#such a depth of meaning such a plurality there

[fellhellion]

very frustrated by how like. I constantly feel as though I accidentally obfuscate what I’m trying to say even as I’m trying to use incredibly precise tools to say it clearly 😭

[funnier-as-a-system]

sorry for the possibly dumb question

what the fuck is a system

Don't worry, anon, this isn't a dumb question at all! Systems aren't very well-known, so I'm happy to explain them to you. I'll start by explaining what a system is, then go more in-depth about systems in general.

So, you know how most people are one person? Or, rather, you know how when you meet someone, you assume they're the only person in their body? You don't really think "I wonder if this person shares their body and life with other beings." or "I wonder if this person I know is actually multiple people all sharing the same body.", but that's how it is for systems!

In simple terms, a system is any collective group of self-aware entities that share the same body (which is, I fully acknowledge, a complicated definition, but basically we have multiple selves whereas most people would have just one, and each self has their own identity). We may not specifically consider ourselves individual people (some systems see themselves as separated parts of one whole person, for instance), but it'll probably help you understand if you think of us as people that happen to share the same body. We each have our own sense of self, ideas, feelings, personalities, and on and on, just like anyone else.

Although this probably sounds very strange and surprising, it's likely that you've heard of systems before – just not with that language. Many people have heard of "multiple personalities" or "Multiple Personality Disorder", which is how systems used to be known. This sort of understanding of systems is especially common in horror movies, which tend to depict systems as serial killers or monsters. Of course, systems are no more likely to hurt others than anyone else is, but the stereotype and stigma persists, and can lead to harassment or even violence against systems.

However, you may have also come across more positive depictions. Body sharing is a common trope, for instance. People with Dissociative Identity Disorder, who often describe themselves as systems, are being more often portrayed as regular or kind people rather than serial killers, such as Uendo Toneido from Ace Attorney. I've often seen systems point to characters and series like Venom, Sense8, and Moon Knight – which depict systems or situations and characters that resonate with systems – to describe what their lives are like. We often find characters that are rather like systems that may not have been intended to be read as such and have a laugh about it; you might be able to spot the same, now that you know what you're looking for.

So, systems can be understood as when a single body is inhabited by more than one person, or being, or entity (whichever term you prefer). We may share the same body, but we each have our own selves, and often, our own names and identities, too.

That's the essence of it! I'll put more under the cut about systems in case you're curious.

For starters, if you're looking into systems, you'll probably run across the term "plurality", which is an overarching term that refers to all instances of someone sharing a body/brain; it is the state of being more-than-one, not just an individual collection of beings in a single body (the latter is what the word "system" specifically refers to). There's also the word "plural", which can be used either as a noun to mean the same thing as "system", or as an adjective to describe things that involve or exhibit plurality. For instance, I am plural. I very much enjoy talking about plurality and plural characters in fiction.

(As a comparison, you may think of video chats/group calls. Plurality, here, would be video chats in general. Meanwhile, a specific video chat – called a webinar – would be a system. And the people in a webinar would be the members of a system. Or, for another example, plurality would be education, a system would be a class, and the members of that system would be the students.)

Speaking of, beings who share a body – who are part of a system – are called many different terms. Two of the most common are "headmate" and "alter", although I also see "system member" a lot. I could say that my headmate was rather helpful today, or that my alter was fronting yesterday. Alter is more medical of a term, but it's more standard, especially in some other languages outside English.

But, wait, you might be wondering what fronting is! Well, since we all live in the same body, we've got to share control of it too, don't we? Fronting is what we call controlling the body, and switching is when we change who is in control. Some systems switch often, while others switch rarely, or only under certain circumstances, and some systems never switch at all. Switching may be involuntary, or it may be a voluntary skill a system has picked up. There's a lot of variety across systems.

Plurality is most often known in the context of DID, or Dissociative Identity Disorder, which often involves a lot of involuntary switches. P-DID, or Partial Dissociative Identity Disorder, meanwhile, involves very few switches, but these are likely to be involuntary, as well. There are other disorders that plurality may be a part or symptom of, but plurality can also exist as its own non-disordered state, so long as there's no attached or related issues causing problems for the system (ex. memory issues are another frequent problem in DID, and these memory issues come from the members of a system not remembering what the others did when those alters were fronting).

You may be wondering, how does this happen? How does someone become a system? There are many different ways. Sometimes, it's a part of someone's culture, religion, or spirituality. Sometimes, it's the brain's response to trauma, trying to protect itself. Sometimes, someone is simply born this way. Sometimes, someone may become a system out of the blue, or cause their own plurality somehow. Some systems have a multitude or mix of origins. Most studies on systems currently focus on systems that originate from trauma, as these systems most often have issues – including the trauma in question – that need to be looked into and addressed, but there are some budding studies into systems with other origins, such as the few current and ongoing studies on created systems (the aforementioned systems that cause their own plurality).

I'm simplifying some things here; identity such as this gets increasingly nuanced and personal as you learn more and more (for example, as said before, not all system members identify as individual persons, even if it can help understand them to think of them like individual persons that just happen to share a body). But I hope this helped you learn at least the basics about systems!

[ecoamerica]

Watch the American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 now: https://youtu.be/bWiW4Rp8vF0?feature=shared

The American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 broadcast recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by active climate leaders. Watch to find out which finalist received the $50,000 grand prize! Hosted by Vanessa Hauc and featuring Bill McKibben and Katharine Hayhoe!

[orange-orchard-system]

Been thinking for a while about what one of our singlet friends said about not really getting what it's like to have DID or be a system. And while I get it, it's just something that stuck in my mind because... I don't really know what it's like to not be a system. I haven't had that experience. For as long as I can remember, I've been more-than-one. And so it's interesting to think of my life as something that others struggle to fully understand.

Again, I get it. It's very hard for me to put certain experiences into words or even art, and I've been in the position of a "singlet" (a plural egg, really, but at the time I didn't have any awareness of that that would help me understand) trying and failing to understand system things. I've been there. I know how hard it is to get something like this, and I know how hard it is to describe something like this. I get it.

