#everyone hates freud

[kaleb-is-definitely-sane]

Never and i mean. NEVER let the Freud hate die out <3333333

posts for people who hate freud

[imissthembutitwasntadisaster]

Me starting to say anything about fairy tales: and obviously Freud's concept of the uncanny- I'm so sorry I'm so so sorry I know listen I know I'm so sorry-

[an-atlas-or-other]

I love how petty science is. We have pretty much all of our knowledge about anything and everything because scientists desperately want to prove each other wrong. It’s beautiful

[transingthoseformers]

There's a scenario I like to call Freud's paradox

How much of the subject's projections are merely the observer's projections?

[pogasssm]

im so confused is he saying dreaming about beating kids is or subconscious telling you to jerk off or dreaming about jerking off is your subconscious telling you to beat kids

[tesco-offickle]

people that are smarter than me fill me with a weird sense of envy and also make me hard.

[drfrankensteinvsthequeerborgs]

J*hn’s dead in Dean’s fantasy dream world, not gonna analyze that too closely

[not-wholly-unheroic]

I recently found a copy of the graphic novel version of Straight on Til Morning at my local used bookstore and got a great deal so I wanted to share a few of my likes, dislikes, and general observations. I’d been meaning to write up a proper review of the book for awhile now but have been SUPER behind. Anyway, the graphic novel follows the book pretty closely and I’ll be sharing some images from it, so this WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS for those of you who haven’t read it.

First off, the artwork for the graphic novel is beautiful and some scenes are illustrated in a really creative way. For example, I love the depiction of this particular scene where Wendy is writing her stories and Hook sort of…comes to life off the page.

I also really love that while (most of) the characters are still recognizably Disney’s version…they also look a tad more realistic and have some of the illustrator’s own personal interpretation mixed in.

George Darling is a great example. In the graphic novel he is slimmer than in the film and looks remarkably like J.M. Barrie…which I have to consider was probably intentional.

And then there’s the Lost Boys in their animal costumes…Tootles, Skipper (excuse me, this is Nibs erasure—you can add Skipper but don’t just eliminate Nibs!), Slightly, Cubby, and the Twins.

The pirates, however, are a totally different story. Who the heck are these guys???

Anyway… at least they get Hook’s personality right. I love this bit, in particular, where one of the pirates gets a little rough with Wendy and Hook is having none of it. Also, the idea of Hook capturing Wendy to be a mother to the crew is a nice nod to the book.

One big complaint I do have is that the characters are, on occasion, a little TOO self-aware. Like in this scene where one of the pirates makes a sort of on-the-nose observation about Hook’s feud with Pan.

But I will admit, I did cackle at Hook’s reaction.

He said would you please stop trying to psychoanalyze me and look for symbolism and just let the story be about a boy and a pirate? (Hook, how do you even know who Freud is??)

You may have noticed by now that I haven’t said anything about Peter… That’s because Peter barely features in the story at all and honestly when he does show up, he’s…kinda useless and clueless. Now, admittedly, Wendy is meant to be older in this (around 16) so of course, it’s reasonable to think she might not quite view him the same way she did at 12…but in having her team up with Tink to do all the heavy-lifting of the plot (because, ya know, girlpower and all that), Peter sort of ends up not really doing anything. I’d almost rather have an evil Pan, as annoying as that trope is because at least then he actually does something. In this story, it truly feels like Wendy has just…outgrown Peter altogether. And that hurts.

Speaking of which…ya know what hurts even more for me as a Hook fan? THIS.

This poor man is curled up on the deck in the fetal position, terrified of a crocodile who has been long-dead, crying out for a best friend who never even existed except inside his own mind because he was so alone that he made him up.

O W !! Why would you do this to me, Disney?!

It ends for Hook with the crew deciding to drop him off somewhere with enough gold to pay for his keep and hire a caretaker because he’s so mentally unstable they don’t trust him to live by himself.

I hate to say it, but honestly, watching him die would be less painful. At least that would be over with fairly quickly. This just hurts.

