#sysconversation history

[system-of-a-feather]

Documentation of Early Sysconversation Tag Coining

Because I feel like down the line there may be questions on the definition and purpose of the sysconversation tag, I did want to document some of the early coiners / founders of the tag since I myself was relying on memory to know who were some of the prominent people in founding it. I know when it comes to online discourse, a lot of people like to play "well I understood it as this" and "the original purpose was this not that".

For that purpose, I took a bit to scroll to the very bottom of the sysconversation tag and document a little history of it while "scrolling to the bottom of the tag" was still a SOMEWHAT reasonable adventure to go on.

-------

Note Before the Post

The purpose of this post is not to say "these people are better than others" or "these people are inherently The Bosses of the tag". I personally dislike when one person claims ownership over a community; if anything, this is my attempt at making it easier in the future (as the tag hopefully grows and gains more history) to record the history behind it while it is still relatively easy so that should conflicts come up, there are a number of individuals who are hopefully still around that may have credibility in discussing their role in the founding of the tag.

If anything, I am making this post because I do my best in the tag to try to keep the Vibes Right with the original intent as I love the tag, but deeply dislike that every time I do so, it sounds like I am claiming the tag as my creation; this among anything else is me wanting to share other people who played a large role in founding it as to make it clear that I am only one of MANY founders. The Sysconversation tag is inherently not "made" by any one person and is a tag made by a Community of people; please do not use this document with the intent to claim ownership of the tag and use this as something of a timeline.

--------

October 23, 2023

@artisticdysfunction made a poll suggesting the tag "sysconversation" to "actually discuss stuff" ; in that thread @hiiragi7 @greens-spilled-tea us (@system-of-a-feather) @sysciety engaged in some discussion about the concept, idea, and plan to develop the original tag

Posts in this Brief creation Period were made by those five individuals in addition to @traumascumathena @indigochromatic @actuallyverynormalbtw

The tag did not particularly last long in it's original creation as it did not have many posts beyond a few interesting threads and a few one-post posts. Most activity had died in the tag by November 2023 and was dead for months after a post by @hiiragi7 on December 23, 2023

June 20, 2024

@sysciety suggests to bring back the tag for "actual discussions" because "syscourse seems beyond saving sometimes"; much of the original founders engage with the post with agreement along with @korya-elana @scapeg8ats @clover-system and @snowglobe-system

Following the revive, there were a number of individuals who had posted - more than the original creation period - so I can not list everyone; with that said, there was a semi-organized direct effort to populate the tag in hopes of making it survive; some of which were people I directly talked to about the revival of the tag as I was optimistic and hoping for the space

The original people involved in the development of the tag in October were back to support the revival as well as much of the original posters in the tag.

A few repeat faces appeared in the July era that have stuck around consistently including @wondercourse @paracosmic-gt @quoigenicfromhell @cosmoscollect @the-sour-patch-crew @rayssyscourse @thecircularsystem

-----------

Disclaimer

I radically and heavily block people; it is not a personal thing, I simply take the curation of my internet space very intentionally and anything I'd rather not see (which can range from bigotry to poor / disrespectful rhetoric to just too many userboxes or personal squicks / triggers) so there is a chance when I was doing this documentation that someone may have been missed. If anyone commented above would like to comment any corrections / key individuals (preferably with post citation) that I missed that should be placed on this as a reference down the line, please do so as I am hoping to not bias this (and I only realized I can't see blocked posts in the tags until AFTER I finished collecting this, RIP me) but I am not perfect

[sysmedsaresexist]

Since my reply is hidden, I've decided to just make my own post about this and put some accurate info out there.

Covert DID vs Overt DID & Possession vs Non-possession: They don't mean what you think they mean!

Here's a bunch of facts and info in no particular order!

I saw a post about how masking isn't a type of covert DID, and I'm here to tell you that

Masking was the original covert!

Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders (by Dorahy, Gold & O'Neil, 2nd edition, 2023)

You know the statistic in the DSM about covert/overt systems? It's taken from Kluft, above. And it includes masking.

Covert and overt aren't actually used all that often clinically, but it actually has several meanings, INCLUDING MASKING. Neither has to do with possession or non-possession, but they're unfortunately often incorrectly equated as "possession form = overt" and "non-possession = covert". They can overlap, but this is incorrect!

Possession's biggest use is for a disorder that no longer exists as a separate entry in the DSM 5.