But at the same time, I don't think it's an impassable mountain. I think of that post going around Tumblr that easily and clearly explains calculus, of all complicated things, and I think "Is plurality really so impossible to explain when this can be done? Difficult, yes, but impossible?" and I don't really think it is. Sometimes, things will have to be simplified – which is a large hurdle I find people encountering, trying to simplify something enough to make sense but not enough that it loses all its meaning – but I think it's a bridge we can build.

Do I know how? Sort of. I don't have a foolproof plan, but I like to bring up and explain plurality to the people in my life. I told a professor about plurality and am writing to her to explain it more in-depth. I gave a speech on dissociation and highlighted dissociative disorders as something I recommended the audience learn about. I wear plural merch and answer people's questions on it. I think just making the attempt, even if you have to simplify things, goes a long way in the long run.

Every time I try to add more to this post it devolves into poetry that only vaguely makes sense, so I'll end the post here. Moral of the story is uhhhh differences in experiences aren't walls between us, we can always work for a better future together. May you have the strength and courage to help both others and yourself

[lefluoritesys]

My sibling in system (disorder holder & fictive) really wants me to do this post, but they barely have any words, so here we go:

We see a lot of systems struggle with big decision-making IRL because not everybody is on board, and we realized that trying to have everybody on board is probably the worst thing we have ever tried in the history of our systemhood. And I'm saying this as the alter who also dug too deep into our trauma and almost became Elsa in the depths Ahtohallan. Moreover, we're also polyfragmented. After a long and painful time of trying to figure our decision-making as a system, we have finally come up with some tips that might be useful for some other systems:

Ask your active fronters instead of all your alters. This might work best for polyfragmented systems but still works for smaller systems, too. Yes, active fronters and frequent fronters can change after a while, but it's still better to do what's best for you all npw and what you all want now than think about the possibilities of the future that haven't happened yet. Unless they are like life and death or extremely harmful to y'all, however, it's always necessary to take precautions.

Compromise is not supposed to please everybody 100%. Compromise is supposed to find a solution that 1) You all don't hate as much, 2) Will keep you safe. As long as others agree by at least 50%, the compromise is good. If you find other options, and they please everybody more, then by all means, go for it. But as long as it's safe, and all of you agree by at least a half (or, well, 50%), then that's a good compromise. Perfect solutions don't exist. Not always, at least. At the end of the day, you will still disagree with each other on little things, even if the plan feels and/or is perfect.

Your system structure, ideology, and hierarchy really do decide how you make decisions. There is literally no perfect advice for you out there, not even this post. Some systems have a host, and everything heavily depends on their decisions and how they are affected by what's going to happen. Some systems don't have a host but have a group of people at front who are in charge. Some systems are partial DID systems, some systems are class systems. It's always going to be different. Just because some tips work for some systems doesn't mean they should absolutely work for you.

Create polls if they work for you. Polls might work. Grab a system journal and tell everyone there's an active poll and get their answers (Simply Plural provides that option).

Writing a list of wants and desires. Your alters has a dream? Have them right it down (with consent) and consider it in your next big decision. Or just a decision. Maybe your alter wants chips, and you go out the next day, so you're like, "Oh yeah, lemme buy chips on the way home for them."

Writing a list of pros and cons. Cliché, I know. And gotta admit, never tried it ourselves just yet. But if we did, we'd probably write a general list of pros and cons, then letting our trauma holders and active fronters add some stuff that they want.

Speaking of your trauma holders, listen to your goddamn trauma holders. LISTEN TO THEM. If there's one type of alters who know more about your life and potentially you more than you do, it's your trauma holders. They know what they're talking about. They are not imagining it (this was said due to personal experience and not as an attack). It was, in fact, that bad, and even if you don't believe that, believe them when they say it. If a trauma holder says to get away from somebody or someone, hear them out. Do not dismiss them but have a conversation with them and understand that their opinion on the matter is important. It really helps to put things in perspective.

If you make the decision that will not affect you long-term, hold responsibility for that decision. Hold responsibility always, obviously, but I mean alter-wise. Alert others about it, or front long enough until that decision stops affecting you. Have a safety net in the form of your alters.

Always have a safety net IRL, too. Friends, maybe immediate family if possible, lover, partner system. Know where the nearest hospitals and fire departments are, write down all the emergency numbers. We ourselves created a list on our system notion page where we have names and emergency contacts of the people who we can turn to in case of a crisis, as well as local crisis lines. We also add notes about whether or not we can bring up the system around these people. Even if it's something small, better be prepared than dead (I am well aware a lot of you want to fight me on this, but you know what I mean, no dying. /t /nm)

Will this work for every system? No. But it works for ours. /ref

-host

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

Hey so I've been wondering about inclusivsm vs exclusivism in Christianity and the Bible. I've had more of a inclusivst view before, but I find that there's also a large amount of exclusivism in the Bible. So, I was wondering what you think about it overall? Is it both? Neither? Nothing? One? Anyway, may the Lord be with you always 💛💐

Hi there! I am 100% against exclusivism, and lean towards religious pluralism. For me that means I don't believe that only Christians go to heaven, that Christianity is the only "right" belief system / that Jesus is the only path to the Divine, or that Christians are God's Extra Special Favorites.

When we pray Thy will be done, we look forward to God's will succeeding — and what God wills is abundant life for everyone! Not just for the Right Kind of Christians; not just for all Christians in general; not even just for all human beings; but for all Creation.

There are numberless ways to worship the Divine, to express faith, to glorify our Creator. Wherever there is life, there is Spirit. Wherever there are beings seeking to bring life, Divinity is glorified.

The diversity of faiths is a holy gift that we too often twist into a flaw to be corrected. God shaped humans to need one another — alone, our perspectives and gifts are limited; only together can we hope to come close to understanding the Divine. We have so much to learn from one another — if only let go of our smugness, our sense of superiority, our need to be the ones with All The Answers. If only we let go of the fear we've been taught — fear that we'll go to hell if we're wrong; fear that others will go to hell if they're wrong.

Sorry for waxing poetic lol. Here's a post where I explore inclusivism vs. exclusivism in more depth, including looks at various Bible passages.

Other related things:

Here's a really old post/video that gathers some of my thoughts on inclusivism, salvation, heaven.