But everyone else lives happily ever after, so it’s okay, right? Right??? 😫😭 (Don’t mind me, I’ll just be over here in the corner, crying over my pirate boy.)

[orhelponefaintingrobin]

The most telling thing I've ever learned about Freud is that before he got into psychology he was briefly obsessed with the age old question of how eels reproduce.

I maintain that his 'everyone's obsessed with sex' thing is just a lifelong justification for why he cared so much about eels fucking.

i hate sigmund freud. what the fuck is penis envy. bitch ill kill you

[croxot]

MORE Armored Core 6 Thoughts - The Corporate Military Leaders

After coming to the conclusion that Armored Core is my game of the year, I've been thinking needlessly deeply about many little bits of the game. I wanted to put some thoughts out there about the Corporate Military Leaders (V.II Snail & G1 Michigan). More specifically what makes them so different in how the player perceives them -- How their corny characterization makes them all the more engrossing. Spoilers to follow.

Michigan

• Massive blowhard military type, speaks with all the bravado of your stereotypical US army drill sergeant.

• Despite this, he is somewhat endearing. He's still a shill for Balam, but he has a clear level of respect for those under him, and grants even more respect where it's clearly deserved.

• Knows all his underlings by name.

• Will chastise his own men for not showing you enough respect on the mission where you are expected to kill him and his entire force. Seems to take it well despite what's happening.

• Despite his position placing him as one of the defcato villains, there is very little direct animosity to muster for him. By the point in the story where you can decide to kill him, Balam has already lost the race, and Michigan has shown very little ill will towards you personally (even if you've previously betrayed the Redguns).

---

(Quick note on V.I Freud: While Freud is Technically a higher rank than Snail, he's clearly turned over military leadership to Snail, which makes Snail more of the de-facto face of Arquebus. Freud's just an ace who shows up to have a good fight, and otherwise doesn't make much of a show. Which, yeah, that's fine.)

Snail

• The Immediate difference here is that Snail is consistently depicted as conceited and selfish. Where Michigan is on first-name basis with basic underlings, Snail is verbally disgusted with the thought of acknowledging anything or anyone that isn't directly and immediately beneficial to him.

• And that's great because this game ABSOLUTELY benefits from having someone that's so easy to hate. Snail treats everyone around him, including his ranked allies, and even Freud, like dirt.

• He's even worse to you in the sense that he's convinced his type of space-cyber-lobotomy is so much newer and shinier than yours and makes him objectively superior to you. Like calm down dude this isn't a brain damage contest.

• This makes the Liberator of Rubicon Ending immensely satisfying in a way the other 2 endings just don't compare to. The game has spent around 15-ish hours having this guy be a gigantic douche in nearly every line he speaks, and then he shows up to fight you when realistically he doesn't even have to considering the circumstances.

• And so with Rusty's theme blaring in the background, he has an angry breakdown while you send him and his Balteus 2: Scuffed Laser Edition™ directly to the shadow realm. It is the most satisfying boss kill in the game.

[cedarxwing]

The ending of Hannibal the novel explained

(aka the breastfeeding scene)

Here's the passage (end of Chapter 101):

I thought everyone was kidding about the breastfeeding kink jokes until my partner read Hannibal and the whole ending flew over their head. Their main takeaway was "that was weird." When I checked reddit, it seemed everyone was confused there too. I was gobsmacked to see one guy say that Thomas Harris was playing some cruel joke on the reader by writing an ending that didn't make sense!

How many people are reading Hannibal like this, completely missing the resolution to Hannibal's character arc? They must finish the book confused about what it was all about in the first place. So here's how I understand it!