Possession-Trance disorder still exists in the ICD, though, and we'll start there.

Trance disorder

"The trance state is not characterised by the experience of being replaced by an alternate identity."

"Trance Disorder is characterized by recurrent or single and prolonged involuntary marked alteration in an individual’s state of consciousness involving a trance state (without possession)."

"The trance state is not characterized by the experience of being replaced by an alternate identity."

"The identities of the possessing agents typically correspond to figures from the religious traditions in the society."

"In Possession Trance Disorder, the individual’s normal sense of personal identity is experienced as being replaced by an external ‘possessing’ spirit, power, deity or other spiritual entity, which is not the case in Trance Disorder. Possession trance states often include more complex activities (e.g., coherent conversations, characteristic gestures, facial expressions, specific verbalizations) than are typical of trance states, which tend to involve less complex activities (e.g., staring, falling)."

We can already see how this is starting to play out with overt/covert and non-possession/possession form.

Possession trance disorder

"Possession trance disorder is characterised by trance states in which there is a marked alteration in the individual’s state of consciousness and the individual’s customary sense of personal identity is replaced by an external ‘possessing’ identity and in which the individual’s behaviours or movements are experienced as being controlled by the possessing agent."

"Trance episodes are attributed to the influence of an external ‘possessing’ spirit, power, deity or other spiritual entity."

"During possession trance states, the activities performed are often relatively complex (e.g., coherent conversations, characteristic gestures, facial expressions, specific verbalizations that are frequently culturally accepted as belonging to a particular possessing agent)."

"Presumed possessing agents in Possession Trance Disorder are usually spiritual in nature (e.g., spirits of the dead, gods, demons, or other spiritual entities) and are often experienced as making demands or expressing animosity."

"The identities of the possessing agents typically correspond to figures from the religious traditions in the society."

"This is distinguished from Dissociative Identity Disorder and Partial Dissociative Identity Disorder, which are characterized by the experience of two or more distinct, alternate personality states that are not attributed to an external possessing agent. Individuals describing both internally and externally attributed alternate identities should receive a diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder or Partial Dissociative Identity Disorder. In this situation, an additional diagnosis of Possession Trance Disorder should not be assigned."

From Dissociative Identity Disorder, I only want to note one thing:

"Individuals who describe both internal distinct personality states that assume executive control as well as episodes of being controlled by an external possessing identity should receive a diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder rather than Possession Trance Disorder."

So, already, we've learned that possession and non-possession have to do with whether the entities are experienced as internal or external agents.

You'll note that the ICD doesn't mention covert or overt at all.

So back to the DSM-- “possession” was diagnosed as Atypical Dissociative Disorder in the DSM-III or DDNOS in DSM-III-R. In DSM-IV, possession and trance were diagnosed as sub-categories of the Dissociative Trance Disorder (DTD), and in DSM-IV-TR they were merged into one, and recognized as a cultural variant of the Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified [DDNOS]. In DSM-5, possession-form presentations are linked with criterion A of DID: “Disruption of identity characterized by two or more distinct personality states, which may be described in some cultures as an experience of possession” (p. 292).

Another common myth has to do with amnesia and covert/overt. The facts are:

Covert DID is associated with the highest levels of blackout amnesia. That's how it stays covert. People have amnesia for their own amnesia. It's an incredible phenomenon that's highly documented.

Overt DID typically has the same or less amnesia. It's much harder to explain away noticeable behaviour so people are much more aware of their own gaps in memory and can begin treatment sooner. They're much more easily diagnosed. As internal dialogue and intrusion are far more different in these entities, people become aware sooner and experience more grey out amnesia thanks to this basic awareness.

Covert DID is no longer diagnosed as OSDD 1a. The DSM 5 introduced new reporting criteria that allow the patient and their family to self report switches. OSDD and DDNOS 1a were primarily used for situations where the clinician didn't witness a switch during interviewing. As such, OSDD these days mainly covers P-DID presentations where switching is genuinely rare, if it happens at all. While P-DID is less associated with amnesia, OSDD 1a will require it. P-DID without amnesia will fall into 1b or DID itself, thanks to the DSM's updated amnesia wording.

For this next bit, I'll be using the DSM 5, as that's what I have in front of me, for the purposes of this conversation, this version will do fine.

"Dissociative identity disorder is characterized by a) the presence of two or more distinct personality states or an experience of possession."