Here's a more recent post where I talk about why I don't believe in hell.

My evangelism tag (tl;dr: I'm staunchly against prosletyzing to anyone who doesn't explicitly request more info about Christianity)

I highly recommend the book Holy Envy by Barbara Brown Taylor for a Christian framework for forming respectful, mutual relationships with people of other faiths. This tag has some excerpts from the book.

[sys-confessions]

i feel strange for.. not wanting to really call us a system.

like, yeah, that's what we are. a DID system. but "system" is such a strange word to me.

maybe its because I was interacting with online system communities long before I knew I had DID myself, and already had the "noo, I'm not a system, systems have all these things like an inner world and communication and have known they were plural for years" mindset. maybe its just because I'm new to this and I'm still adjusting to the terminology.

either way its still strange. I cant think of any alternatives that have the same meaning or depth to them but I don't think I'm ready to actually say "system."

.

[ecoamerica]

Watch the 2024 American Climate Leadership Awards for High School Students now: https://youtu.be/5C-bb9PoRLc

The recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by student climate leaders! Join Aishah-Nyeta Brown & Jerome Foster II and be inspired by student climate leaders as we recognize the High School Student finalists. Watch now to find out which student received the $25,000 grand prize and top recognition!

[thenightmarketofdathomir]

Oh great Wishmonger - I'm curious. What were the bros like when pursuing an intended mate when they were just starting out? Before Savage was magically enhanced? Before Maul's fall on Naboo? Before Feral had his first kiss? Not necessarily a first time in bed - just how did they show interest Before the galaxy cruelly shaped them into their deadliest selves?

I struggled with this one a bit, I'll be honest, anon -- I try to respond to the fantasy often but there are occasions where the headcanon is so strong that it sometimes makes it prohibitive.

Permit me to explain myself, and apologies if this wasn't what you were hoping for:

I think "mate" is a very strong term that imparts significance to a zabrak's chosen partner -- not to serve some biological imperative, because it's free of sex or gender -- but because it implies a connection that's deeper than boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other/partner/wife/husband/in singular or plural. A "mate" is someone to whom their soul is connected. It's forever.

Given what we know of Maul's upbringing under Sidious, even and especially if we considered Wrath as canon, he would not have had that opportunity. His Master's Grand Plan was too deeply inculcated. He had a purpose and he was forged for that mission alone -- and even if he had met his soul's connection in some dingy alley in the depths of an ecumenopolis somewhere, or on a prison satellite, or at an auction where he might've met his enemy for the first time, or top of a reactor shaft where he nearly lost his life... he wouldn't have recognized that flicker between him and another being that sparked recognition, and if he did, he wouldn't know what it meant. The don't call it "the Tragedy of Darth Maul" for nothing.

As for Savage and Feral, selecting a mate wasn't an option for them. They were chosen by Nightsisters as breeding stock, their candidacy determined through brutal Selection to determine the most viable Nightbrother partners. (I don't like the Nightsisters much for various reasons, but this is definitely one of them.) If we assume that Nightbrothers had any agency whatsoever, their relationships were with each other, and those connections were fleeting, given the precedent. I don't think many Nightbrothers had the opportunity to pair off with their hearts' chosen, and if they were among the clans, then the risk of losing them because of the Nightsisters government is practically a given. And I don't want to think about what it means for two people to be torn apart like that. (I mean, yes I do because the side of my work that I don't often share on this blog is driven by angst and I think there's a good story there, but it causes me pain when paired with Feral and Savage in particular, and I will fiercely protect their hearts from anyone who tries to break them.)

"But what if they could?" you're asking. "What if we re-wrote the history completely?"

Fine, then. Have it your way.

Feral would likely do something outlandish, like carving your name into the bare patch of skin over his hearts with diluted hydraatis acid to declare how very serious he is about courting you

Savage would come by your hut every day, morning, noon, and night to escort you everywhere so everyone in the village understands his claim, bringing you little trinkets that he's made for you. It's a task because you know he was keeping one eye on his little brother (doing stupid things with corrosive materials, as previously mentioned.)

Maul will drop the carcass of your enemies on your doorstep to prove his commitment and declare his intentions towards you. The bigger and more deadly they are, the greater his sentiments.

[stawdynchill]

Thoughts on the lore

After reading some of the Touchstarved fandom’s headcanons and in-depth analysis( y’all make really good points ngl) I wanted to dump these long thoughts out:

The founding of Senobium and Kuras:

I think shortly after Kuras was being exiled from the heavens and came to Eridia. He met a few scholarly mortals that initially shared the same ideals and beliefs with himself. With that being said, Kuras opened up and  has shared lots of things about himself / the forbidden knowledge and all of them decided to establish the Senobium together.

But the characteristics of human nature runs deep among mortals, which caused a difference between Kuras’ and those co-founders of Senobium, resulting in a severe conflict and lead to their betrayal to Kuras. Yet, since they hold so much information, they have the advantage of using them to (sort of-) threaten/ blackmail Kuras for something ( and that potentially explains why Kuras became less open to others in the game) so he would still have to work for the senobium. 

The origin of word Senobium:

I did some research and found out there’s a similar word to Senobium, which is Cenobium ( source from google):

cenobium

/səˈnəʊbɪəm/

noun

noun: cenobium; plural noun: cenobia; noun: coenobium; plural noun: coenobia

a monastery."many pilgrims flocked to the cenobium in search of the monk"

in the game, Senobium is known by MC for people flocking there to in search of knowledge, hence there should be a correlation between the background of senobium and Cenobium’s word meaning - where the place Senobium is derived and inspired by the word "Cenobium".

Extension from previous thoughts:

I recall reading a post from a Tumblr user that briefly mentioned the Abbess from Vere’s route, suggesting that it could be linked to the senobium. The word abbess (from google again) means:

a woman who is the head of an abbey of nuns."she's the abbess of the Abbey, the Mother Superior to twenty-three nuns"

Based on the original word meaning of Cenobium - a monastery, and the Abbess meaning the head nun that oversees the rest of the party. Could she be linked to Kuras or authoritative figures that founded the senobium, did she do something that makes Eridia the place it is now? Bc to me, I believe the words and their meaning behind are chosen accordingly to the lore.