First, I need to get this out of the way: a lot of people hate this scene, and from what I understand it's because they're weirded out by the "breastfeeding kink." Which is fine, but it makes me want to gently hold them by the hand and tell them that it's ok for someone to suck on a nipple. It happens all the time. Sometimes it just feels good, sometimes it's part of a breastfeeding fantasy, and sometimes it's literal breastfeeding. Between consenting adults, this is all fine and normal. Let's all move past this knee-jerk repulsion (or alternatively, sit in our discomfort and expand our horizons) so we can analyze this piece of art together. :)

Next, authors LOVE Freudian psychoanalysis. Even though it's all nonsense, it's full of literary allusion and makes for compelling narratives and character studies (childhood maladjustment, repressed memories, etc), which is basically catnip for a writer. Thomas Harris was no exception, and probably creamed himself (as I did) when he learned that Freud's oral-sadistic stage was also termed the "cannibalistic stage," referring to the time when an infant is growing teeth and begins to bite at the breast--the psychosexual urge to devour and destroy the thing you love. What could be more appropriate for Hannibal?

Next, consider the pattern of Hannibal's Il Mostro murders. He killed young couples in one of the most romantic cities in the world, then arranged them as Chloris and Zephyr from Botticelli's Primavera, exposing Chloris's left breast just like in the painting. In classical art, an exposed breast is often a symbol of fertility. Chloris is associated with spring, new growth, and transformation.

Perhaps, at the time, Hannibal rationalized these murders as retribution for rude behavior. Maybe the couples were performing disgusting PDA. Maybe they were obnoxious tourists on their honeymoons. Either way, it's clear to the reader that Hannibal has some deep-seated hang up about sex and romance.

The particulars of this hang up are open to interpretation, but based on Hannibal's obsession with the rape and transformation of Chloris as well as his embarrassment at the paintings of Leda and the Swan in the German's house, I think it's safe to say that Hannibal feels like any relationship he has with a woman who isn't aware of his true (monstrous) identity would involve a degree of violence/lack of consent. He is forever barred from normal romance.

Having given up on sex/romance, Hannibal is unable to consciously recognize his desire for Clarice, so he sublimates it into a more general familial love. He longs for a return to innocence, to return to the time before he ate Mischa and became an unlovable monster (cue the teacup metaphor).

But even familial love seems like too much to hope for, so he sublimates it further into something that seems more attainable: resurrecting the person whom he loved and devoured, and who loved him in turn (Mischa) through Clarice.

So we have the breast as a symbol of sex/fertility (Chloris/Clarice), as an object that is loved and devoured (Mischa), and as a literal source of sustenance that must be given up during infancy (mommy).

Big brain Clarice connects all these dots and, in the very same style of therapy that Hannibal has been using on her, distills Hannibal's psychological problems into a single poetic gesture that completely fixes Hannibal in an instant, proving that she's not only his intellectual equal, but is, in some ways, his superior.

When Clarice asks, "Did you ever feel that you had to relinquish the breast to Mischa? Did you ever feel you were required to give it up for her?", she's ostensibly asking Hannibal if he's stuck in the oral stage of childhood development (which yeah he probably is). On a deeper level, she's asking Hannibal to consider if he's given up on love.

When Clarice exposes her breast in the same fashion as Chloris, says, "You don’t have to give up this one", and suspends the drop of wine from her nipple, she is shifting his perception of her breast from familial devoured sustenance to a sexual object. Basically, "Why do you want me to pretend I'm your sister when we could be banging?" Hannibal is being aged out of his childlike mindset, not regressing into one.

There are other layers of meaning in this act. The hedonism of using thousand dollar wine for food play is a sign of Clarice's character development. The way Hannibal kneels before Clarice is a position of subservience, but could also be interpreted as devouring Clarice in a way that's new to him. It's the most self-actualized thing Hannibal has done since escaping prison (LOL) and marks the end of his hero's journey (as one of the first things we see him do in Hannibal Rising is nurse).

Personally, I don't read this scene as breastfeeding kink. Yeah, Clarice talks about breastfeeding, but that was more a metaphor for other stuff. Considering the direction of Hannibal's character arc, I understand this scene as him briefly licking the wine off before they have sex. But to each their own! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ANYWAY, yeah, it's unsettling. It's obviously meant to be. But it's beautifully unsettling! Hate it all you want, but this is peak cannibal romance, to me!!

