“You can’t stop me. I don’t need your permission to be a superhero.”
Icon art by @/blondedsixties06
Heya! I’m Mark or Mk (17 + he/hym/ask), this blog is me trying to bring some positivity to sysblr. It can get really negative sometimes, and I wanna help prevent that!
If it wasn’t obvious from the username I consider myself to be anti nontraumagenic systems of any kind. If you don’t like that, cool, don’t follow me!
I often misinterpret or misunderstand things due to being autistic. If I post something with misinformation, please correct me. I’m always open to being wrong
Coiner of dissociapunk, non-syscourse blog is @boxedapartment
Tags and info about what I’ll post is under the cut ↓
I have a few “series” planned for this blog like reviewing system apps and such, but I also fully welcome random asks about anything and everything! Anywho
Tags
# affection from deep space — positivity posting, which will include my own posts or reposts. This will make up the majority of my blog!
# mark’s 5 star reviews — testing out and reviewing apps made for managing systems (or regular apps that might be helpful in doing so). Feel free to send in an ask requesting an app or website!
# an iconic suit — discussing system origin terms, functions, etc. from pluralpedia while trying to add genuine medical information. These posts will always include sources (I won’t be doing this one very often)
# hand me the mic! — answering asks
# urath? this is earth! — any other kinds of posts, syscourse or not
Xtra notes:
Despite this blog being pretty system/syscourse-centric, I don’t actually want to debate anyone due to how much it stresses me out. So, no, I will not debate you.
I will not vague post about or take a screenshot of a (pro) endos post and reply to it, I’m just not interested.
I am FIRMLY against harassment towards (pro) endos. If you’re someone who thinks it’s okay to invade their spaces, harass them, and send them threats: block me. I don’t want you here.
I think one thing that really seals the deal when it comes to "endos" is how they will try to prove their claims by citing...writings on completely normal human experiences of identity and personality.
I've seen so many pro-endos claim that IFS therapy, or the multiple selves theory, or the authors of the theory of structural dissociation's writings on what an integrated personality looks like, are proof of endogenic systems.
But the fact of the matter is that those resources aren't describing "plurality" or "systemhood" at all. They're describing how a normal, healthy human personality functions, which is applicable to every single person on the planet except people with DID or OSDD-1.
The human personality is made up of multiple parts that become active in different situations. They are responsible for different functions, such as exploration, attachment, defense, self-care, etc, and the subfunctions within those functions.
This what gives the human personality the flexibility that allows it to respond to different situations, and explains why people can have different "versions" of themselves in different situations (such as at work rather than with friends). These parts are all integrated together, meaning they can function fluidly and cohesively, and they create the basis for a consistent identity to form on top of. This is the kind of thing those resources are discussing.
However, that is explicitly not what happens when a person has alters. That is the opposite of being a system.
Systems occur when these parts of self become chronically dissociated from each other due to the abnormal compartmentalization of traumatic memory. This division of self is the same base neuropsychological process that is responsible for the development of PTSD and C-PTSD, just at a much more complex level.
The highly complex dissociative compartmentalization that occurs before the personality has reached the previously described state of integration, is what allows for divisions of self that are autonomous and have elaborated identity states.
If you were to argue that the aforementioned resources are proof of endogenic systemhood, that would mean that every single person on the planet would be a system. At which point, the word would lose all meaning. Even in that case, it would remain true that the only way to experience parts of self that are significant and distinct from the normal human experience, would be through DID and OSDD-1.
If you look at descriptions of what the regular experience of human personality and identity is, and you think "that's how I experience my systemhood, that's proof of my plurality!", then that should be the biggest wake-up call on the planet.
as an anti endo does this source > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/edited-volume/abs/pii/B9780122678059500183 from 2001 really prove that endo exists ? richard in this books states did do they exist
here is the part that he says it https://files.catbox.moe/if44bj.pnj
I got another ask about this, but it was a screenshot from [THE ONE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED].. Also, I am unable to view your catbox link.
