#tw: discourse

[taag-the-withering]

Ok I don’t participate in discourse but I feel this should be obvious:

Bad did not destroy the Blender without ooc permission. Sneeg has been saying that people were using the Blender that he did not give permission to and he intended on destroying it anyway. We obviously don’t know the full story but we can be under the impression that Sneeg’s Subathon wheel was keeping him off The Realm and destroying it himself. We know a meeting happened today and Bad was probably given the go-ahead by Sneeg to just destroy it.

This has been intended for at least a couple of weeks and to say that it wasn’t is foolish and blindsight by your own personal pov and it’s overcoming you. From a person who mains yellow, Bad is treated very harshly by a lot of other yellow mains.

This absurd bias literally has happened since the factions were first created of people sticking too harshly to their own pov and lacking nuance. Do we really think something this large scale would not be planned ahead of time? Come on.

[interstellarsystem]

We're obviously pro-endo and have a lot of headmates who are endogenic, but we do have DID and a lot of trauma worked its way into our formation of our system. Which leaves us in a pretty weird spot in syscourse!

But one of the weirdest things we've noticed is... A lot of the anti endo mindset is completely anti recovery for CDD systems entirely, while claiming to protect them. Often there's the sort of ableist rhetoric that's all about "if you're not suffering, you're not disordered and therefore mocking us or fake".. Which is ridiculous to say the least!

We've seen claims of:

Systems are fake if they're happy they're a system, because if you're happy you're a system then you can't have been traumatised enough to get there.

Systems are fake if they love their headmates in any way, because plurality is a disorder.

Systems are fake if they post "too much" about being happy online, because being plural is a disorder and therefore suffering.

Systems are fake if they never show signs of suffering online.

Systems are fake if they're open about being a system IRL or sometimes at all, because it's a deeply shameful thing.

Systems are fake if they have less amnesia than full-on blackout amnesia, because it's in the DSM.

Systems are fake if they don't dissociate much, because it's in the name of the disorder and the DSM.

And we're here to say that's all plainly incorrect at best. It's also incredibly ableist, anti-recovery and downright harmful to CDD systems who learn they have this disorder, go online for support, and just see discourse and people getting fakeclaimed if they don't show of how much they're suffering online.

Systems can be happy that they're plural. Even if it came from trauma. Why? Well you can be happy that you're any way you are, regardless of how you got there, obviously. But there's also a crucial point here that CDDs and headmates often develop to protect people from trauma. Of course some systems would be glad that they're plural, in a lot of cases it's what literally saved their lives. This goes for the "systems can't love their headmates" thing too--plenty of systems are full of love for their headmates! Not only because they were there for them when it was needed, but because these are--depending on your view--entire people you live with, or parts of yourself. Why are you implying you have to hate that so viscerally to be real?

It's also a pretty well known thing that people tend to post their happier moments online, leading to this perception that they don't suffer. One, because that's how a lot of people work--their personal pages are public after all, and they don't want to be seen as constistently struggling. Two, it's downright dangerous to post in so much detail about your triggers, your trauma and abuse you're currently facing on the internet--even ignoring the fact that you need to be wary of your digital footprint, people can read these posts and use information against you. It's a choice many people make to not hand random people ammo on a silver plate.

Claiming that systems are fake if they're open about being plural in any space is simply ablesim. We've seen this take quite a few times, actually, and it never fails to be some of the most ridiculous ableism we've seen--it comes with a puritan "sweep it under the rug" mindset and the expectation that systems are ashamed of their plurality by default, or that it's simply too dangerous to share. While for a lot of people it is very dangerous to talk about their system so they simply keep that information to themselves, claiming every system should hide it for their entire lives and not expect to be received with kindness, compassion or accommodation is horrible.

As for the amnesia and dissociation... Therapy can help with these! You can actively go to therapy and get strategies to deal with the symptoms that come with a CDD without even going down the final fusion route! You can get it to a point where you have communication with your headmates, where you can switch on command, where you don't dissociate much at all.... You can work toward these goals with the right tools! Why does a system like us who's worked through years of therapy and years of working with ourselves within our own system suddenly get called fake once we start healing?

