discoursediary

[discoursediary]

I also want to add, sometimes it's not possible to hide.

For systems with more overt presentations it could be incredibly challenging to have to mask something like this. It may even be completely impossible if you are someone they are close with and around very often. Telling you could be a way to try and prevent you from finding out another way that would be much worse for everyone involved.

frankly if anyone ever told me they introjected me, I would have to very seriously consider terminating our relationship on the spot. it’s a hard boundary for me. if anyone feels the need to make that my problem that’s wildly over the line. I don’t care how kindly or thoughtfully it’s approached. keep it to yourself (general you) unless someone has clearly said they’re okay with hearing it. just. good grief. no. I have enough of my own identity issues.

Okay I'm not sure if this ask is talking about the introjection or the knowledge of it so I'm going to reply to both.

Most systems don't choose who or what they get introjects of. Having a problem with this means having to never interact with another plural, because anyone could accidentally introject you. I also think that making introjects more unacceptable because they "don't have the consent of the person" misunderstands what introjection is. Are we also applying this to singlets who introject? What about behaviour? Your pattern of speech? All things we subconsciously copy and internalise when we spend a lot of time with someone.

I think it is unreasonable to expect someone to not introject you because it is a boundary of yours. I also don't think that's a boundary because it places the blame on the other person. (So "I won't stay here if you keep hitting me" is a boundary but "you are not allowed to keep hitting me" isn't.)

Setting a boundary for not talking to an introject of yourself is understandable. I still believe that shaming someone for the introjects they have will just stunt their recovery and cause harm. These ideas can coexist.

I do have experience telling my wife that we had an introject of her and this is basically how it went down:

Me: can I tell you something kinda embarrassing?

Wife: yeah sure, is this like a sitting down together conversation?

Me: uh could be, but it's not like a serious thing it's just kinda funny

Wife: okay, go on

Me: we found an introject of you, but she doesn't front and just kinda sits in innerworld

Wife: It was a matter of time lmao, yeah I don't care, if she wants to front and talk she can though

My wife and I had been joking for a while that she thought we'd vet an introject of her just based on our splitting patterns and how much time we spend with her. That alter doesn't exist anymore but I genuinely believe my wife treated the situation in the best way for us.

She always treated it like something not serious, she would joke about it and internally did the work needed to understand that an introject of her isn't a commentary on her existence.

I don't have the language available right now to describe any more of my thoughts but this topic really does interest me so I'm very open for more asks or reblogs asking questions.

[discoursediary]

When someone is behaving badly in the tag I see a lot of people respond in a very inflammatory way.

I encourage people in syscourse to take time to try and figure out if how they plan to interact and discourage the behavior they are seeing is accidentally going to encourage the person to continue the behavior or even make the person more likely escalate the situation.

[discoursediary]

One thing that never fails to perplex me in syscourse is the number of people who come here dedicated to straight up lying.

You're walking into the geology convention and screaming about how limestone is an igneous rock. Nobody is gonna believe you, it's never gonna happen. Why are you doing this.

[discoursediary]

ur funny pls dint go bald

Lol ty

[discoursediary]

(someone please add alt text)

[discoursediary]

Legitimately why does anyone care how someone else refers to their own system. This is such a stupid thing for folks to get so bent up about.

.

[discoursediary]

we all have different favorite animals so I'll go with mine.

I like kingfishers. They have super long beaks. Look at them.

Let's all take a break from misunderstanding how etymology works and engaging with obvious trolls. What's your favorite animal?

[discoursediary]

Considering this anon professes to see syskids exactly the same as real children, it is apparent that anon thinks that this is an appropriate course of action:

See a twelve year old in what they consider a potentially harmful situation.

2. Harm the twelve year old further by being intentionally cruel and abusive. Attempt to bully them into doing as anon says and continue to harass them for days.

Definitely quite revealing as to anon's character.

Oh wow, you’re SO mature with your "31-year-old brain," huh? 🙄 Bet you think you’re Einstein just ‘cause your body’s been around for three decades. Newsflash: bragging about prelim tests and porn doesn’t make you a genius, it makes you a tryhard. And picking on 12yo singlets? Real classy, syskid. Maybe if you spent less time whining about hatemail and more time getting a real hobby, you wouldn’t sound so desperate for attention. Keep coping, Jacob.ke!

Anon I’m at work today. Because you know we have a full time job. Does bullying kids make you feel better? That’s pathetic. Grow up. I clearly lead a more fulfilled life than you do if you get your kicks bullying anything you deem a child.

Sad.

[discoursediary]

I usually vote but with the least impactful option

Like, if

"I love this"

"I hate this"

"I feel completely indifferent"

"nuance button, leave opinion in reblogs"

I would hit nuance and not reblog, as the nuance button isn't particularly valuable data on its own.

[discoursediary]

out of our 30 most active members

37% brain made

30% factives of non-abusers.

3% fictives

10% other kinds of introjects

17% a mix between two or more categories, excluding the abuser factive category.

3% abuser factives.

0% a mix between two or more categories, one of which being abuser factives.