[sophieinwonderland]

you literally invalidated that system for referring to the constant voices as hell… now you’re saying you can see how it might be distressing. it seems like you really like to argue and tell people how they’re wrong, as if you’re some kind of system expert, despite never having actually done any kind of in depth work with systems face to face other than yourself.

many people can experience multiple inner voices without identifying as plural. it’s a normal experience. it’s why mindfulness and meditation are so challenging- quieting the monkey brain. social contagion of DID through the media has people misconstruing normal phenomena as disordered or as identity. what’s actually the disordered behavior is wearing a pathology as one’s entire identity.

Context

No I didn't.

I did call them out for trying to apply their own subjective experiences to everyone. To use "not having privacy is hell" as a talking point to dismiss other systems.

It's absolutely valid for them to be distressed by a perceived lack of privacy. It's not valid to use that to make that everyone else's problem.

If they had simply made a vent post complaining about their own experiences as their own experiences, I never would have touched it. But instead they condescendingly told endogenic systems to "imagine" what it would be like to have people always there with them. And the scenario they describe is something that just... isn't a problem for most people.

many people can experience multiple inner voices without identifying as plural. it’s a normal experience. it’s why mindfulness and meditation are so challenging- quieting the monkey brain.

No. Sorry. Most people don't have multiple voices in their heads with their own distinct personalities and autobiographical memories.

social contagion of DID through the media has people misconstruing normal phenomena as disordered or as identity. what’s actually the disordered behavior is wearing a pathology as one’s entire identity.

How dare people with dissociative identity disorder treat their dissociative identities as their entire identity! ✊/s

🙄

Anyway, DID has been estimated anywhere from 1% to 3% of the population. One reason I don't find social contagion claims to be very compelling is that the numbers of DID systems online still seem pretty far below the general population estimations.

I mean, I do think there are some plural systems without DID who are probably convinced they have DID, especially when it's pushed as the possible way to be plural by anti-endos. But comparing the numbers of DID systems online to the estimated numbers in the general population reveals that DID is probably underrepresented.

There's not a social contagion of DID. What there is instead is a boom of DID awareness that's causing more people to discover they have the disorder.

[pigletbomb]

An indepth analysis on Nichayne

Yes i know what your thinking. “An analysis on a non canon rarepair? That’s insane” and while you’re right I think these two have much more going on for them than the average rarepair. So without further ado here’s me picking apart every Nichelle and Wayne interaction between each other. (Also spoilers for the new season but it so minor it doesn’t even matter)

In s1 e1 when are introduced to both Wayne and Nichelle both on the ferocious Frogs. We don’t get what Wayne reaction is to Nichelle arrival but we can assume he pleasantly surprised like everyone else. Moving along when Raj and Wayne get settled into the cabins Wayne quotes, “Our team has some real hotties.” Although he could’ve been talking about Emma or Julia the plural use of the word means he was talking about multiple people and it would be insane of him *not* to find Nichelle hot in some way.

After this we move on the actual challenge. Which pairs up Nichelle and Wayne and we get to see fully how they interact on their own with no other interference. Nichelle is shown to be a bit more sensible and cares about how others sees her. From the quotes, “If i get stung can you make sure it not on my face?” And “Run are you crazy?” This contrast with Wayne who doesn’t really care about getting hurt nor really cares about how others see him. The other is absolutely ahead in the challenge right now and with Nichelle not really wanting to run Wayne offers her a piggyback ride. I think him offering her a piggyback ride is like so funny he doesn’t he question why she doesn’t want to run and instead is like “pretty girl doesn’t want to run I’ll run for her!” This cute moment fails in the end as they both fall onto the hot coals.

Leading into the first elimination it could be clear why anyone would be reasonable upset at Nichelle caring for your looks over a challenge despite this Wayne doesn’t seem upset with her at all his expression instead showing concern for her more than anything. Next episode they don’t interact that much but here are some few things i think are worth mentioning.

- Nichelle and Wayne stand together constantly throughout the challenge (and ik ppl get annoyed when a person ships an rarepair only cause they stiff next to one another but it happens so many times with Nichayne it’s kinda crazy they are even together in the intro song and in the finale.)

- Nichelle and Wayne have a brief conversation pertaining to the challenge but i think it continues their Nichelle being the more sensible one and Wayne being a bit more out there)

Episode 3 immediately starts with Wayne along with Emma and Raj talking to Nichelle amazing over her various different roles she played. However Wayne in particular recalls her stunt on the plane kicking the guy off the flight. Wayne admiration for Nichelle and her physical prowess is a common theme with these two that I’ll expand later on in this post.

In the 3rd challenge the team assigns Nichelle to go last as they believe she will be able finish them out strong. Right after Wayne turn and it Nichelle and my god after seeing s2 Nichelle compare to s1 the difference is very much noticeable as she absolutely sucks here. However like i was talking about earlier his admirations for Nichelle causes him to immediately rationalize her flaws (in this case her physicality) he also the first one in the team to do so. When Chris announces that the Frogs had lost Wayne compares it to what i assume is one of the hockey games he and Raj played. But going in more depth of this line I’m not sure what it could exactly mean. In my shipper mind it could mean that seeing Nichelle being total different to who she is on screen was such a tragedy he compares it to a bad hockey game or the team losing in general is like a bad hockey game I’m not sure on this one. Afterwards when Wayne walks past Nichelle he looks visibly upset and we get later confirmation of this in a confessional were Wayne sounds disappointed and he still looks sad here. This is the end for interactions with them for season one where Nichelle is still presence.

In episode 4 Wayne is still dejected about Nichelle. Wayne once again brings up Nichelle fierceness. Now it’s time for season two.

Nichelle and Wayne are on opposite teams this season. Which if you have never watch total drama you might think there no possible way they could make it as a couple now but even in this very season this logic gets proven wrong by a new canon couple and couples in the last who weren’t on the same team. All this really means for them is they have less interaction compared to before. Moving on remember how i kept mention about about how Wayne admiration for Nichelle stems from her fierceness and the physicality she shown on screen yeah guess what happens this episode? Nichelle in the flesh pulls off an insane stunt that manages to wow everyone. You could only image how proud Wayne probably felt in the moment.