CDD systems should not have to fit what YOU think a true system should look like. They shouldn't have to suffer on show for you to believe them. They shouldn't have to hide all of themselves away in shame and never have their true selves known. They shouldn't have to pretend they're not recovering to be treated as real. They shouldn't have to feel like they'll be persecuted for simply being happy with who they are as people, or happy with how far they've come.

"Being a system isn't all fun and games" and I'm sure it's not for plenty of people. But do you think it's ok when a CDD system says they love themselves and think their system is fun? Or do you group them in with the endogenics who are "mocking [your] trauma"? Do you really care about people with CDDs at all in that case?

You can say "anti endos aren't ableist because endogenic plurality isn't a disorder" all you like--you're wrong about endogenics not being able to have CDDs by the way, but that's another post--but when you display so much ableist rhetoric toward your fellow CDD systems, I don't know how anyone can see you as "protecting" those with the disorders at all. You can't hide your hatred behind the guise of "protection" when you're harming your own community. You're not protecting us from anyone, you're trying to make us fit into a box full of spikes. It was never about protecting trauma survivors, it was about your personal hatred for others. We shouldn't have to suffer for you.

[possessed-pack]

Anti-endos commenting on my post about loving systemmates with "oh of course youre endo safe makes sense"--when will these people stop perpetuating the ableist idea that people with disorders have to live in misery 24/7? When will these people stop acting like a system is the absolute worst thing you can be and only results in eternal suffering? How do their headmates feel knowing these opinions? How do they use their unwillingness to treat any aspect of their disorder as positive to the point where it's a weapon they use to call anyone who has any positive experience about it a faker? How do they not see that this is the same sentiments that ableists use against all disabled people to devalue them or say we should be put out of our misery? How is this healing? How does this help?

Like yeah, you expect a hate group to act with hate but I genuinely worry for some of these people because it just seems like they're not even led to believe they have the ability to heal in any capacity. The way anti-endos are structured leads anyone who sides with them to go down this path of "systems are never fun or happy and life is suffering and pain and will be forever". It really isn't. There can be suffering, there can be pain, but joy and safety are just as real and just as achieveable. We're a DID system, shit sucks sometimes but we're healing--everyone can heal. Everyone can find silver linings. You need to know that you're not doomed. It can take time, but loving your system, the people in it, or the fact that it might have helped you to survive the worst days of your life, is NOT a sign that you are fake. Healing is not a sign of faking.

[humanitys-strongest-bamf]

i'm honestly at the point where i think writing should be writing what you want to read, and fixating less on playing mental gymnastics over what you think other people want to read, because that just takes the fun out of it

[peachdues]

Some hot takes because it’s 2024 and the internet is still a cesspool

Just because a fictional character does things you don’t like/reminds you of traumas you have irl does not entitle you to project those feelings onto others who like/resonate with that character.

Eating less than 1,000 calories a day will fuck up your body long term. The effects of malnutrition can take years to manifest. Don’t do it.

Someone else’s confidence is not a personal attack on you.

Influencers and celebrities pushing ozempic are also doing coke. More adults do coke than you realize.

Your worth is not defined by your relationships — romantic, familial, or platonic.

Everyone doesn’t hate you. Drink some water and eat something.

Someone can like a trope in fiction and not jive with it irl. Fiction is fiction, I am begging you all to remember that.

[comatosebunny09]

And here comes the “we hate non-MC stories” propaganda to Tumblr. I thought I left that shit on Twitter, but here we go.

You have every right to enjoy and consume what makes you happy, just like everyone else. We legit need to drop this “If I don’t like it, no one else should” viewpoint we’ve developed.

It’s so weird to me. Just because someone doesn’t resonate with a character doesn’t mean they hate them. But some of y’all see it that way, so you attack or shade the people who just don’t relate to your favorite character.

People don’t identify as MC, and that’s fine. Some people can’t self-insert into a character pre-built with a personality, behavior, responses, etc. Unfortunately, the game isn’t like BG3, where you can fine-tune those things. If you resonate with MC, more power to you. If you don’t, more power to you.

Let people enjoy what they enjoy. There are so many yandere, r-word, noncon, and dead dove fics floating around that I don’t vibe with, but I don’t attack the people who write them or the people who enjoy them.