"The fragmentation of identity may vary with culture (e.g., possession-form presentations) and circumstance. Thus, individuals may experience discontinuities in identity and memory that may not be immediately evident to others or are obscured by attempts to hide dysfunction."

You know, overt/covert, and wow, it doesn't just have to do with the entities, BUT HOW YOU DESCRIBE YOUR DISORDER?!

You mean... like masking?

Holy shit, yeah, the DSM just said that.

These terms are not as interchangeable as some people think they are. They have very unique meanings and are very different concepts, not only from each other, but from how they're often used within the community.

To reiterate:

Possession form = external entities

Non-possession = internal entities

Overt = noticeable behaviour and mannerisms

Covert = hidden or sneaky behaviour or mannerisms

These can and do overlap, but exist as separate concepts.

More from the DSM:

"The defining feature of dissociative identity disorder is the presence of two or more distinct personality states or an experience of possession (Criterion A). The overtness or covertness of these personality states, however, varies as a function of psychological motivation, current level of stress, culture, internal conflicts and dynamics, and emotional resilience."

Oh, wow, it changes over time and can vary between alters themselves?! Wow.

"Sustained periods of identity disruption may occur when psychosocial pressures are severe and/or prolonged. In many possession-form cases of dissociative identity disorder, and in a small proportion of non-possession-form cases, manifestations of alternate identities are highly overt. Most individuals with non-possession-form dissociative identity disorder do not overtly display their discontinuity of identity for long periods of time; only a small minority present to clinical attention with observable alternation of identities."

"Possession-form identities in dissociative identity disorder typically manifest as behaviors that appear as if a “spirit,” supernatural being, or outside person has taken control, such that the individual begins speaking or acting in a distinctly different manner. For example, an individual’s behavior may give the appearance that her identity has been replaced by the “ghost” of a girl who committed suicide in the same community years before, speaking and acting as though she were still alive. Or an individual may be “taken over” by a demon or deity, resulting in profound impairment, and demanding that the individual or a relative be punished for a past act, followed by more subtle periods of identity alteration."

So, yes, according to the DSM, purposefully masking is a covert presentation, and it has nothing to do with possession or non-possession form. The way a system "naturally" presents will change many times over the course of their disorder.

IN FACT, if we want to get technical, covert actually refers specifically to heavy fragmentation in most clinical texts. Fragments are typically experienced internally and as intrusion, rather than switches. Here's a source.

Covert DID is a less dramatic and more subtle form of the disorder. In this variant, individuals with DID do not display overt switches or distinct personalities. Instead, they experience a fragmentation of their identity, leading to a lack of continuity in their sense of self and memory. These individuals may not even be aware of their condition and might attribute their memory lapses and identity shifts to stress, forgetfulness, or other factors.

Covert DID can be challenging to diagnose because the symptoms are less obvious. It often goes unrecognized for years, and individuals may suffer in silence without understanding the source of their difficulties. Therapy and expert evaluation are essential for identifying and addressing covert DID.

And another.

In addition, diagnostic challenges can result from identity alteration or personality switching not as obvious as expected. In fact, many patients have “covert DID” or “OSDD,” which is characterized by partial dissociation (e.g., dissociative intrusions) rather than full dissociation (i.e., switching plus amnesia).

In the end, though, these terms aren't used all that often, and various uses will still be understood in a clinical setting. Doctors can't even agree on definitions, so use them however you want.

It's not that big of a deal.

I hope this post was useful, even if it was a bit disjointed.

[catherine-clover]

We don't think about the medium-term much, haha

That's so hard to predict, something major happens every month. That's sixty months, four times as long as we've known we're plural. Five years ago Sarah was still in what I would now call early development, and still very much connected to our innerworld's lore. Jeneva technically existed but had pretty much been forgotten already. I wish so so much that I had written down more from that time than just occasionally mentioning how ashamed I was of it all.

Anyway, as for the future… likely something or another will have caused us to delete everything online and come back more carefully under collective pseudonyms. That is of course assuming that pseudonymous social media on the internet is still at all useful to humans by then.

And hopefully dating another body, lol

Question of the day!

Where do you see your system in 5 years?