Episode 2-3 Nichelle and Wayne don’t interact at all (if they did please correct me on this) which made me worry that all the material that we got from them from s1 was thrown out the window until episode 4 came around and gave me the crumbs I need to write a whole analysis on them. In the challenge the contestant are required to answer questions about one another to make it to the end of a glass bridge. Nichelle gets Wayne question and doesn’t answer it on her own as Emma constantly insists she a people person, she gets a wrong and my god am I glad that Emma did this one thing. As soon Nichelle drops from. The glass bridge she lands on a wolverine and makes it on the ground safely without even getting hurt or at all touching the water. Wayne in response to seeing the most insane stunt happen is impressed and visibly shows this as well smiling widely. Also correct me if I’m wrong but this is the first time Wayne reacts to somebody that’s not on his own team.

I’m 99% sure no one has positively reacted to Nichelle improved skills since episode one of the new season. Wayne is seeing fierceness which made him like Nichelle so much in the first place right in front of his eyes.

This is pretty much a wrap till the finale of s2 or if they get a s3. Well tell me what you think about this analysis ^^

[decolonize-the-left]

"youre being an alarmist"

The party of Telling on Themselves is actually conflating queer ppl/our allies with pedophiles and would happily see us tried to death as pedophiles if we get in between Desantis and human rights.

Fascist ideologues taught that national identity was the foundation of individual identity and should not be corrupted by foreign influences, especially if they were left-wing. Nazism condemned Marxist and liberal internationalisms as threats to German national unity.

Fascists in general wanted to replace internationalist class solidarity with nationalist class collaboration. The Italian, French, and Spanish notion of integral nationalism was hostile to individualism and political pluralism. Unlike democratic conservatives, fascists accused their political opponents of being less “patriotic” than they, sometimes even labeling them “traitors.”

[...]

Scapegoating

Fascists often blamed their countries’ problems on scapegoats. Jews, Freemasons, Marxists, and immigrants were prominent among the groups that were demonized. According to fascist propaganda, the long depression of the 1930s resulted less from insufficient government regulation of the economy or inadequate lower-class purchasing power than from “Judeo-Masonic-bolshevik” conspiracies, left-wing agitation, and the presence of immigrants. The implication was that depriving these demons of their power and influence would cause the nation’s major problems to go away.

x

Which includes everyone else they targeted of course. Queer folk included. For depriving the Aryan race of children.

From the same entry:

Populism

Fascists praised the Volk and pandered to populist anti-intellectualism. Nazi art criticism, for example, upheld the populist view that the common man was the best judge of art and that art that did not appeal to popular taste was decadent. Also populist was the Nazi propaganda theme that Hitler was a “new man” who had “emerged from the depth of the people.”

This is the ideology behind banning drag. Labeling it as legally obscene which generally means "offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency." There is no singular legal definition. Whatever locals see fit. Which is how Desantis is getting away with what he's doing.

Pretty direct tie to that is this next bit:

Revolutionary Image

[...] Under the Third Reich, Goebbels subsidized an exhibition of modern art not to celebrate its glory but to expose its decadence; he called it simply the “Exhibition of Degenerate Art.” Fascism’s claims to newness did not prevent its propagandists from pandering to fearful traditionalists who associated cultural modernism with secular humanism, feminism, sexual license, and the destruction of the Christian family.

And for all the leftists constantly saying to disregard the rural, more conservative areas like the ones I'm in. To the ones saying "they're a useless effort" and to focus on cities.

Antiurbanism

Fascists also pandered to antiurban feelings. The Nazis won most of their electoral support from rural areas and small towns. In Nazi propaganda the ideal German was not an urban intellectual but a simple peasant, and uprooted intellectualism was considered a threat to the deep, irrational sources of the Volk soul. Jews were often portrayed—and therefore condemned—as quintessential city dwellers. In 1941 La Rocque commented: “The theory of ‘families of good stock who have their roots in the earth’ leads us to conclusions not far from [those of] Walter Darre, Minister of Agriculture for the Reich.” Romanian fascism relied heavily on the support of landed peasants who distrusted the “wicked” city. The agrarian wing of Japanese fascism praised the peasant soldier and denigrated the industrial worker.

Yeah. Gives new meaning to "those damn city folk" which is you guessed it: a dogwhistle.

"oh but the Democrats aren't racist or-" I mean they are but even if they weren't:

Varieties of fascism

Just as Marxists, liberals, and conservatives differed within and between various countries, so too did fascists. In some countries there were rivalries between native fascist movements over personal, tactical, and other differences. Fascist movements also displayed significant differences with respect to their acceptance of racism and particularly anti-Semitism, their identification with Christianity, and their support for Nazi Germany.

Identification with Christianity

Most fascist movements portrayed themselves as defenders of Christianity and the traditional Christian family against atheists and amoral humanists. This was true of Catholic fascist movements in Poland, Spain, Portugal, France, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, and Brazil.

[...]Although fascists in Germany and Italy also posed as protectors of the church, their ideologies contained many elements that conflicted with traditional Christian beliefs, and their policies were sometimes opposed by church leaders. The Nazis criticized the Christian ideals of meekness and guilt on the grounds that they repressed the violent instincts necessary to prevent inferior races from dominating Aryans

Sound familiar maybe?

Many fascist ideas derived from the reactionary backlash to the progressive revolutions of 1789, 1830, 1848, and 1871 and to the secular liberalism and social radicalism that accompanied these upheavals

Hmmmm

Secular liberalism- Political ideology: Secular liberalism is a form of liberalism in which secularist principles and values, and sometimes non-religious ethics, are especially emphasised. It supports the separation of religion and state.

Radical politics denotes the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system, often through social change, structural change, revolution or radical reform. The process of adopting radical views is termed radicalisation.

So they just took advantage of people in rural areas, used their support for subtle fascist policies to develop fascism and silence to people who opposed them fascism. In a time of social upheaval. Huh.

That's funny, it sounds just like the radicalization of people in rural areas across the US that are sick of the status quo and politicians using that momentum to push discriminatory bills and silence opposition... happening right now...in 2023 after a few years of protests in a row.

