questions to the lead researchers about the project, including whether they found anything.

And they did.

The brains of tulpamancers and other practitioners lit up in unexpected areas and outside of conscious control (very basic overview).

Luhrmann also wrote about how this kind of research can help other voice hearers, and could potentially point to some new therapy opportunities for those struggling.

No, Luhrmann and Lifshitz are not dissociative specialists. Endogenic systems have screamed for decades about how they don't have CDDs and we just refuse to listen. This research is occurring in other areas and specialities. They don't need to be dissociative specialists to work fmri machines and see there's something happening.

My hope is that once the final results are published, we'll see some very quick movements comparing CDDs and endogenic systems. We're not there yet, but I think we'll actually have firm answers within the next couple years.

And after looking into other areas of research, and seeing the potential positives, and that they DID see some unexpected things on the scans...

Not to mention that I've spoken with Colin Ross, THE dissociative expert, who in the 1980s, wrote about "endogenous multiplicity," a subsection of those with MPD that had no trauma history, no dysfunction, no amnesia, etc, and he still stands by that to this very day. I've spoken with several other experts. Go look at Jamie Marich on Twitter and see all her colleagues in the notes.

Anti endo is a dying stance.

Learn nuance while you can (CDDs and endogenic plurality are different, occasionally overlapping), and jump ship before it's too late to take the harm back.

Happy googling and good luck!

[fagsystem]

I am strongly of the opinion that if a space is a 'no syscourse' space, then it should be an inclusive space.

The existence of people who are plural for reasons outside of CDDs is not inherently discourse. Regardless of your personal thoughts on their existence or validity, the experiences they have that cause them to call themselves plural is not discourse. It is some living person's real experiences. Those experiences are not defined by other people finding it contentious topic.

I have just seen so many spaces that are 'no syscourse' but also 'no endos'. Everyone else is fine, singlet or system, but not endos. That is not 'no syscourse', that's a space built on sysource.

Much the same, a 'no syscourse' space should be inclusive to people regardless of syscourse stance, including anti-endos.

And if this is sounding crazy to you, like "Oh, but endos are inherently ableist!" or "Oh, but anti-endos hate endos for existing!" then you really need to step back from syscourse. Neither of those things are problems exclusive to syscourse. Those are problems about ableism and cruelty to others. Those problems can be resolved by having just general rules for spaces such as, "Don't spread misinformation," and "Be kind to others."

Many endogenics are wonderful people who combat misinformation about CDD systems. Many anti-endogenics do not actually hate endogenics or even disbelieve their experiences. Everyone is just a person who you are reducing to nothing but syscourse. Not even their participation in it, but the groups they are tied to.

A space that's really no syscourse should not be based in syscourse. It is fine if you want a space where syscourse is not discussed, but if you are building it on reducing people to syscourse, then it is a space built on syscourse. It is a syscourse centric space. That is not what I would call a no syscourse space.

[fagsystem]

I just want to clarify the confusion I see occuring here.

Plurality is a non-pathological label to describe the experience of feeling like more than one. It does include many DID systems (us not included, thank you), but the core of it is that it is a very inclusive label. The term and the community have been built around the shared experience of feeling like more than one person, not having DID/OSDD. When you are posting in plural tags, you are engaging in a shared space with all plurals, including endogenic ones.

Being anti-endogenic does not invalidate your plurality. Much the same as not having a CDD does not invalidate endogenics plurality. However, when you are engaging in a shared community and are against a good portion of that community, I understand why some people would get upset about that.

I am not going to tell you what you can and cannot tag your things as. I just think it is important that it is clarified to you that you are going into a community built by not just CDD systems but endogenics as well, and telling endogenics that you are against them. I do not know what anti-endogenic means to you specifically, but regardless, it is not unreasonable for it to be assumed that you do not believe in their existence and do not believe in their plurality. So when you engage in spaces built in large part by them and for them, you will face understandable backlash and criticism for that.

Once again, I am not telling you what to do. If it were me, I personally would not be tagging my things as that. But I just wanted to make sure you understood what the anon meant, as you seem to have been confused by it.

"anti endo" - posts in the plural tag

You hate endos? Well endos don't want you in their tags. Crosstagging is just asking for your dni to be broken.

Mhm! If you've come from the post i commented on like 4 minutes ago i did state i didnt wish them to come to me and i wasnt going to be staying on theirs, that i was simply curious. I also dont remember them being an endo system, just a pro-endo system. And i also never said i hated them, just that i do not want them to interact with me because we will not get along.

[sysmedsaresexist]

hi it's me the system who sent in an ask ab your username a few days ago back with yet another syscourse question! (sorry for bothering y'all lmao) what is plurality? ive been seeing a lot of posts on here saying it isn't did and then a lot of posts that say it is and . yeah ! is it different from osddid in some way, or is it like. a subsection of those groups or something else entirely

Once again, it depends on who you ask ): you're not bothering!

I've gotten into it with both sides about what plurality is and if/how it's different. I can only give my personal thoughts on it, but there isn't really an answer at this point. Maybe in the future, but not now.

So.

IMO.

CDDs are trauma-based disorders (fact, not opinion). Trauma during childhood will leave "injuries" on the brain, and these injuries affect every aspect of a CDD system's life. For example, how we experience, store, and retrieve memories, or our emotional processing abilities, to how and why we form alters.

Plurality is... not that.