[artisticdysfunction]

Honestly I knew here and trying to learn all these words. 🫣 What even is “ Sycourse” ?

syscourse is a broad topic.

syscourse is, shortly described, as discourse related to various topics surrounding and about systemhood. various topics that people debate about. sysconversation is a tag for conversation instead of debate, for contrast.

you will find that not every syscourser is good at debating.

there are a various topics that are popular, but you will be hard pressed to find a topic that has not been debated.

one persistent hot topic is origin discourse, which is where the syscourse stances "pro endo" and "anti endo" cone from. although those labels are very simple and not nuanced for all the stances a syscourser could hold, and those labels mean a lot more than their relation to origin discourse.

some questions in syscourse are like...

what defines systemhood? can someone be a system without having a complex dissociative disorder, such as DID or OSDD? what are the differences between systems? where should the lines be drawn in terms of spaces? are certain identities harmful to yourself or others? how should people conduct their system? what does system responsibility fully entail?

these are not all the questions. but these are many questions we have seen a lot.

we highly recommend @pluraldeepdive to learn about the history of the communities, as that does provide context for syscourse.

[system-of-a-feather]

Relating to this post, I wanted to ask some of the earlier founders of the tag (that I see are still active) their opinion on what the sysconversation tag is used for and how to tell if something is syscourse vs sysconversation?

Asking this because I know people have stated some ambiguity / confusion on what exactly this tag is and what differentiates it from syscourse so I wanted to open this up to the people who I know have been here a while and played a role in the development of the community.

No responses here are to be taken as the "end all be all" but more so a collection of opinions / perspectives / views of the tag and it's definition to help give some clarity to people who may be looking into the tag for the first time.

Tagging @hiiragi7 @artisticdysfunction @sysciety @indigochromatic @korya-elana @clover-system @wondercourse in particular as I saw them in the development of the tag and see them still semi-regularly engaging. Anyone in the original post is also welcome to add their opinion too and anyone who I tagged here is more than welcome to ignore this prompt / question

[system-of-a-feather]

I honestly really like testing out #sysconversation and trying to contribute to the baseline norms of the tag, but on the topic of tulpacourse and talking about it in a much less "we need to push to get a bare minimum fundamental respect and acknowledgement to the damage done" area and really just trying to get more into the nuance and intricacies of it - I really don't think pushing for the "no one is allowed to say or use the word tulpa" is anything helpful or really productive to the complexity of the issue.

(And for those that don't know, I'm a practicing eclectic Buddhist - Zen and Tibetan being particular focuses, diagnosed DID system in late stage recovery, and am Chinese/Indonesian and honestly the topic of tulpacourse is something I find to be a really interesting discussion; additionally we played a pretty notable role in the "tulpa terminology is cultural appropriation)

I very very much do appreciate all the non-Buddhist non-AAPI individuals who have been pushing for our voices to be heard and spreading information on the appropriation surrounding the term because honestly, especially in the syscourse community, there was a lot of dismissiveness of our voices and honestly just outright racism and stereotyping. If I had to choose between what the environment around the topic was before and people over correcting and stating "you can't use the term tulpa or you are racist" or similar things; I MUCH prefer and love the latter and its largely why I've been relatively limited in talking about it cause honestly, in large, I don't expect people - at least those in the syscourse community - to have the attention, care, or really discussion skills to explore any further nuance between the black and white dichotomy of "racist vs anti-racist" behavior and I'd find myself incredibly annoyed if me bringing nuance to the table ended up being used by people who literally don't care about AAPI or Buddhist cultures to justify their behavior.

That said, I have some more faith in the #sysconversation tag and community so maybe I'll talk about it more under the assumption yall aren't here to prove one thing or the other and more so to talk and share perspectives on complex experiences.

I think when we talk about tulpacourse, there are a few realms and perspectives to take on it that have an important value and consideration when going into making a more developed and clear stance on tulpacourse related things.

The practice / concept of Tulpamancy / Willogenic and, more specifically AND generally, the Intentional Creation of Parts and the debate on if that is "valid" or "okay" or "racist" or whatever

The term "tulpa" and the origins as it relates to white / western orientalism, stereotypes, asian mysticism, and overall colonialist / appropriation nature of how white / western people interact with AAPI cultures

The perception and present impact of the term "tulpa" as it has on and is perceived by AAPI cultures and individuals

The term "tulpa" and the origins as it relates to Buddhism - particularly Tibetian Buddhism - in terms of the history (and oppression) of Buddhist cultures across countries and cultures

The term "tulpa" and the origins as it related to Buddhism - particularly Tibetian Buddhism - in terms of the philosophy and practices that Buddhists / Tibetian Buddhists

The perception and present impact of the term "tulpa" as it has on and is perceived by Buddhist / Tibetian Buddhist cultures

The present attitudes, practices, and values that are found within the tulpamancy community and how those have changed and developed over time in relation to it's origins and history - for better or worse

The present and practical actions and values held by the current online tulpa community in relation to system environments, CDD environments, Buddhist / Tibetian Buddhist environments and culture, and AAPI individuals and culture.