[kindasleepycryptid]

Well. I was able to sort through them and pick out only 10 to keep at home, and about 30 to give away.

Still own an excessive amount but i paid too much for them to throw them away when i know ill want to reread them at some point

Now i just have to wait for my storage boxes to arrive and ill be golden

This morning, if someone asked me how many books i own, i wouldve said fifty.

I was INCREDIBLY wrong. Im going to need more moving boxes lmao

[plusvanity]

Yesterday, I wanted to say that people who blocked me did the wiser thing, but today, I want to touch on a recent issue, a hugely (intentionally) misinterpreted and degrading problem.

The controversies that people started to spread about me literally make me sick to the stomach.

They don't give a fuck about my countless explanations of how this ship is my comfort ship, designed to help me heal from severe abuse, self hatred, body dysmorphia, depression and anxiety.

I try to switch from unhealthy coping mechanisms to something that is both productive, helpful and most of all, harmless (because it's imaginary).

They felt the need to turn something that I created as my own personal fictive escape into a gross sadomasochistic, abusive and extremely toxic 'excuse' for 'why is this ship and not that?'. My guts twist for seeing such cruel assumptions when I have one thing that makes me happy (a story, a healthy narrative) viciously turned into a gruesome scenario that is not what it is at all.

The fact that they accuse me of shipping fair-skinned, blonde people is also the biggest hypocrisy that they could come up with when they themselves forget that Øystein's natural hair is blond and his eyes are blue in their own double-standard ship.

The fact that accuse me of romanticizing self-harm while they themselves 'like' (I have proofs) and approve art of EuroDead self-destructive romanticism shows their duplicitous and impostor nature. This is not to be taken as an insult, but an obvious fact concluded by their behavior.

My ship has little to do with physical looks and everything else to do with the in-depth psychology. It's not me, PlusVanity who says that there's a gigantic overlap between highly-autistic traits and trauma response (in personality disorders), it's Freud, Jung, Lacan's teachings and many other's scholars, neurologists and psychiatrists came to this conclusion many many years before you and I were even born. If you, dearly-opinionated friend, think that you can prove to these honorable psychoanalytical figures (and me, of course) otherwise with credible and well-documented research and not your 'I don't like that just because' synthetic opinion, I will gladly listen to what you have to bring up. I am well-versed in the philosophical and psychological domain, and I can provide solid arguments to everything I claim.

It's more than just unfair to point the finger at me, accusing me of a ludicrous sadomasochistic and 'subliminal racial element' in my art just to satisfy your late frustration with an ' good-enough explanation' for something that you never even bothered to look into because otherwise you would know that you are wrong. I'm not spiteful, I'm just pointing your flaws in logic as straightforwardly and inconsiderable as you seem to point mine, but it's not like you will actually try to understand what I'm saying because this must imply 'admitting defeat' and a kick in the ego, so you don't even bother with my transparent explanations. That's alright.

This message is for the people who are open and mature enough to read the motive behind my art and writing. This monologue is not for the ones who blindly accuse me of horrible things or a hidden agenda that I don't have or try to promote.

If you think that you know better than me, you simply don't. Why might that be? Because I am the author, because you don't think with my brain and you have no access to what I stand for, other than my words and actions and neither my words or actions stood for any type of abuse or political extremism.

You also put words into my mouth by calling me a fan of Varg, when I'm most certainly not, but I mean you hate me, of course you will say such things. Everyone who's following me knows that I not only hate Varg, but mock him daily for his spiteful persona.

I do not engage in any drama, I am not here to fight anyone.

I will only have civilized conversations (if openness exists). I am here to be and share with my friends the one thing that makes me happy. To subjugate me for simply having a different view than yours is tyranny and black and white extremism.

Pairing real people is morally bad, but this includes all real people. Not just Varg and Pelle, but Øystein and Pelle too. Doesn't sound fair now, does it? I understand why.

Anyone is free to believe anything, but a conspiratorial opinion will never compare to the ultimate truth that only the author can provide.

