eclipse

[eclipse4sysourse]

A syscourse blog ran by many systems in one body with extremely different stances but collectively all pro-endo. We are bodily/chrono a minor.

We have NPD, BPD, scoliosis, and OSDD-1 but it differs per system if they identify as such (most systems are infact radqueer other than one system).

Send asks or don't, we don't mind, we do engage in syscourse but prefer it to not be criticism towards us. But please note we will and can get extremely defensive and will lead to many blocks.

credits

[eclipse4sysourse]

genuine question from someone with DID that doesn't necessarily identify as plural and isnt really into all this discourse: what is the logic behind plurality/systemhood not being a mental health disorder? is it just because youve observed what you believe to be functional plurality or do you believe in demedicalizing mental health overall? again, im genuinely asking and not criticizing you. im just curious about this perspective i havent really heard very often

So, the best way I can explain it is this: plurality isn't inheritently disordered. DID and OSDD-1 are dissociative disorders, not the only cause of plurality. Similar to how moodswings aren't the only thing about BPD, plurality isn't the only thing about DID/OSDD-1. Plurality can be disordered or nondisordered.

[eclipse4sysourse]

'system accountability' shouldn't be called that. We should rename it to plural accountability or body accountability to make it inclusive

[the-sour-patch-crew]

This will probably be a hot take but I think it should just be "accountability" or "shared accountability". 🫣

Or just add however you identify in front of it. Collective accountability, parts accountability, plural accountability, etc.

[eclipse4sysourse]

Honestly that works too, I just feel that it should be more inclusive than just system accountability because not everyone is a system so those would work imo too

[eclipse4sysourse]

'system accountability' shouldn't be called that. We should rename it to plural accountability or body accountability to make it inclusive

[eclipse4sysourse]

I feel that singlets shouldn't involve themselves in syscourse and only plurals should

[thecircularsystem]

I’m curious as to why. I’ve never seen a single argument that made sense to exclude singlets specifically, so I’d love to know your reasoning.

[eclipse4sysourse]

So, for me, lets take disorders for example. If one person in discourse did not have that disorder they was having discourse about with someone who did; they wouldn't know how it feels like to have that disorder even if they research about it.

Then apply that to plurality. Singlets (who aren't on the plural spectrum at all) do not know how it is to be plural at all (this excludes singlets who were plural at some point)

That's at least how we view this and apply it with everything. If you aren't [x] dont discourse with it. Sort of like the "If you aren't [x], do not speak for them" statement. This doesn't apply to stuff like stances in our mind.

[thecircularsystem]

That… doesn’t make much sense to me, and has a lot of flawed hypotheticals. For instance:

Once systems who now identify as singlets

Well researched singlets, such as therapists or psychologists, discussing the research on systemhood

Singlets who have overlapping symptoms with CDDs or plurality (e.g. daemons, mediumship, DPDR, BPD, etc)

I think the issue is the idea that someone who does not experience something cannot possibly conceptualize what the experience is like. Systemhood is not a unique experience. Singlets with no experience with systemhood can conceptualize plurality just fine.

I think the idea that singlets cannot comprehend or understand this experience contributes to the lack of information singlets receive on this disorder, and contributes to the ableism displayed by singlets due to the lack of ability to understand on their own.

[eclipse4sysourse]

We never stated that anyone who is plural adjacent in any way. I also stated that our definition did not include singlets who used to be plural.

Plurality isn't inherently a disorder and I'm not against singlets learning about it. We're saying that if you aren't plural adjacent or plural at all, you shouldn't engage in syscourse no matter if your researched or not.

We believe that singlets (who isn't plural adjacent at all) shouldn't engage in syscourse because they aren't plural at all.

It's not that I don't think singlets cannot understand plurality, it's because they aren't in the community at all.

[thecircularsystem]

I think perhaps I’m not understanding where the line is drawn for “plural adjacent.”

My spouse is not plural at all, in the slightest. But @circulars-singlet still syscourses, because they can absolutely speak to my experiences and understand what I’ve gone through — even if they don’t personally experience it.