I pulled a few strings and FINALLY managed to get my hands on the article itself and archived it for you guys to read on your own. Let's debunk it together because you cannot make a claim with one tiny bit of the source itself and expect others to believe it.
WORD COUNT: 1,180 WORDS
EST. READING TIME: 5 MIN
The evidence that was cited is a single sentence from a chapter by Richard Kluft on Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) in The Disorders: Specialty Articles From The Encyclopedia of Mental Health by Howard S. Friedman (2001).
"It is unclear whether this reflects problems with the instrument or the diagnostic criteria, whether there are nonpathological endogenous forms of dissociative identity disorder, or whether patients remaining completely amnestic for childhood abuse were less symptomatic."
Page 199, A. Epidemiology
Some people interpret this as Kluft affirming the existence of endogenic systems. However, this interpretation does not hold up when the statement is examined in its full context.
The statement was speculation, not a conclusion. The most important thing to note is that Kluft was not presenting a finding. He was discussing the results of a population survey conducted by Ross and colleagues that appeared to identify more individuals meeting criteria for DID than expected.
Rather than claiming to know why this discrepancy existed, Kluft explicitly stated that the reason was unclear. He then listed several possible explanations:
- Problems with the diagnostic instrument.
- Problems with the diagnostic criteria.
- The possibility of nonpathological forms of DID.
- The possibility that some individuals remained amnestic for childhood abuse and therefore appeared less symptomatic.
In other words, Kluft was offering hypotheses, not conclusions. This contrast matters. When a researcher says that several explanations are possible, they are not endorsing any one of them as fact. To cite this sentence as proof that endogenic systems exist requires ignoring the fact that Kluft himself stated that the issue was unresolved.
The most important thing here is that the rest of the chapter supports a trauma-based model!
The broader context of the chapter makes the interpretation even more difficult to sustain. Immediately after discussing prevalence, Kluft turns to the question of etiology. There, he repeatedly describes DID as developing in children who are overwhelmed by experiences they cannot psychologically manage.
He proceeded to write the following:
"Kluft's four-factor theory holds that dissociative identity disorder occurs in (factor 1) a dissociation prone child (a biological capacity) who experiences (factor 2) overwhelming stressors that cannot be managed with nondissociative defenses.
While child abuse is the most frequent stressor in North American studies, this may not be universally the case. Exposure to death, vicarious traumatization (by witnessing the intentional or accidental death or mistreatment of others), the loss of significant persons, cultural dislocation, dysfunctional family pressures (often in the
context of divorce), childhood illness and injury, and repeated childhood surgeries have been cited as instrumental overwhelming stressors as well.
The child makes use of (factor 3) various shaping influences and substrates to form the kernel of the various alters. These may include life experiences and crucial persons in the child's life space via introjection, internalization, and identification), imaginary companionship, developmental lines, extrinsic interpersonal influences from childhood (encouragement of role-playing and acting, contradictory caretaker demands or reinforcement systems, or identification with a dissociative parent) and from contemporary sources (previous therapy, the media and literature, errors in technique, autohypnotic coping).
Finally, the situation is reinforced by (factor 4) the inadequate provision of stimulus barriers and restorative experiences by significant others. This approach to etiology is consistent with clinical experience."
Page 199-201, B. Etiology
Kluft further notes that studies consistently found histories of abuse among the overwhelming majority of DID patients. He cites research reporting childhood abuse histories in as many as 97–98% of cases and documented abuse in the vast majority of investigated patients.
Far from arguing that DID commonly arises without trauma, the chapter presents childhood trauma and overwhelming stress as the central framework for understanding the disorder.
If Kluft truly believed that non-traumatic DID was an established phenomenon, one would expect that position to be reflected consistently throughout the chapter's discussion of etiology. Instead, the opposite is true.