Please block me if you wish for. This is a far more mature approach than lurking here or sending hate. I hope this is constructive.

To sum it up, I'm beyond hate and ingoing frustration. I will gladly wish my late-proclaimed haters a wonderful day even if they roll their eyes. 🖤

You cannot change options, you can only provide your insight.

Be kind, be open, be alright 🖤

I wish this post can be shared so a lot of people can read this 🙏

[seekers-who-are-lovers]

Some thoughts about things on Bang Bravern… (bit long, sorry)

Why do I clock the German major general Heidemarie as a lesbian?

So what if “ga-ga-pi” is some kind of a code, similar to Morse code or the binary code? Lulu has her “ga-ga-pi.” The other Deathdrive has its “ga-ga-ga. Pi-ga-ga-ga-pi. Pi-ga-ga-pi-ga.” The sequence is different in order to convey another meaning. The only solution is how to interpret it. Or perhaps, I am just overthinking.

So what are the Death Drives?

From the series’s glossary:

Death Drives : A mysterious mechanical life form that suddenly attacked the earth. Their goal is to achieve the best "death" that each of them wants. They came to this earth around all the galaxies in search of an existence that will fulfil their wishes.

Those drives sound like a part of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis’ theory, the theory of pleasure principle (Lustprinzip).

Did Masami Obari, the director, turn to the Austrian psychoanalyst to gather the blueprint for his latest work?

(I know that Freud doesn’t have many fans among the Tumblr folks. But he “is” my neighbour. After having seen “Freud’s Vanished Neighbors” and read an article that the Viennese didn’t accept him as part of the community because he was not born in Austria and had Jewish family, and was still referred to as “Zugeraster,” a derogatory term for an outsider, he earned my respect and like everyone who was born centuries ago had other mentality that was not at all fitting in the modern era.)

Deathdrives, or death drives, in Freudian psychoanalytical universe, mean Thanatos, Todestrieb in German, is a term that describes: the drive toward death and destruction, often expressed through behaviors such as aggression, repetition compulsion, and self-destructiveness.

From Freud’s book, “Beyond the Pleasure Principle” :

Our departure point was the great antithesis of life drives and death drives. Object-love itself shows us a second such polarity – that of love (affection) and hate (aggression). What if we succeeded in connecting these two polarities, what if we succeeded in tracing one back to the other! We have always acknowledged a sadistic component in the sexual drive; as we know, this component can develop a life of its own and turn into a perversion that dominates a person's entire sexual life. It also occurs as a dominant partial drive in one of those forms of organization of sexual life that I have termed ‘pre-genital’. But how could we possibly suppose that the sadistic drive, which aims to harm its object, derives from Eros, the preserver of life? Isn't it altogether plausible to suppose that this sadism is actually a death drive that has been ousted from the ego at the instance of the narcissistic libido, and as a result only becomes apparent in conjunction with the object?

So you have the enemies, the Death Drives, ready to destroy the humans, and Bravern on the other with the quality of being the Eros. The sentient robot’s ethos is to save the humanity first. All the while obsessing with his pilot, Ao Isami. Obsession and kindness overlapping.

@whypolar analysed their names, then doing some googling of the meanings of both Isami and Lewis’ names, it seems the two share the same description. Yours truly is not at all a Japanese language expert, this website suggests that Isami has 21 variations in kanji.

勇 means "bravery, courage."

Brave - Showing courage and strength in the face of danger or difficulty.

Daring - Willing to take risks and try new things.

Strong - Having great physical or mental power.

Courageous - Having or showing courage in the face of danger or difficulty.

Resolute - Firmly determined to do something.

Soldier - A person who serves in an army.

It describes Isami’s personality perfectly!

Lewis, on the other hand…

From the celebrated author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll, to lauded actor Daniel-Day Lewis, a boy called Lewis is in good company! Lewis is of German origin and means "Renowned warrior." It has many variations in Latin, French, and Gaelic languages that all point to the same sentiment of “strength” and “courage”. With the name Lewis, you can hope to instill your baby boy with a fearless optimism for life.