Plurality is an umbrella for any experience that makes you feel like you're "more than one." It's largely considered an opt-in label these days.

So, throwing this out there now, plurality as a concept was meant to be anti psych when it was created. It was chosen to be the opposite of multiple, referring to MPD, and was meant for people who wanted an unmedicalized experience, for any number of reasons.

"More than one," was used by the TPA to attack systems using parts language-- "Less than one."

This is a touchy topic for many CDD systems, and most endogenic systems don't actually know why we're so mad. I'm willing to bet the "more/less" thing went unnoticed by plurals.

So while some will say that CDDs fall under the plural umbrella, others, like myself, find that being forced under what was meant to be a non medical umbrella for systems that looked down on disordered systems to be incredibly offensive.

I mean, just look at Lancers and Pavilion to see just how cruel that early community was towards trauma based and disordered systems.

That said.

While there are some endogenic systems who will find out they're actually a CDD system, "endo with repressed trauma" doesn't account for all experiences. And neither does "CDD system mistaking normal CDD experiences for plural experiences."

Based on research coming out, we can start to see how it's possible for tulpamancers and religious practitioners to have "not me" experiences that are outside of their conscious control.

And it's different.

Edit to add, because I didn't mean to imply otherwise-- Systems can also choose to label their experiences however they want. Systems can experience more than one type of plurality and label that however they choose. CDD systems can and do use plural. There's nothing wrong with that.

[fagsystem]

I am removing the phrase, 'DID is underresearched,' from everyone's vocabulary unless they have an actual understanding of what research has been done in regards to DID. What you are actually looking for is, 'I am uneducated about research into DID/OSDD. All I know is that people have called it underresearched. Therefore my completely uneducated opinion about it could be true because it could be something that's underresearched about it. Not that I would know, as I am entirely uneducated about what research there is with DID.'

[fagsystem]

One interesting thing we have been learning in my psychology class is Tajfel's experiments related to intergroup discrimination.

It honestly reminds me a lot of syscourse.

The summary is that the participants (boys aged 14-15) were split into groups, and very quickly there was a lot of out-group discrimination. For example, the boys could decide whether they would award money to benefit only their own group, or everyone in the study. They chose not to allocate money in a way that maximised total profit, instead the majority chose to allocate money only for the good of their own group.

They were more concerned about creating as much difference as possible between the amounts allocated to themselves and the other group than getting a greater amount of money for everyone.

This reminds me a lot of the ingroup outgroup mentalities I have seen and experienced in syscourse.

When I first joined syscourse, I was overwhelmed by divide between pro-endogenic and anti-endogenics. I felt as though I had to pick one. I quickly became anti-endogenic, despite not really caring before, and also very quickly became quite hostile towards pro-endogenics. It was less so even about endogenics, more so about pro-endogenics.

Which you see a lot in syscourse. People will use pro-endogenic when they really should mean endogenic, because they are opperating under an in-group (anti-endogenics) versus outgroup (pro-endogenics) mentality.

You also see this whenever someone on one side does something poor, in the reaction it receives from their group versus the other group. If an anti-endogenic said something horrible, generally I see pro-endogenics responding to it by saying, 'Anti-endogenics believe XYZ.' Generally, I see anti-endogenics addressing it by addressing the specific person/bad thing, and denouncing that thing. And vice versa.

@sysmedsaresexist just made a post where they said if you engage with pro-endogenics you will see the worst of anti-endogenics, and if you engage with anti-endogenics you will see the worst of pro-endogenics. Which is entirely true.

With this intergroup fighting, people are always searching for the worst of the other side and dragging it around as proof that the other side is horrible. That their own side is better. And, if you consider yourself in either group, subconsciously you are likely doing the same. Not to mention, I feel as though people are subconsciously justifying horrible behaviour because it is happening to the other group.

Very little has changed in how I engage in syscourse and who I engage in it with since I stopped considering myself anti-endogenic. I am still seeing much of the same sort of content as I ever have before. If anything, I am seeing far less anti-endogenic content as I end up blocking a lot of anti-endogenics now. But whenever I see anti-endogenics being mean, it properly bothers me now.

Before, it would feel cathartic. 'I also dislike the other group, the other group has done all these bad things, it feels good to see someone else who is angry.:

Now, it just feels mean. It feels as though so much of it is just people being angry over ableist rhetoric they have seen in the pro-endogenic community, and in their angry they are lashing out at people and their existences. It feels as though so much of it is just people wanting to hurt the other group and using shallow excuses of 'but pro-endogenics are bad because-' to justify it.

Honestly, almost all of syscourse feels as though it is just people wanting to hurt the other group and using shallow excuses of 'but the other group is bad because-' to justify it.

We are all just people. I suppose ingroup outgroup mentalities is just as people do. But I hope if you have read this far you can recognise that people outside of your group are also people. Extend the same care, compassion, and respect to them as you would someone in your own group. Including those in the other group that cause harm, are you treating them more harshly than those in your own group who do the same?

Be nice to each other please.

[fagsystem]

syscourse is to the point were if someones pro endo 8 timss out of 10 they're blocked for racism or ableism or misinfo and if someones anti endo 8 times out of 10 theyre blocked for being a dick

i see many posts like 'looking at syscourse rn... thats fucked...' and like. i saw nothing bad at all! because i blocked them already!

this is both a reminder to block liberally to take care of yourselves, and also a omfg EVERYONE SUCKS