And there’s no need to attack peoples’ characters, either. What people enjoy reading and writing is not always a reflection of who they are in real life. We have to get this mentality out of our damn minds.

[correlance]

[gotorux]

Fandom Discourse Analysis

Mentions of aging up, enjoying villian characters, and disliking popular characters.

Something I have noticed about anime becoming more popular and mainstream and also the rise in minors in certain spaces is a constant level of discourse over certain topics. I truly believe it’s a good thing anime has become more popular. However, as it brings in more viewers, I think it’s important too open up the conversation surrounding the necessity of distinguishing fiction from reality. There is a lot of posts I see while browsing tags and although I don’t post often I think something needs to be said about three very specific topics that, for me, mean a lot and seem to have a lot of discourse surrounding them. 

One of the things I see happening a lot lately within the community is the hatred against people for liking fictional characters who happen to be minors in their respective animes. The aging up dilemma. First off, let me start by saying that a fictional pixel on a screen does not = minor. It can not be a minor because it is a drawing that was made up whenever the author wrote it. And in a lot of these instances, these characters are crafted by the authors with traits that appeal broadly to audiences, transcending their canon ages. This is particularly evident in shonen anime, where characters are often depicted with maturity, wisdom, or exaggerated physical features that align more closely with adult aesthetics rather than with children. This stylistic choice by many authors is done purposely to cater to a wide demographic, enabling viewers to form connections with characters regardless of age. 

It's important to recognize that a great majority of the time it is NOT the age that attracts viewers to the character which differentiates them with people in real life who are attracted to minors. Having a crush on, or writing about a fictional character that, like I said previously more closely align with adult aesthetics, does not make someone a pedophile. I think when it comes to loli and shota, then yes maybe we can open up this conversation as those characters are made to look like children. But that’s another topic. Acknowledging the fictional nature of these characters and their resemblance to adult fictional characters should be taken into consideration and not be misconstrued as indicative of real-life inclinations towards minors. Not to mention many of these authors don’t want them to be minors which is why they write about them as adults. Again, these are NOT minors. They are drawings and their ages can be changed depending on who’s writing them. An author could come out tomorrow and say the character has always been an adult and that would make it canon. It is not the same as pedophilia. Most people like characters like Sukuna that doesn’t reflect their real life tastes. Which brings me to my next point. 

Liking a villainous character does not correspond to endorsing those actions in real life. Anime often portrays "evil" characters with a depth that makes them appealing through usually through some form of tragic backstory, a charismatic or confident personality, or having extremely complex motivations. I think this makes people often misunderstand that liking them is a reflection of one's real-world values. That is not the case. 

Some people even like these characters just for being attractive and due to the fact they are fictional, and again an authors way of getting people to appeal to said characters, it can not be misconstrued of saying that those actions would be okay in real life scenarios. These characters allow viewers to explore themes of conflict, redemption, and moral ambiguity that can be explored in safety because it’s fiction. I think one of the main reasons people find themselves drawn to them is that villian characters are often created with flaws and authors give them depth to explore said flaws. This is why anti-hero characters are also often seen as more relatable and engaging. Anti-heroes, like villains, aren't bound by the usual moral constraints and often make decisions that are more realistic than heroes would. They can express doubts, conflicts, and vulnerabilities that mirror real human experiences. This makes them intriguing and allows audiences to connect with them on a deeper level.

All that said I think the attraction to villainous or morally grey characters often stems from their complexity and the opportunity they provide for viewers to engage with difficult ideas and emotions in a safe, controlled setting. These characters challenge our perceptions of good and evil by navigating a blurred line between the two which is appealing for most people. 

The last thing I want to bring up which kind of ties in with liking villainous characters is that disliking certain characters beloved by others is not necessarily a negative stance. Anime characters are crafted with diverse backgrounds, personalities, and motives, which naturally produce varied reactions among viewers. Understanding a character's motives yet still disliking them is completely valid and should stop being treated as inherently wrong or a negative reflection of someone. 