This one's easier to read in modern day if you interpret this as being "anti-woke"

Racial Darwinists such as Vogt, Haeckel, Treitschke, Langbehn, Lagarde, and Chamberlain glorified the survival of the fittest, scolded humanitarians for attempting to protect the racially unfit, and rejected the idea of social equality (“Equality is death, hierarchy is life,” wrote Langbehn). Chamberlain saw no reason to give inferior races equal rights. Treitschke raged against democracy, socialism, and feminism (all of which he attributed to Jews), insisted that might made right, and praised warrior imperialism (“Brave peoples expand, cowardly peoples perish”).

But surely it couldn't have listed even trad-wives and the divine feminist TERF nonsense right???

Ha

In the late 19th century many conservative nationalists were philosophical idealists who accused liberals and socialists of materialism and thereby portrayed their own politics as more spiritual.

And lastly:

Although in principle there were significant differences between fascism and nonfascist conservatism, the two camps shared some of the same goals, which in times of crisis led some nonfascists to collaborate with fascists.

As Weiss observed, “Any study of fascism which centers too narrowly on the fascists and Nazis alone may miss the true significance of right-wing extremism. For without necessarily becoming party members or accepting the entire range of party principles themselves, aristocratic landlords, army officers, government and civil service officials, and important industrialists in Italy and Germany helped bring fascists to power.”

[...]During the Great Depression, thousands of middle-class conservatives fearful of the growing power of the left abandoned traditional right-wing parties and adopted fascism. The ideological distance traveled from traditional conservatism to Nazism was sometimes small, since many of the ideas that Hitler exploited in the 1930s had long been common currency within the German right.

[...]

Fascists also received support from Christian conservatives. Between 1930 and 1932 Hitler was supported by many Protestant voters in rural Prussia, and after 1933 the Catholic church in Germany largely accommodated itself to his regime. In 1933 the Vatican, which had previously interdicted Catholic membership in socialist organizations, signed a concordat with Germany that forbade priests to speak out on politics and gave Hitler a say in naming bishops.

Neofascism

The postwar period to the end of the 20th century

[...]Neofascist parties differed from earlier fascist movements in several significant respects, many of them having to do with the profound political, economic, and social changes that took place in Europe in the first decades after the end of the war.

For example, whereas fascists assigned much of the blame for their countries’ economic problems to the machinations of bolsheviks, liberals, and Jews, neofascists tended to focus on non-European immigrants—such as Turks, Pakistanis, and Algerians—who arrived in increasing numbers beginning in the 1970s.

[...] Finally, the gradual acceptance of democratic norms by the vast majority of western Europeans reduced the appeal of authoritarian ideologies and required that neofascist parties make a concerted effort to portray themselves as democratic and “mainstream.”

Some neofascists even included words like “democratic” and “liberal” in the titles of their movements.

Most neofascists abandoned the outward trappings of earlier fascist parties, such as paramilitary uniforms and Roman salutes, and many explicitly denounced fascist policies or denied that their parties were fascist. Noting this transformation, in 1996 Roger Eatwell cautioned: “Beware of men—and women—wearing smart Italian suits: the colour is now gray, the material is cut to fit the times, but the aim is still power.…Fascism is on the move once more, even if its most sophisticated forms have learned to dress to suit the times.” Similarly, historian Richard Wolin described these movements as “designer fascism.”

As with fascist movements of the interwar period, neofascist movements differed from one another in various respects.

The rhetoric of neofascists in Russia and the Balkans, for example, tended to be more openly brutal and militaristic than that of the majority of their Western counterparts.

[...] Portuguese, British, and (for a time) Italian neofascists advocated corporatism, in contrast to French and many other Western neofascists, who promoted free-market capitalism and lower taxes. In the 1990s in Russia and eastern Europe, neofascist movements were generally more leftist than their counterparts in western Europe, emphasizing the interests of workers and peasants over those of the urban middle class and calling for “mixed” socialist and capitalist economies.

One of the largest neofascist movements in western Europe in the 1990s was the Italian Social Movement (Movimento Sociale Italiano [MSI]; renamed the National Alliance [Alleanza Nazionale] in 1994). Founded in 1946, it was led at various times by Giorgio Almirante, Augusto De Marsanich, Arturo Michelini, and Gianfranco Fini. As an official in Mussolini’s Italian Social Republic, a puppet state established by the Germans in northern Italy in 1944, Almirante oversaw the regime’s propaganda machinery.

When the MSI was launched in 1946, Almirante sought to give it a modern image, urging its members to “beware of representing fascism in a grotesque way, or at any rate, in an outdated, anachronistic, and stupidly nostalgic way.”

Fascists aren't stupid and they've had a long time to plan out how to make their beliefs publicly acceptable.

Tumblr user daj2793 is showing us how that includes aligning their opponents with people that the majority would find reprehensible to defend.

It's a very simple pill to swallow if you don't know what's in it.

[spanishskulduggery]

May I know the difference between te, ti, and tu? I'd like to know when to use them in the proper context.

They're different parts of speech - think of it sort of like the difference between "I", "me", and "my" - in this case though it's tú and not yo

But you'll see the same thing for most pronouns vs objects

I'll explain a bit more in depth below but this is more of a cursory look at what they all mean

-

tú is "you", the pronoun, a subject

tu or tus is "your", a possessive adjective; related, but tuyo/a is "of yours" which is an adjective that comes after the noun [tu libro "your book" vs. el libro tuyo "the book of yours" etc.]

-

te is an object pronoun - either for direct objects [te juzgo "I am judging you"], indirect objects [te gusta "you like" or more literally "it pleases you"], and reflexive verbs [te bañas "you take a bath"]

This is when "you" is the recipient of a verb; they either take the action, or they're the person you do something for; that's the gist of direct objects, and indirect objects respectively

Direct objects are: me, te, lo/la, los/las, nos, os

Indirect objects are: me, te, le, les, nos, os

Reflexives are when the subject and object are the same, so te bañas is literally "you bathe yourself"; there are some extra grammar things involving reflexives but that's fairly advanced... but reflexives have the object and verb conjugation match - me llamo, te llamas, se llama etc. for "calls oneself" or "my name is"

Reflexives are: me, te, se, nos, os; where se is the same for all 3rd person - se llama "they call themselves / their name is" and se llaman plural

...