Is that “plural adjacent” despite them not ever having a plural experience themselves? /genq

I’m sorry if I implied that plurality is a disorder anywhere. Not my intention.

You’d said in your post that the reason singlets shouldn’t engage with syscourse is because “they wouldn’t know what it feels like.” I disagree with that premise.

[eclipse4sysourse]

It's fine if you disagree, I was sharing my views on syscourse. And plurality is an identity and and is extremely large. If they identify as plural or plural adjacent; then they can go into syscourse.

Even if a singlet was researched or such, I believe they shouldn't engage into syscourse because they don't have that identity of plurality or plural adjacent.

[eclipse4sysourse]

'can't we just get along and say that definitions can change per being' no lol words mean things. this is why it's pointless to talk to radqueers.

Then dni?? There are literal words that have no strict meanings like plurality changes per being. Which is why I said system accountability can look different per being. And also— just a note— all of agree with definitions can change per being (depending on if the word has a wide definition or not) even the anti-radqueers btw (which is a system of 500+). I genuinely don't think you know what radqueers are either. Um. Yikes I accept everyone no matter their identity and are anti-nonconsensual harassment + nonconsensual abuse&neglect?

[eclipse4sysourse]

I feel that singlets shouldn't involve themselves in syscourse and only plurals should

[thecircularsystem]

I’m curious as to why. I’ve never seen a single argument that made sense to exclude singlets specifically, so I’d love to know your reasoning.

[eclipse4sysourse]

So, for me, lets take disorders for example. If one person in discourse did not have that disorder they was having discourse about with someone who did; they wouldn't know how it feels like to have that disorder even if they research about it.

Then apply that to plurality. Singlets (who aren't on the plural spectrum at all) do not know how it is to be plural at all (this excludes singlets who were plural at some point)

That's at least how we view this and apply it with everything. If you aren't [x] dont discourse with it. Sort of like the "If you aren't [x], do not speak for them" statement. This doesn't apply to stuff like stances in our mind.

[thecircularsystem]

That… doesn’t make much sense to me, and has a lot of flawed hypotheticals. For instance:

Once systems who now identify as singlets

Well researched singlets, such as therapists or psychologists, discussing the research on systemhood

Singlets who have overlapping symptoms with CDDs or plurality (e.g. daemons, mediumship, DPDR, BPD, etc)

I think the issue is the idea that someone who does not experience something cannot possibly conceptualize what the experience is like. Systemhood is not a unique experience. Singlets with no experience with systemhood can conceptualize plurality just fine.

I think the idea that singlets cannot comprehend or understand this experience contributes to the lack of information singlets receive on this disorder, and contributes to the ableism displayed by singlets due to the lack of ability to understand on their own.

[eclipse4sysourse]

We never stated that anyone who is plural adjacent in any way. I also stated that our definition did not include singlets who used to be plural.

Plurality isn't inherently a disorder and I'm not against singlets learning about it. We're saying that if you aren't plural adjacent or plural at all, you shouldn't engage in syscourse no matter if your researched or not.

We believe that singlets (who isn't plural adjacent at all) shouldn't engage in syscourse because they aren't plural at all.

It's not that I don't think singlets cannot understand plurality, it's because they aren't in the community at all.

[eclipse4sysourse]

???? in what world is anyone talking about system accountability ever talking about insys stuff. that doesn’t make it complicated it’s just straight up not what that means. system accountability is FOR external interactions and behavior.

Hi, so, we like to take system accountability and apply them insys and outsys. We never said anyone was talking about insys system accountability. We view system accountability as accountability for plurals. We don't think it is subject alone to external and can apply to interal.

We have our own definition for what system accountability, you have yours, that's great, can't we just get along and say that definitions can change per being.

[eclipse4sysourse]

System accountability is a hard topic for us. So here's how we view it:

You should take accountability if they do anything out of the body / outsys to anyone. However, if it is in the body / insys, then that one person is held accountable.

Why? Because you share a body and account(s). You have to take accountability for anything that anyone does outsys, however this doesn't mean you did it. You're just saying "I know what my headmate did was wrong and I apologize and will talk to my system about this along with them." While insys doesn't have to apply here. Because it's in the body; especially if you're separate from one another.