People are allowed personal preference and I think that encourages a a better discussion within anime communities whereby differing opinions can coexist. It is through these discussions that fans can dig into character analysis and conversations revolving around characters. Recognizing that disagreement over characters is totally normal and that people can be cool with each other, or be friends and disagree is important in both real life and fiction. 

At the end of the day there is also the block button which I will admit I use when needed, if you disagree with someone’s take. Instead of sending them hate and being a horrible person on the internet. 

[trulybetty]

Rachel Cargle

Mimi Zhu

Logged in for the first time in a while (it's been a year), and I've been catching up with what has been happening.

At the risk of virtue signalling, as a CIS white woman, third-generation from a country that continues to award me more privileges than those before me, I need to continue to remind myself that my responsibility is to listen rather than talk over others. It’s not about making myself loudest in conversations that aren’t mine but making sure I use my privileges to amplify voices that deserve to be heard.

So when people tell you you're speaking over them, dismissing their experiences, or taking up space that isn’t yours—listen. Learn to sit in discomfort without getting defensive. Being an ally isn’t about proving anything; it’s about ensuring you're continually learning, unlearning, and making space for others without demanding recognition and a gold fucking star.

Also, for those thinking the significance of the confederate flag doesn't go beyond the US and it should be excused...

Concern over racist slurs and imagery in Newport Village

Northern Irish locals fuming after Confederate banner appears alongside D***** T**** flag in small rural town

Army racism apology to black ‘poster girl’ soldier

Grand Ole Opry in Glasgow votes to ban use of Confederate flag

Darlington boy, 14, sentenced for terrorism offences

Signs of hate: Parental guide to far-right codes, symbols and acronyms

Midsomer Murders issues 'racist' warning over Morris Dancer scenes in old episode

These took me less than five minutes to find, and that’s the bare minimum. Surprisingly, Google actually works for more than just figuring out if your favourite Pedro character has been tagged in a 50k slow-burn fic AU involving your dog's groomer. You can find plenty of resources to educate yourself.

TLDR: it's 2025, stop using tired racist imagery and stereotypes. If you get it wrong, own it. No one expects perfection, let's all just be better?

[interstellarsystem]

psychologists have confirmed multiple times that you can only have DID / OSDD / be a system WITH TRAUMA so being neutral or pro on the subject means you are okay with people faking a serious disorder interacting with your content and you are okay with people taking away resources for people who genuinely need the help.

https://psychcentral.com/disorders/dissociative-identity-disorder/dissociative-identity-disorder-causes#what-is-it

hope this helps.

Look, we don't normally answer anon hate but we've been meaning to post about this anyway. So your ask is going to be my podium for a moment.

Firstly, we're literally diagnosed, so if you're hoping to change our mind and send us packing our bags because we're "hurting real systems", you're literally only going to make us laugh. Diagnosis isn't a factor in someone's reality, sure, but... We're literally professionally diagnosed. You, anon, can't change that, no matter what you think of us being quoigenic. So I'm not even sure why you're here or what you hope to achieve.

Anyway.

"Psychologists have confirmed multiple times that you can only have DID / OSDD / be a system WITH TRAUMA"

I'd like to see these "multiple times" psychologists have confirmed that you CAN ONLY have DID/OSDD/be a system with trauma. In fact, the one source you linked? It says "is usually associated with adverse experiences and traumatic memories". Usually being they key word here.

Do they go into the reasoning behind traumagenic plurality after that? Yes. But they specified usually in the beginning. That's not "occurs only from". It's not "is usually caused by". It's "is usually associated with".

That quick nitpick aside!

Endogenics do not have to have DID, and many don't claim to have it. Being disordered (aka, having symptoms that fit the criteria for a disorder or are disordered in general) and being endogenic (aka having a system origin not based in trauma) are separate things. Origin is a self-defined trait! It's something you label yourself/selves with, based on what you know/feel about the beginning of your system. Being disordered, aka having DID/OSDD/Other CDDs is a separate thing entirely. Those are medical conditions. They're conditions with a symptom that is being plural, sure! But they have so many other symptoms that define them--which you need to fill a certain number of to qualify for a diagnosis.