All three of them—Bravern, Isami and Lewis—are “strong and courageous.”

[youremyheaven]

https://www.tumblr.com/youremyheaven/754446269650452480/they-dooo-notice-everything-i-love-it-sometimes

Jupiter women can lowkey be like this too. Idk about the Freud stuff, but jupiter is the husband. When their dad fails to display positive jupiter traits and becomes arrogant, withdrawn and selfish, they become their own dad. So they embody or atleast attempt to embody positive jupiter traits of generosity and virtue. Now that I’ve typed that out, it doesn’t sound as relevant as it did in my head 😭

However I do think that what OP was describing is more of a Bharani thing than anything else. I’m sure other venus naks do it too but still.

Bharani has major connotations to childbirth and so many women make sacrifices when they have children, some are forced to leave education, some develop long term health problems, and some struggle to leave difficult relationships since children complicate that kind of thing. Before medicine advanced it was somewhat common to just die entirely bc of childbirth.

So therefore I think a lot of Bharani natives (esp moon bc we’re talking about mothers) are overly aware of the sacrifice their mothers made and it weighs on them. It becomes their “burden” as the translation of Bharani, “she who bares” takes on a literal and metaphorical interpretation. So basically Bharanis like to acknowledge the people who came before them and their sacrifices but they can have a bit of a chip on their shoulder bc of it. Inheriting their karma in a sense.

So when they experience that humiliation from their abusive parent they “eat the pain” as part of the burden they bare. Fighting back will always lead to more suffering for them despite their anger and resentment (aries). In mythology Yama was about to kick his mom but even though he holds himself back, she still cursed his foot.

Yama’s father ☀️ ☀️ also got mad at his mother for struggling to look directly at him and cursed Yama as a result, which is such a good example of the dynamics their parents have and how they suffer from it.

In conclusion, Bharanis are stoics become pushovers with daddy issues. Sorry for the unsolicited lecture, it may happen again

Nahh you're right. Jupiter women and their daddy issues are well documented (by me lmao 🤣🤡) they do become excessively giving because their dad's weren't giving at all 😤

Jupiter is a masculine planet for a reason after all. Reminds me of Rekha, Purvabhadrapada Moon. She and her siblings were the illegitimate children of a famous actor and he never acknowledged them publicly. Her mom had many other kids from other relationships etc and they were dirt poor. Rekha even went to school with her father's legitimate kids and other kids in school knew about the whole situation and called her a bastard 🥺🥹

She started acting at the age of 13 to support her ailing mother and 6 or 7 siblings. She hated being an actor and was severely exploited in the industry, esp since she had no mentors or father figures :(((( in turn she made sure none of her siblings ever had to work in the movies to make a living and supported everyone financially until they settled down 🥺 she in turn never got married or had kids :((( (she was manipulated into marrying a guy once and he committed suicide and she was hella traumatized by that as well, but that's a separate story 💀)

Here's a pic of Rekha with some of her siblings (2 or 3 are missing in the picture)

She does embody that Jupiter woman being the man trope.

(This is Rekha & her mom Pushpavalli)

Despite everything, she's never spoken ill about her father or even her mother, who clearly made her the scapegoat and placed undue pressure on her to provide even though she was a literal child. She even named her house after her mother 🥺

Anywaayyyyyssss

I agree that Bharanis are in a unique position because of their mythology and in general I think Bharanis are more dignified and humane than other Venus naks

They're outcaste naks who know what it's like to be the outsider and work their way up

But yes they're pushovers with daddy issues 😭😭😭😭

I lowkey like how empathetic they are to women bc of what they saw growing up 😔😔 like they're genuinely just like "no this is not how it should be, women need to be worshipped period, my woman will never suffer this way" and 🤧🤧😩😩😩i fall for that shit lmao