Another common problem with this claim is that it projects modern internet terminology backward onto a text written in 2001.
Kluft never mentions endogenic systems, natural plurality, tulpamancy, soulbonding, median systems, non-traumagenic plurality communities. None of these concepts appear in the chapter. As a result, using this sentence as evidence that Kluft was discussing contemporary endogenic identities is historically inaccurate. At most, he was briefly entertaining a hypothetical explanation for unexpected survey results.
"Nonpathological DID" Is not the same as endogenicity either. Even if one assumes Kluft was seriously considering the possibility of nonpathological DID, this still would not automatically support modern endogenic claims. The discussion occurs in a section about prevalence and diagnosis. Kluft was attempting to explain why certain survey respondents appeared to meet DID criteria despite not presenting as obvious clinical cases.
One possible interpretation of his statement is that some individuals might display DID-like traits without suffering from the level of impairment typically associated with psychiatric treatment populations.
That is a very different claim from saying that individuals can naturally develop alters entirely independent of trauma, dissociation, or developmental disruption. In fact, Kluft never makes that argument anywhere in the chapter.
The Diagnostic Criteria still required dissociative symptoms too. Kluft reproduces the DSM-IV criteria for DID, which require two or more distinct identities or personality states, recurrent control of behavior by at least two of those states, and significant amnesia that cannot be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.
These are not descriptions of ordinary identity variation, roleplay, imagination, or healthy multiplicity. They are clinical dissociative symptoms.
Consequently, even the phrase "nonpathological DID" creates a conceptual problem. DID is, by definition, a disorder. The presence of DID criteria implies clinically significant dissociative phenomena.
This further suggests that Kluft's remark was exploratory and tentative rather than an attempt to establish a new diagnostic category.
Throughout the text he repeatedly describes DID as a naturalistically occurring disorder. He connects its development to overwhelming childhood experiences, discusses trauma as the primary context in which DID emerges, notes the extremely high rates of documented abuse among DID patients, and supports treatment models designed around trauma processing and integration.
The chapter does not present evidence for endogenic systems. It does not establish non-traumatic DID. It does not validate modern endogenic theories.
Instead, it contains a single speculative sentence in which Kluft briefly considers several possible explanations for an unexpected survey result and explicitly states that the correct explanation is unknown.
So, here's your conclusion. The claim that Richard Kluft "proved" or "confirmed" endogenic systems in 2001 is based on a misreading of a single sentence removed from its context. The person who made this claim has stated before "I don't believe in context", so truly, can you believe someone making a claim without further context..?
Regardless, Kluft did not conclude that nonpathological endogenous forms of DID exist. He merely listed that possibility among several competing explanations for unusual survey findings and explicitly stated that the matter was unresolved.
When the remainder of the chapter is examined, Kluft's actual position becomes clear that DID is presented as a trauma-associated dissociative disorder arising in overwhelmed children, NOT as evidence for modern endogenic theories of plurality.
Remember, science is full of proposed explanations that were never supported by later evidence.
Read The Disorders: Specialty Articles From The Encyclopedia of Mental Health by Howard S. Friedman here (SPECIFICALLY ONLY RICHARD KLUFT'S ARTICLE, NO OTHERS ARE PROVIDED)!
WORD COUNT: 14,207 WORDS
EST. READING TIME: 1 HOUR, 11 MIN
I keep getting anti-contradictory label folk on my page good lord
I keep forgetting there’s people that are obsessed with what people identify with in good faith and when it’s completely harmless, kinda sad to see to be honest
If anyone who’s been following me and has this stance, you may wanna unfollow me. I talk about my pro-contradictory label stance a lot. I’m also a transmasc multigender gaybian. Woooo scary. Am I scary to you. Am I.
Not like I can force you to, I do not care, just a fair warning
it's insane to me how you support people identifying as shit that makes NO SENSE but as soon as someone feels like they're more than one for reasons other than trauma you take issue.