A lot of endogenics are nondisordered. They don't claim to have any sort of CDD, because they simply don't! They usually don't experience disordered symptoms, they don't experience the levels of dissociation tied with CDDs, they don't claim to have any (or many) other symptoms associated with CDDs. You know why? Because they're literally nondisordered. They aren't claiming to have DID, because they just... don't fit the symptoms for it, and they know that. They're plural--which is a symptom of DID, sure! But saying they claim to have DID based on being multiple alone is like claiming that everyone who says they cough is claiming to have asthma. Plurality, in medicalised terms, is a single symptom (though we'd prefer not to define it that way, for the sake of this post I'm medicalising it) of some CDDs--it's not the whole thing itself.

In short, nondisordered endogenics don't claim to have DID. At all.

"But you say you have quoigenic DID, and you advocate for people with endogenic DID! So endos do claim to have DID!" Note: Not in the original ask, just a predicted response.

Yes, we do. Because regardless of your origin, you can still have disordered symptoms. Origin, in our personal opinion, only defines the start of your journey as plural, and is almost entirely useless otherwise. It doesn't define anything about your functioning, or your structure, or life experiences. It's just the starting point of your system. An endogenic system who fits all the diagnostic criteria for DID still has DID--regardless of their origin. DID is about the symptoms, as any other disorder is. If you match the symptoms? You should be able to access resources that you need to heal.

How does that work? Some systems could experience trauma that causes disordered symptoms later in life, after they were already plural. You could end up with disordered symptoms from other disorders that intertwine with your plurality. You could've made a tulpa as a kid and then started experiencing symptoms closer to DID as you got older. Some systems could just not care about labelling their origin based around trauma--they don't want it to define them. It doesn't matter in the end--once again, if someone experiences disordered symptoms, and matches the criteria? They have the disorder.

"Being neutral or pro on the subject means you are okay with people faking a serious disorder interacting with your content..."

Way to put words in our mouth? For the record, we don't care to try to hunt down "fakers" interacting with us. It's not worth the effort in the slightest. People will likely fake shit about themselves sometimes, and then they'll grow up. People we disagree with probably see our posts all the time. Who cares? Our blog is public, shit's bound to happen--we're an adult and we have a life that takes up enough energy for us to stop giving a shit about who's in our notes. We have a block button, we can use it if we need to. It's literally that simple.

That aside!

We see a lot of "endos are either faking or mistaken traumagenic systems" going around, so I'm going to include a bit of that topic in here too because they go hand in hand.

Genuinely, who cares what someone says their origin is? As we said earlier, endogenics don't claim to have DID/OSDD if they're nondisordered. So... There's clearly no disorder to even fake there? What would they gain out of pretending to be a nondisordered system aside from... Harrassment from people like you, anon? Doesn't seem like a fun pastime. If people want to fake being nondisordered and endogenic, honestly they're putting themselves more in harms way than they're actually harming others around them, most of the time.

As for disordered endogenic systems... Sure, you're of the opinion that CDDs can only come from trauma. You think they're wrong about their origin. But people with CDDs, regardless of what they beleive their origin is, still have CDDs. You can't decide their beliefs for them, or how disordered they are based on that. I'm sure some endogenics are "secretly traumagenic" and don't know about it. But does it really, actually matter what labels people use? If someone is struggling and experiencing disordered symptoms, why does it matter if they define their origin as something other than the commonly accepted explanation? Why should people have to always define themselves by their own suffering to be seen as "valid"?

Disordered endogenics are people who need help, they don't need to be harrassed online about what labels they use to describe their own lives. Even if it were true that every endogenic system was faking or was traumagenic but mistaken, the "fake systems" would eventually grow up and stop, and the "secret traumagenics" would still need help anyway, no matter what they call themselves. Calling them out and harrassing them over their personal choice of labels is stupid. They have the disorder you claim to protect. Why does it matter to you what they call themselves? Someone could say their origin is them sneezing so hard one time that it split their brain in two, we literally wouldn't care about that. If they're disordered, they deserve resources to help them. Anyone with a disability deserves access to help, regardless of if they're someone you personally agree with or not.

"...and you are okay with people taking away resources for people who genuinely need the help."

Putting words in my mouth again, but, anyway...

I'd like to extend to you, anon, if you care to respond--and any other person out there who wants to actually answer me--what resources are being taken away by endogenics here?