I had a recent experience with a Jupiter conjunct Purvashada Rising man who thought that broke men did not deserve to have women 💀💀💀 he said men who cannot provide have no business dating or marrying 💀💀and that "real men" should never ask for a 50-50 and put the burden on his partner and if he truly loves her, he should want her to be relaxed and enjoy life. He said things like "what's the point of me working so hard if my family isn't enjoying themselves and having a good time, my wife can do whatever she wants and I'll support her but she will never have to work to pay the bills" and ngl I love this mentality lmfao 😂🤣🤪🤭

Venus men being scarred by incompetent dads and overcompensating by being the provider and father they never had is >>>>> 🥵🥵🥵🥵so sexy of them tbh

[sophieinwonderland]

Words You Can't Use (According to Language Police)

System: System is a medical term that only applies to DID systems and can only be used by them. Ignore Internal Family Systems therapy, or top DID specialists referring to some voices in psychotic disorders as parts of a system. Only dissociative disorders!

Multiple: This came from the multiplicity community, and the only way to be multiple is to have a dissociative disorder. (No! Don't look at the boundary with normality in the ICD-11)

Plural: This means the same thing as multiple. Still can't use it.

Alter: A medical term that only applies to DID systems.

Headmate: Means the same thing as alter, and you can't have a headmate unless you have DID. But also, DID systems can't use this because it's not a medical term. (I've seriously seen someone attacking the Plural Association for using the word headmate instead of alter. Oh, wait. That was the same system claiming endogenic is offensive. That tracks!)

Introject: This is a medical term with a specific meaning that can only apply to DID systems. It's not like introjection is a common psychological process, and any headmate created through introjection would logically be considered an introject.

Fictive and factive: Non-traumagenic systems can't use this because it means the same thing as introject and non-traumagenic systems can't have introjects. But also, traumagenic systems can't use it because it was coined by endogenic systems.

Tulpa: You can't use this because its etymology is derived from another language, and anything with a foreign origin is apparently appropriation.

Thoughtform: This is also related to the tulpa, and you can't use it either. Try something more invalidating like "imaginary friend."

Imagian plural: Psych! Actually, we decided that if you identify your headmate as imaginary friend but call yourself plural, you're comparing alters to imaginary friends which is super ableist.

Spiritual plural: We also decided that literally every culture that ever experienced nonpathological possession states is closed, and identifying any of your headmates as being spiritual is racist. We don't know who it's racist against, but it's against someone. Trust us.

Sysmed: This uses the same suffix as transmeds, and It's actually transphobic for transgender systems to compare how a hate group has harmed them through an ideology that pathologizes all transness to how another has harmed them through an ideology that pathologizes all multiplicity. It's the same way it would be homophobic for other groups to use the "phobic" suffix. Oh... wait...

Natural: By calling something natural, you're inherently calling everyone else's experiences unnatural, which sounds bad. Why do you think disabled people are unnatural? Don't think about the fact that nature in psychology generally refers to genetics and the more common opposite in this context would be more akin to "environmental."

Endogenic: Well.... umm... you see... it sounds kind of like iatrogenic... or maybe endogenous... and endogenous is a common word used to refer to something internal... and there was some debate about whether DID was endogenous or exogenous... so that's why other groups can't use the word, and using the word makes you ableist? And... umm... Freud?

It's funny how anti-endos keep insisting that literally every word is harmful, and demand we take their assertions super seriously when they claim that all they want is for us to change the language we use.

If you still think this language discourse is legitimate and in good faith, you haven't been paying attention.

If anti-endos feel we're not taking their criticisms seriously... it's because we're not.

It's because when every term is treated as contentious, it becomes obvious that you don't care about language as much you care about using attacks on language to silence speech.

I have said for a while that the attacks on terms like "tulpa" and others aren't in good faith. That we would be attacked no matter what terms we use because anti-endos hate us for what we are, and only target our language as an excuse to spread hate against us.

I have said for a while that nothing would satisfy them.

I sincerely hope that most people watching these latest attacks play out can see the truth in this now.

The endogenic and plural community is done apologizing for our existence, and we're done apologizing for the language we use.