In general for objects, 3rd person is the only one you need to really think about because me, te, nos, and os if you're using vosotros are all the same

-

ti is a particular one but it's called a "prepositional object"; it's when you want to use an object next to a preposition

Primarily these are a, de, en, entre, por, and para [there are some others like hacia "towards", sobre "about/upon" etc but the ones I listed are the main ones, or some that are compound like debajo de "underneath" or encima de "on top of"]

In other words a ti "to you", de ti "from you", en ti "on you", entre ti "between you", and por ti and para ti which mean "for you" but in different contexts

These are especially useful - primarily a, de, en - because some verbs take prepositions in some cases... such as a ti te gusta "you (specifically) like" [lit. "it, in particular, pleases you"], or se enamora de ti "they fall in love with you", pienso en ti "I think about you"... among a handful of others

Note: The main exception here is con "with" - "with you" is expressed as contigo; this is a direct derivation of Latin cum tecum where the cum meant "with" and they added it twice

Again, this also happens for yo where the prepositional object is mí and then conmigo "with me" [you may also see consigo "with itself" or "with himself/herself" which is specific but does happen... as an example la tormenta se llevó todo consigo "the storm took everything with it" which implies the storm was strong and carried stuff away (with itself) as went]

Thankfully most other pronouns don't have prepositional object pronouns - a él, de ella, en nosotros etc. It's primarily yo and tú

[council-of-councillers]

remade and edited our intro, we are the council of councillers or worms off the strings.

we mainly post system/plurality content, sometimes we post quotes/comments from our system, sometimes we screenshot relatable posts from pro-endo blogs and repost them as we refuse to reblog from an endo safe space. sometimes we post about serious topics that are not system related. those posts will be tagged as #notasystemrelatedpost

we are studying to become a therapist (a decision that has been made and accepted by all in the system), if we do happen to get something wrong and you would like to correct us please leave a (respectful and polite) comment. we will try our best to be respectful and polite back to you ^^

we are an OSDD-b1 traumagenic system, VERY fictive heavy, polyfragmented, frequent fronters change often, we have severe ADHD and mild autism. please use tone tags when talking to us

we are NOT pro-endo/endo friendly. do not start shit, just block us.

DNI if you're homophobic, transphobic, or racist. also cringe culture is dead, let people enjoy things as long as they aren't consuming genuinely problematic content. be respectful in the comments, reblogs, and tags. do NOT harass anyone. do NOT go on witch hunts for anyone mentioned on this blog that you may not like. if you do find anyone problematic we have mentioned, block them and move on. an argument is never worth it. do NOT fake claim.

DID is caused by repeated childhood trauma during the ages of 1-12. some people may not remember their trauma. they are not entitled to tell you. i/we encourage any and all endos and pro-endos to do in depth research on DID/DID-type disorders as well as other potential disorders that may cause DID symptoms. some endo systems are traumagenic systems that do not remember their trauma. others may have a different disorder or mental illness that causes did symptoms.

trauma can be anything from emotional abuse, neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, financial abuse, mental abuse, gaslighting, manipulation, being a scapegoat, or any other negatively impactful event (ie; a house fire). these things tend to impact younger children a lot more than it impacts adults. i have not listen every single possible form of trauma, these are examples. again, you are never ever obligated to tell anyone your trauma. that is between you and a therapist, or you and someone you CHOOSE to trust.

please interact if you are a system (or a singlet!) who likes homestuck, fnaf, marble hornets, legend of zelda, hermitcraft, the lifesmp/trafficsmp, general rock music, sally face, the DCU, X-men

we are entirely open to making new friends, feel free to DM us anytime and just strike up friendly conversation. even if you just want to infodump to someone about your special intrest please by all means come talk to us! there is ALWAYS someone in front who is willing to talk and be social! /gen :D

this post was brought to you (and then later edited) by Toby Rogers

[public-trans-it]

If you are trans, how do you have an alter that isn't? (I'm asking out of ignorance and genuine curiosity, not malice. I know you haven't had the best anons lately)

Thank you for the parenthetical on that one. I didn't read it that way at all, but I appreciate someone going out of their way to specify that it's just curiosity and not someone sealioning. I also just love parentheticals in general. Feel free to ask more, or DM me! I'm happy to go into more depth.

The answer is quite simple: I'm just gonna force femme him, duh. (Okay, no, not really)

Read More

A warning upfront: This post is likely going to be written by multiple alters. Expect sudden shifts in tone, as well as shifts between first - and third-person perspectives. It's also gonna be a lot of rambling. I'm going to fucking hate it tbh. But I'm also more than happy to elaborate on specifics. The joys of having conflicting opinions on a single topic.

For context, this ask is in reply to this previous post I made about DID, how I feel names relate to it, and how i feel my experience differs from other peoples. In it, I mention that not all of my alters are trans.

It just feels... cringe. Like, I know that is probably certainly internalized ablism. But any time I discuss my own internal thought processes and the fact that there are just straight up other versions of me in there, I can't help but think I feel like one of those really awkwardly written teenagers in media who like... pretend to be possessed by demons and stuff. Part of it is also a little bit of fear.

That was... a bit of an oversimplification. It is rather difficult to go into detail, especially when the alter in question is the one who least likes talking about the experience of being plural.

While I don't talk about it with others, and will absolutely interrupt any attempts to map it out, I AM at least somewhat aware of how my system is shaped and who is in it. And that not everyone who used to be in it is still in there. There are versions of myself that are just... gone. And I know one of the things that results in that is too much internal reflection. So I just... don't.

Am I trans? I mean, Ceetee is, and I'm Ceetee, so probably. But I'm also the one who doesn't have that luxury. I'm the one who has to go to work. I'm the one who has to go by He/Him pronouns. I'm the one who answers when someone calls our deadname. And that is too important a part to risk losing to introspection, and the effect that has on us.

We are on HRT, the body we are in is going to change. We are looking forward to potentially going under the knife in the future. Lipofilly, vaginoplasty, etc. That's going to complicated things. I genuinely don't even know if I will still exist after that. I have plans on how to handle our social transition, that might make it smoother, but... again, I don't have the privilege of thinking on it too much.