In actual numbers it was 11/9/1/3/5/1/0.

So I went ahead and did the math for our system:

-29% are straight fictives -0% are factives (no, really) -11% identify as both fictives and brain-mades for whatever reason -60% overwhelmingly identify as brain-made

But yes, definitely 90% of us are obviously abuser introjects and we don't know about it. Thanks you for the wakeup call <3

[discoursediary]

To me an introject is any headmate (or other system part like innerworld) whose creation and/or self is based significantly upon an identifiable outside source.

Things can get muddy sometimes for various reasons, and to me it makes the most sense for the individual system to decide whether a headmate in the grey area counts or not because it really doesn't matter anyways.

i know why someone would be like "i (or a small group of people) are the only ones right about systemhood and these specific aspects of systemhood! everyone else is just wrong about themselves!" but i can't help but get annoyed when they pull statistics out of their ass and invent new definitions out of nowhere like that's the only definition that's allowed to exist.

to anyone who's reading this, how do you define what an introject is?

[discoursediary]

So since we are talking about innerworlds again we wanted to talk about how the discussion around it just being visualization/a visualization tool is harmful to us(and if it is just visualization for you that is fine, if you don't have an innerworld that is fine. We aren't here to gatekeep your experiences so please don't gatekeep ours).

So the thing with referring to it as just visualization makes us feel like we are supposed to have some sort of control over it. Like we decide how it exists and what way it will exist to best help us. We simply don't unfortunately. It has just been constantly running in our subconscious since about age 8. We never created it. It was just there and we have zero control over how it presents. It just exists there constantly.

One of our other problems with people trying to force the "it's not real" narrative(well duh everyone understands that it's about one's personal experience with it) is in how many alters we have and how little we switch. It's not uncommon for our brain to create alters for a single extremely niche scenario and then not do anything to fuse them because what if it happens again. For those alters they ONLY know what life is like in the innerworld and nothing else. Our innerworld is just as vivid, detailed and realistic as out here. So why would an alter that interacts with that world 24/7 not process it as some form of reality? They are naturally in a condition that supports that.

And since aphantasia was brought up(obviously we don't have it) we have a friend with aphantasia that has just an elaborate innerworld they just obviously experience it differently. Having aphantasia and having an elaborate innerworld are not mutually exclusive.

Anyway I think that's all. Feel free to ask questions if something doesn't make sense.

[discoursediary]

It's a scientific law that syscourse is where reading comprehension goes to die.

Syscourse comprehension check...

Does anti-endos and pro-endos can be friends mean all anti-endos and pro-endos should just get over it and love each other?

Does having source memories alongside having real irl trauma memories while fully understanding that the source memories aren't real mean you are comparing the two types of memories?

I'm curious to know.

[discoursediary]

seeing someone new join syscourse

[discoursediary]

It's night again and we're awake!

Probably will talk about why that keeps happening in the future but instead tonight im going to ramble because my brain is fried.

People moralize random shit way to much.

Just tonight I was thinking about face claims. Holy hell, some random guy on the internet posting a pic of a random ass YouTuber and basically saying "my internal image looks a lot like this guy" is not a paragon of evil. I don't know how to break this to y'all but it's at max just kinda weird, and we should all move on. If you find it weird just like, don't interact and don't do it yourself. It's that easy. Y'all need to mind your own beeswax.

Really this applies to a lot of the discourse on the internet. Not just face claims. That's just what my brain snapped to first tonight.

[discoursediary]

The whole thing about this Sophie discourse is I am sure a lot of us would not care if this were a normal ol' gimmick blog in intent. But... she literally made a post proving it wasn't.

She stated the goal of her blog was to do something a lot of the community disagrees with her methods on. The over the top way of stating her goal to purposely create plausible deniability of it being a joke no longer works on anyone who has been here for awhile. She knows that the anonymity of the blog will trick people into taking actions to support her methods of achieving this goal even though they don't agree with them. This shows intent. Doing something with the intent of manipulating people into actions you know they don't support is not cool.

Sophie isn't stupid and she knows her main blog's post was going to be spread around, despite claiming she wasn't posting it to syscourse for that reason. It is impossible for her not to know her blog is widely viewed and that someone would reveal this to the tag.

I really don't care what anonymous sideblogs people have in general. It's the (very clear and directly stated) intent behind it and obvious manipulative behavior going on that is a problem. It is very clearly unacceptable and yet Sophie continues to do it and act like any criticism she receives is her being unfairly attacked. This is a pattern.

This behavior is why the community doesn't trust her to use a sideblog in an appropriate way. She has stated she isn't, and has a history of similar behavior. She knows why we view this sideblog differently to ones like pos-syscourse. Because blogs like pos-syscourse are genuine, not manipulative or furthering some "secret" (not secret anymore) goal. But she pretends like it's the same.

She knew this would blow up. She knew the response she would get would be negative.

Yep. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[discoursediary]

I wonder if the people on the queer discourse side of Tumblr wonder why a bunch of people they've never met are now suddenly posting in their neck of the woods, and all tagging it with a strange tag called "syscourse".