However, these two things are different from one another. No this doesn't mean you did do it if you didn't, you don't have to take the blame for it, however, you do have to accept you are living with likely multiple people in one body and if someone screws up, you all have to take the blame as unfortunate as it may be.

Rather, insys you are separate beings. I compare this to a society. If one does wrong, they take accountability for it. That's what it should be regarding insys.

Outsys, however, like I've said, you should take system accountability if they did anything to anyone or done anything outsys.

[eclipse4sysourse]

I feel that singlets shouldn't involve themselves in syscourse and only plurals should

[thecircularsystem]

I’m curious as to why. I’ve never seen a single argument that made sense to exclude singlets specifically, so I’d love to know your reasoning.

[eclipse4sysourse]

So, for me, lets take disorders for example. If one person in discourse did not have that disorder they was having discourse about with someone who did; they wouldn't know how it feels like to have that disorder even if they research about it.

Then apply that to plurality. Singlets (who aren't on the plural spectrum at all) do not know how it is to be plural at all (this excludes singlets who were plural at some point)

That's at least how we view this and apply it with everything. If you aren't [x] dont discourse with it. Sort of like the "If you aren't [x], do not speak for them" statement. This doesn't apply to stuff like stances in our mind.

[eclipse4sysourse]

I feel that singlets shouldn't involve themselves in syscourse and only plurals should

[eclipse4sysourse]

Btw if you don't think created plurality is real, look at thoughtforms, that shit can explain half of whats going on with created plurality

[eclipse4sysourse]

I think you might be getting pretty trolled big time and tbh I wouldn't encourage it by answering any more asks along the lines of the bullshit you've been responding to. They're fishing for a reaction. Don't feed them with a response

Yeah, we like the attention because of npd but if we get any more we probably won't respond

[eclipse4sysourse]

You're really gonna come onto the syscourse tag, which is primarily anti-radqueer, and then make a mockery of (pro) endos with your radqueer nonsense, acting like disability is just a cutesy fucking identity, and then expect to be welcomed with open arms? Go back to your fucking echo chamber of cultural appropriation and fetishization of minorities jackass.

How the hell are we making a mockery of pro-endos when literally are fucking pro-endo??? You ain't making shit make any sense.

It's the syscourse tag it has literal no fucking tag associated with it

And no, i do not view disabilities as a "cute fucking disability" infact our bpd and npd literally makes life suck for us. Supporting shit, such as, all transIDs, doesn't make us a see disabilities as "cute fucking disabilities"

I really think there's a trend here with anti-radqueers and harrassing people + assuming the shit out of the lack of knowledge you even know about us

You're disgusting, genuinely. Please learn that harassment no matter what is fucking wrong if it's without consent, which what you're doing right now, it is

[eclipse4sysourse]

radqueers have no right to weigh in on anything. full stop. no one wants to hear shit a radqueer has to say. don’t care if you’ve got one decent side system. the rest of y’all need to get out. no room for radqueers here or anywhere else, not if we want any degree of safety or respect for each other.

Nice way to say that you lack basic living decency to harass people over a literal stance. So hold on let's go over what radqueer fucking means, shall we?

PRO —

Nontraumagenic plurals

Bodily automy

TransIDs

Condactiary identities

Age / pet regression / dreaming

Paraphilas

+more

NOT INCLUDED IN RQ —

Contact stance

ANTI —

Harassment

[eclipse4sysourse]

radqueers get outta syscourse right now challenge

Genuinely confused abt this ??? What does this have to do at all with syscourse ??? Your stance doesn't mean anything about if you engage in syscourse or not ???

And also we do literally have a anti-radqueer sidesystem is also genuinely confused about this too

[eclipse4sysourse]

Endos are valid, willos are valid, tulpas are valid, however the hell your plural formed, you're valid.

The DMS for DID doesn't apply to nondisordered plurals, they do not have DID. And yes endogenic plurals CAN have DID, their plurality could have not been caused by trauma, but their disorder was. Or they could be mixed orgins.