Is it DID specialists? Are nondisordered endogenics taking those? Why would they need access to medical care for DID if they're not experiencing DID? They wouldn't, usually. They might need help to manage internal system relationships, or they might need help for other mental or physical health issues--which.. Are absolutely valid reasons to seek medical help anyway. So why should they not see professionals if they have a reason to see them?

Are disordered endogenics taking them from you? I think the key word here is "disordered". They have a disorder. Why wouldn't they be able to see one? What is someone with DID taking away from... other people with DID?

If it's not DID specialists, what other resource is being taken? Self-help books and/or PDFs aren't limited or finite most of the time... Doctors and general psychologists can have the same logic as above applied to them... Support spaces are there for people who need them, so if endogenics need support from other systems then they deserve those spaces.... What else could endogenic systems possibly be taking from you?

Literally, we have never received an answer for this that makes sense. What are they taking away? And why do they not deserve it if they feel they require that resource? What is "resources" here?

[terror-punk]

The fact that people keep coming onto our posts about minorities being open about who you are where you're safe to (destigmatisation, general rights for stigmatised groups of people) saying things like:

We're being harmful to disabled communities (how?)

We're trying to get people killed (???)

We're a radqueer (we hardly know enough about what that means but a few said it in a derogatory way so I'm still adding it)

We're an "endo cunt" (We're a DID system, but yes we're endo friendly! We're quoigenic! Who would've thought that the blog about how people should be able to define their own identities without harrassment even if people fear your identity is pro endo?)

We're trying to make disorders like psychosis "quirky" or "fun" (Disorders don't have to make your entire life hell 24/7, and society shouldn't be allowed to enforce that idea, it's the point of the post! Acting like disorders make your life only miserable and not worth living is siding with ableism! Disability can suck but we shouldn't have to hide it or be swept under the rug!)

That we're delusional in a derogatory way (we have psychosis so I suppose you're correct but your ableism is showing.)

We don't have psychosis ourselves and are speaking for psychotic people without knowing what it's like?

Is kind of.. Sad. I know this is the "piss on the poor" brand of reading comprehension site, but how did a post about how stigmatised people (queers, disabled people, alterhumans, etc) shouldn't have to hide their identies under a mask of normalcy turn into accusing us of being malicious? We stand by the fact that stigma shouldn't be a thing, and that people with marginalised identities should be allowed to speak and be who they are without judgement. You're kind of just proving to us that the post we wrote is needed, in the end. We and people like us are treated horribly for being public about ourselves and we're not going to sit there and take it, so we're not going anywhere and not shutting up.

We will say the overwhelming majority of responses to the post are positive--some even thankful, and we appreciate those responses a lot. I'm just so confused as to how people got from point a to point b when the literal point of the post is that people shouldn't get hurt just because they're open.

[leviismybby]

So I have an anon to call out...

This anon sent me hate messages not long ago and they always seem to target the fact that I am from Croatia or balkan rather. I don't know if this counts as racism but it sure as hell has that tone to it. I have had to block this person about three times now and I have gotten some hate in the past but this is targeting specifically my nationally, seems to come from a deep hate they have for Estern Europeans. I have ignored thier messages but I just saw this when I got back home from school and I truly wonder what made them say things like this? Anyway, I have reported thier last ask and I hope that they don't send anymore because this is truly sad.

[humanitys-strongest-bamf]

“Levi’s one of the most hated characters in the fandom”

Ok great now let me suck his cock in peace

[askpredetor]

Even back when I sadly had that anti-sjw phase in my life, I knew that when corporations did the whole anti-Trump thing, it was just a show because they were secretly benefitting from his policies.

But now I'm seeing so many CEOs start kissing the ring publically and I'm scared of what this means now for everything

I'm not going to act and say, "Oh fire is raining from the sky, and death camps are going to happen", but what I am saying is, nothing good happens when the richest people who control everything can publically mobilize against you, they're supposed to do that shit behind a bomb shelter door or the penthouse floor of a skyscraper, not on Joe Rogan.

[alterhuman-culture-is]

Cladotherian culture is knowing you'll probably get called fake by some people.

-

[correlance]