A harmless identity that doesn’t affect anyone is VASTLY different than a group of people that have roots of being discriminatory and ableist. Don’t act like this is some fucking gotcha when the two topics aren’t even related.
Being a system isn’t an identity it’s a fucking disorder. You’re a CDD system yourself, I thought you’d know this. I’m not continuing this conversation any further.
I don’t know why I’m even bothering to respond to your bullshit since you only ever respond to criticism with “you’re so mean erm :/!!” But whatever, it’s pride month.
I’m going to address all of your points by first pointing out that you contradicted yourself in less than 4 sentences. You address the fact that romantic attraction and sexual attraction aren’t the same, yet just before that you said “asexual lesbians don’t exist”. Not only is that not considered a contradictory label, but I guess asexual and homoromantic women don’t exist. Even though you just said… sexual attraction =/= romantic attraction…. Hm. It’s almost like you don’t understand what any of these labels mean.
Speaking of, let’s go over your other claims.
“Male lesbians don’t exist” well, yes, cis men cannot identify as lesbians. Trans men? Sure, since trans men have experienced womanhood, understand what it’s like to live life as a woman, to have loved women as a woman, and may still experience attraction to women the same way (queer attraction).
“Cistrans doesn’t exist” oh yeah, because bigender and intersex people just don’t exist in your eyes, do they? There’s no way someone could identify as the opposite sex and the sex they were assigned at birth, right? Or identify as both cis and trans because their biology does not match their assigned gender at birth, right? Or just have a complicated relationship with gender? (Btw, your claim in another post that “intersex people can’t be cis!” Is crazy coming from a perisex person. Maybe don’t speak for a group of people you’re not even apart of.)
“Non-binary lesbians don’t exist” Honestly this rhetoric isn’t surprising from someone who has “they/thems” on their DNI. I don’t think I have to explain why this one is stupid, but I will. Non-binary people do not identify as either binary gender, therefore they can label themselves as literally Whatever The Hell They Want. They can fit both the definition for lesbian and for gay.
I don’t expect much of a response from you considering, again, you only ever respond to criticism with “you’re such a big meanie bully!! :[[,” which I must say is frankly embarrassing at your grown age. Bottom line is, you’ve got to ignore decades upon decades of queer history to be denying this many people’s existence. Trans men have always been accepted in lesbian spaces, especially since the difference between he/him butches and trans men/mascs have such a thin and blurry line in the lesbian community, especially in the 80’s and 90’s. Ever thought about reading Stone Butch Blues? Heavily recommend.
If you actually read all this, thanks! My final message to you would be:
Fuck cops, fuck the government, free Palestine, trans people don’t have to be miserable to be trans, polyamory isn’t cheating since it’s by definition consensual, saying “I don’t trust black people” IS racist (doesn’t matter if it’s a trauma response, you don’t say that shit), narcissistic abuse isn’t real, therians fucking rule, and you should get a goddamn grip if this many people piss you off. How’s that goddamn boot taste, cop lover?
hi some links on the post about endos being a hate group don't work or lead to dead links on the internet archive. i just thought i should let you know since your post is very important to me and how i educate those around me about how endos are harmful.
link in question: https://www.tumblr.com/anti-willo-solivan/814845592491704320/hii-this-isnt-meant-to-be-mean-or-anything?source=share
I genuinely wish I could do something about that. Some stuff relating to The Lancers' was wiped from the Wayback Machine. I've been trying to loophole it from the other websites, but it's not working too well for me.