Its... really difficult to write this out honestly. All of our discussion happens internally, thanks to us losing our amnesiac barrier a few years ago (thank God for that. Huge increase to our quality of life.) We would probably benefit from just making a discord server for just us, and using pluralkit or the like to talk with each other. But the idea of differentiating each other externally is HORRIFYING.

So instead, I'm the one handling our HRT. I have to, because he isn't willing to for the reasons mentioned above. And I can't even really discuss it well because he gets in the way a lot. Which I don't fault him for, it's his job, it's literally why he exists, and the several years I went with him not being involved socially were... extremely rough. I genuinely feel privileged to have him taking the brunt of all that for me. The nice thing about DID is it's actually a GREAT way to delegate tasks. If he represents the parts of us that don't have the privilege of changing, I can represent the parts of us that can.

But the truth is, all of us in here are undergoing an HRT we don't actually WANT. It gets us closer to a more comfortable body to live in, but it will never be possible to achieve a body ALL of us are happy with. We all have different gender goals, and as long as we are all stuck in the same body, there is no such thing as 'Gender affirmation'. That's why I use the label Aegogender. Looking it up, there is... not a lot of description of it. But for me, it has a very clear interaction with dissociative disorders.

I'm not genderless. Every single one of us in here has a gender. And they are not all the same. Which means our system cannot have a single gender. ANY transition will, by definition, go against the goals of others in the system. There is no way for all of us to be happy in this body, as long as we all have to share a single body. My "true" ideal body, would be an incorporeal hivemind piloting 3 or 4 bodies. Leaving us all connected to each other, but with our own individuality.

This is, obviously, NOT POSSIBLE. So HRT is the compromise.

Every single one of us is trans, even the one still going by He/Him and using our deadname. And so, just becoming something DIFFERENT is good enough for now. No solution has to be perfect forever. If we need to do something different in the future, we can just do something different in the future! We don't NEED to figure all of this out now.

I mentioned in the tags of my detransition post that I have a lot more complicated feelings about detransition. This is why. I fundamentally identify more with the concept of being a creature capable of change, than I do with any single gender.

Which means... once I transition, I'll almost certainly end up transitioning again. From what to what? I have NO IDEA. Will I end up detransitioning? Maybe. Will I end up pursuing some completely different presentation? Maybe. I dont know. I'm not that person yet.

I'm just gonna have to wait and see who manages to last that long, and what is best for all of us.

[artbyblastweave]

There was a zombie apocalypse YA book I liked a lot when I was younger called Rot and Ruin, which I think I’ve talked about a couple of times. It was notable in that it was a reaction to and a deconstruction not of the zombie genre, but of the fantasy of the zombie genre.

One of the big ways in which it did this was that it beat the drum of the fact that zombies used to be people, every single one of them is a walking testament to something terrible that happened to a living, breathing person, and as a result, leaning into the whole “zombies as a faceless nationless omnipresent threat you can kill with no moral repercussions” can lead to, or maybe reveal, some moral corrosion; there’s a clear and consistent delineation between characters who kill zombies because they’re dangerous, and characters who kill zombies because it’s fun to kill zombies. But that’s another post.

The part I find really interesting is that the series is rather unabashedly neo-western; the protagonists are cowboy-samuarai, roaming the wastes and righting wrongs. People travel in horse-drawn covered wagons, they fight with six-shooters and melee weapons, electricity is underdeveloped, gangs play nice in town and turn brutal out in the “frontier,” Bounty Hunters with flamboyant handles like “Sally Two Knives” and “Hector Mexico” and “The Motor City Hammer” abound. 

But! Some of the more astute characters point out that this is diagetic; they make the argument that society, within the series, has organized itself along the lines of a neo-western as a trauma response. It’s called out again and again that there’s really no reason for society to still be stalled out in this sort of wild-west situation of towering cowboy personalities and cowering townsfolk; the zombies are stupid, predictable, and fairly easily exterminated en masse by a large enough group of people who have their shit together. The main reason nobody has done that is because it would require a plurality of people to want to leave their compounds and go back out into the world they lost and really reckon with the sheer breadth and depth of their loss. 

And, as a consequence, that means the wastelands are turned over in-practice to people whose coping mechanism is going out there and killing enormous numbers of former people, with a zeal and gleeful carnival violence that’s framed as deeply unnerving. No one has put the brakes on the fantasy, everyone is suffering, society is is collectively turtling and (since it’s a YA book) no forward progress will be possible until the first generation that’s never known anything, but post-apocalyptic society starts to venture out.

A lot of fiction that deals with post-zombie society either optimistically portrays those societies as being forward thinking, problem-solving go-getters (The Walking Dead, World War Z) or as cynical extensions of the same corruption present in the old world (George Romero.) Rot and Ruin, for its many faults, is in this super compelling middle ground where society is back enough to be shelf-stable and sustainable, but that’s all; a situation where society itself is decent, pleasant, but complacent, and willing to overlook immense human suffering in areas of the country that it abdicated out of pain and fear.

[elliesgaymachete]

fandom wank incoming don’t like don’t read

i’m still so mad that an interviewer specifically asked about [redacted] in the m9 show and matt gave a polite, generic answer of how they’ll get to explore POVs in the show that they didn’t get to in the campaign (which i assume implies it’ll be in the style of tlovm where there’s occasional snippets of the villains, ie that first snippet of the briarwoods, ripley and umbrasyl, the shot of thordak’s eggs, etc) and the [redacted] fans took it to mean holy shit we are getting multiple in depth scenes about [redacted] because he’s a main character and specialest boy like matt literally never mentioned them by name and also said POVs plural like there’s many other characters to explore as well (lucien and cree, for example. Avantika, perhaps. obann and the laughing hand and yasha). You only think he was only talking about [redacted] because the interviewer is a [redacted] stan and specifically asked about it!!!! He’s not the main character stfu!!!

I’m very complainy today if you don’t like pls just ignore that’s why this is under a readmore

Anyway sux how when general fandom fixates on something or someone in an annoying way it completely ruins that for me