taglist so the people #know: @anti-willo-utsuro , @anti-willo-valerie , @anti-willo-siffrin , @anti-willo-purpleguy , @anti-willo-sonicexe , @anti-willo-2017x , @anti-willo-c00lkidd , @anti-willo-joker-junior , @anti-willo-miku , @dissociacho , @the--classifieds, @antiwilloheartcj , @anti-willo-darkiplier , @anti-willo-ticci-toby , @anti-endo-spencer , @anti-willo-stu-macher , @thesicksys , @anti-willo-mark-grayson , @the-rogues-gallery-sys , @anti-willo-kinger , @antiendoventing , @cidadepequenasystem , @sansland , @aka-collective , @anti-willo-stark
hello! i think i found the post you're looking for, (the thing about freud coining endogenic?) i recognized the formatting in the ss and here's the link https://www.tumblr.com/scrybe-of-death/814929500353822720/please-stop-and-read-for-a-few-minutes-to-help
Originally, I was going to crop out the link, but I look like I'm making shit up if I reference their post for this one, so let's talk about it. These are mostly claims I take issue with and aren't in any particular order, sorry.
Funnily enough, that post was made a day after my own timeline.
WORD COUNT: 994 words
EST. READING TIME: 4 MINS
I appreciate the overall purpose of this post and agree with many of its concerns regarding the historical natural multiplicity movement, Empowered Multiplicity and anti-DID activism. However, I believe some claims need clarification or correction. There is already enough documented material surrounding these movements that we do not need to rely on inaccurate information or overgeneralizations.
First claim:
"System: A broad term to refer to someone who claims to have multiple personality states. Despite originally being medical terminology, this term has been stolen by endogenic people."
While I understand the point being made, I do not think "stolen" is an accurate description.
The word system is not exclusive to any one community. At its most basic level, a system is simply a collection of interacting or interconnected parts that form a whole. The term appears throughout countless disciplines, including medicine, biology, engineering, and computer science.
Likewise, "system" has been used in dissociative communities for decades and was not invented by either side of the modern debate. It is difficult to argue that a word with such broad usage can be "stolen."
I think the more accurate criticism is that some groups adopted terminology that had already been established within dissociative communities while simultaneously rejecting the psychological frameworks from which much of that language originated.
Second claim:
"All of this combined leads back to the Empowered Multiples Movement, where the idea of endogenic systems started."
Not exactly.
The roots of modern endogenic ideology stretch further back than Empowered Multiplicity itself.
The earliest online communities relating to multiplicity were communities for people with MPD/DID and trauma survivors. Many Voices began in 1989. The alt.sexual.abuse.recovery group appeared in 1991, and alt.support.dissociation followed in 1994.
Around the mid-1990s, Astraea's Web became the first website dedicated to what would later become known as non-disordered plurality. Around 1996, Astraea introduced the concept of "natural multiplicity."
Empowered Multiplicity would emerge later, around 1998. Therefore, it is more accurate to say that Empowered Multiplicity grew out of the earlier natural multiplicity movement rather than being the original source of these ideas.
See A Timeline of the Beginning of Endogenics for more information.
Third claim:
"Endogenic systems break into system spaces by taking medical terminology like 'parts', 'system', 'alters', 'personalities', 'inner world/mindscape', 'fragment', 'persecutor', the list goes on. Endogenic systems take these terms and often misinterpret them.."
Some of these terms are indeed associated with dissociative disorders, but many are not exclusive to CDDs.
Terms such as parts and personalities are used throughout psychology. Internal Family Systems, ego-state therapy, and ordinary discussions of personality all use similar language.
Even singlets possess different roles, self-states, and parts of themselves. The difference is not whether parts exist, but the degree of dissociation and compartmentalization involved.
Likewise, "persecutor" is not unique to DID terminology. Words can exist in multiple contexts simultaneously.
The issue is not necessarily the use of words themselves, but rather whether those words are being applied in ways that ignore or contradict their clinical origins.
Fourth claim:
"Endogenic systems have had a history stretching back to the 1960s where their term was coined by Sigmund Freud (here it was not referring to this idea of systems, but it is the first known mention of the word 'endogenic' in history).."
This is historically inaccurate.
Sigmund Freud did not coin the word endogenic.
In fact, Freud never used the English word "endogenic" at all. He wrote in German, and the words he used were generally translated into English as endogenous, not endogenic. I have been unable to locate any English translation of Freud's works that renders his language as "endogenic."
Furthermore, Freud did not coin endogenous either.
The endogenous/exogenous distinction predates Freud. Paul Julius Möbius is generally credited with introducing the distinction in psychiatry in the late nineteenth century, and Emil Kraepelin later popularized these concepts through his classification systems.
Ironically, Freud often disagreed with Kraepelin's biological emphasis and instead focused on psychodynamic explanations.
Therefore, the modern plural-community usage of endogenic should not be projected backward onto nineteenth-century psychiatry.
The documented history of natural multiplicity begins on the internet during the 1990s—not in Freud's writings and certainly not in the 1960s. (Reminder, he died in 1939!)
Fifth claim:
"Endogenic systems could be considered disturbances created by cultural (see: endo spaces online) or religious (see: the theft of tulpamancy and creation of 'tulpagenic' by endogenic systems online) practices."
I do not believe this interpretation accurately reflects what the DSM means.
The DSM's cultural exemption was written with established cultural and religious traditions in mind, not internet communities or online subcultures.
Likewise, the history of "tulpagenics" is significantly more complicated.
Modern internet tulpamancy is not identical to Tibetan Tulkus. In fact, the concept passed through multiple reinterpretations. Alexandra David-Néel's writings introduced Western audiences to ideas that she described using the term "tulpa," and later online communities transformed those concepts even further.
Eventually, tulpamancy communities on forums such as 4chan developed entirely new interpretations that often bore little resemblance to either Tibetan traditions or David-Néel's descriptions. (ex: The Pinkie Pie tulpas of 4chan.)
In other words, modern "tulpagenics" represent several layers of reinterpretation rather than a direct continuation of any one religious tradition.
Similarly, references to "daemons" often derive from Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, a work of fiction, rather than from any historical spiritual practice.
Sixth claim:
"I highly recommend you rethink that idea and look into subjects like kinning, alterhumanity, otherkin, fictionkin, etc., all of which are terms for non-disordered people who might have similar (but not the same) experiences as pwCDDs."
This recommendation is more complicated than it first appears.
Modern alterhuman communities often overlap with plural communities, and some branches of alterhumanity openly include endogenic systems.
The creator of the term "alterhuman" has acknowledged these overlaps and has chosen not to redefine the term in ways that would exclude plural communities, partly because doing so would create additional divisions within the broader alterhuman umbrella.
Therefore, presenting alterhumanity as entirely separate from endogenic communities can be misleading.
That user is also a zionist, transmed, racist, intersexist, and extremely weird about disordered paras. Literally collecting dogshit takes and bigoted ideologies like Pokémon cards.
Fragmented Festival is a zine dedicated to normalizing systemhood through art. We want to make this page safe for all pwCDDs, whether questioning, undiagnosed, diagnosed, or having gone through final fusion.
To submit, post on Tumblr with the tag #fragmentedfestival2026 and optionally, tag us! (If applicable, put sensitive content under a cut and content warn.)
FAQ below the cut!
Who can submit?
Any person who considers themselves a CDD system. This means OSDD, P-DID, UDD, and unlabeled CDD systems. This includes pro-endo and mixed origin cdds.
What can be submitted?
All submissions must be images, writing or both. They also must pertain to systemhood.
What can't be submitted?
Irrelevant/off topic works, gifs, videos, anything related to being an endogenic system (does not apply to systems who formerly thought they were endogenic), heavy gore, heavy eyestrain. You may not create content that encourages hate, illegal content, pornographic content, etc. but you may talk about it. Ex: writing about sexual abuse is okay, writing graphically about it is not. Writing about racism you experienced is okay, writing about how certain racial groups should die is not.
Can (x) systems submit?
See "Who can submit?" above, or send an ask.
Does this blog have a stance?
This specific blog is stanceless, neu-endo if you must, but is designed for CDD systems.
Breaking my “on break” status for a moment to say I love everyone with complex identities. I love you lesboys and turigirls. I love you m-spec lesbians and gays. I love you gaybians and the like. Happy pride month to everyone with a “weird” identity, you belong in our community🫶
— we should stop the fear mongering around diagnosis. it’s really weird.
yes, you can still drive. there is no universal prohibition placed upon individuals with did. a diagnosis does not result in someone appearing from the shadows to confiscate your licence and declare, “no more driving for you.” ( such matters are assessed on an individual basis. )
likewise, you are generally not required to disclose your mental health diagnoses to an employer. nor may you be denied employment solely because you have did.
are there circumstances in which a person may encounter additional challenges? certainly. no serious individual would deny that. however, there is a vast difference between acknowledging potential difficulties and engaging in fearmongering.
spreading misinformation helps no one. all it accomplishes is frightening vulnerable people and creating unnecessary barriers where none may actually exist.
The Prism Minds Project: Many Experiences, Many Perspectives
Like light passing through a prism, similar experiences can be interpreted and understood in many different ways. This project aims to explore those perspectives without assuming any single explanation.
A long questionnaire developed by @anti-willo-solivan to understand systems around the world. The current goalpost for all respondents stands at least 600.
This questionnaire was inspired by @anti-willo-sukuna and @anti-willo-valerie. Val has his own survey as well -> Take his System Survey
Take The Prism Minds Project: System Questionnaire
Hello! I am interested in how people understand and navigate plurality both online and offline, and I'd love to hear from anyone who identifies as a system, regardless of their origin.
This project isn't intended to diagnose, debate, or invalidate anyone. I'm simply interested in gathering perspectives and seeing what patterns emerge.
I understand that my current stance may off-put many people that identify under the endogenic umbrella, but this specific post and any post labeled under TPMP (The Prism Minds Project) is endo safe. My other posts that are NOT labeled under TPMP are not endo safe and I would appreciate it if those specific posts were left alone.
DISCLAIMER:
While I hold my own views, curiosity and a desire to understand different experiences inspired The Prism Minds Project. The purpose of this project is not to challenge or debate respondents. The goal is to understand how people from many different backgrounds and belief systems describe their experiences in their own words, then share the results with the world. Yes, some tags reach out to both sides of system communities—I'm not crosstagging this specific post to invalidate anyone or such.
tag list for reach:
@anti-willo-utsuro , @anti-willo-valerie , @anti-willo-siffrin , @anti-willo-purpleguy , @anti-willo-sonicexe , @anti-willo-2017x , @anti-willo-c00lkidd , @anti-willo-joker-junior , @anti-willo-miku , @dissociacho , @the--classifieds, @antiwilloheartcj , @anti-willo-darkiplier , @anti-willo-ticci-toby , @anti-endo-spencer , @anti-willo-stu-macher , @thesicksys , @anti-willo-mark-grayson , @the-rogues-gallery-sys
Sysamoury / Systeamoury (idk which one sounds cooler)
A term to describe an attraction to another alter / relationship between alters that is fundamentally affected by ones systemhood or can’t be described using existing relationship terms.
Do not repost my terms to pluralpedia!
IMG ID: A 7 stripe flag in shades of yellow and pink. At the center is a teal heart outlined in pink and two teal gears with white and pink outlines. /END ID
You can repeat the phrase “introjects aren’t their source” all you want, but if that sentiment stops when it’s convenient for you, or when you try to win an argument, you never respected introjects in the first place.
“How are you __ when your source is __?”
Because introjects aren’t their source.
“Your source would never say that, why did you say that?”
Because Introjects aren’t their source.
“Your source is __, so you must also be __.”
Introjects aren’t their fucking source.
Stop acting like you care about introjects if you jump at the chance to compare them to their source.