The current status of the tulpamancy community and what practical and realistic approaches can be done to improve the community in a way that respects an existing subculture that does benefit a non-negligible amount of individuals while ALSO respecting potentially harmed or hurt historically marginalized communities

I find that a lot of individuals focus on one, maybe two of these perspectives and sub-discussions to the debate and call it the "most important" one that should determine how people "should" act and speak and exist, but imo that takes a largely results in a perspective, approach, and future plan that does not address a lot of the issues that go into it.

Our system unironically spends a lot of time internally debating each other (for fun, we trade roles and perspectives a lot since we are in a position to talk and have developed opinions of the first seven) about this topic and if you individually only hold one of the topics in mind, you can end up with really conflicting directions to go.

It's complicated but at least of the first six, the general understanding and perspective / insight we've come to are

Literally this shouldn't really be a topic of consideration in #sysconversation because questioning validity is such a pointless and stupid argument that I would is not really a humored one; yes the practice / action / development and presentation of parts through intentional means is fine and OK; many cultures don't align with the Standard Singular Self narrative, people know themselves and are free to express themselves as is most helpful and natural to them, I'd like to assume people are being genuine and honest rather than stating they are "faking" or "quirkifying" things and honestly that type of verbage tends to be more common in conservative environments than I like to be affiliated with

From an AAPI lens, the term "tulpa" is just another aggression in a LONG and honestly violent history of racism, appropriation, objectification and fetishism of AAPI culture and it is absolutely something that should not be brushed off as ok; it can be incredibly retraumatizing in terms of cultural / generational trauma for such things to be completely ignored and neglected; its a responsibility as someone who is AAPI and as allies of it to stand against it

Presently, a lot of AAPI individuals have stated harm from it and presently, anti-AAPI and AAPI-hate have been openly seen in tulpamancy communities; that said, the consensus is not a monolith and there is inevitably a diversity of opinions

The term comes from appropriative cultures and ADN is "a racist white bitch" as I've seen it stated in tumblr tulpacourse. There is a large disagreement within the tulpamancy community whether it "is related to / comes from Buddhist ideas" or "has nothing to do with Buddhism whatsoever" and I say that just as an outsider who have had people push both at me, leaving me very confused. Overall, from what I've seen, a lot of indiviudals who use the tulpa term can range from anywhere between "respectable individuals who are open to discussion and acknowledge the history to where the history is less harmful" to The MLP Brony Saga TM of generally turning the concept into so far divorced and bastardized from the original concept.

This one I could honestly write a 400 page essay on and I can't really say I have a firm consensus on because I actually have not learned enough about the actual practices within the tulpamancy community to be certain on my perspectives; but as I get further into my practices and studies of Buddhism - especially Tibetian Buddhism - I've had a lot more complex perspectives and opinions. On a very generally Buddhist lens, I actually love to see people exploring themselves within their parts and dismantling some of the concept of the solidity and absoluteness of the concept of "self" and really learning to interact and engage with parts of themselves in manners like this through meditation. I think there is a lot of a realm for it to become unhealthy, harmful, and increase the clinging to "self" but overall, I think it has the potential to also be incredibly helpful and beautiful. From what I've understood of the principles of Tibetian Buddhism that I believe the ADN pulled from, I don't necessarily think it is inherently all that bad on a theoretical level. Additionally, from a general Buddhist lens, the whole idea of saying what people can and can't do, or sweating and trying to direct people's behaviors according to a "good" or "bad" behavior is incredibly non-important and honestly a means of adding suffering to both yourself and other's. So from a Buddhist lens, the response is "its interesting" - nothing more, nothing less.

Once again Buddhist / Tibetian Buddhists are not a monolith and honestly I don't know enough to have a clean take on it. I do believe there is a lot of individuals that come from heavily persecuted histories (particularly Tibetian Buddhists) that are likely a lot more charged on it per the nature of cultural / generational trauma. That being said, I have only really heard of one person with that history and that is from someone online talking to said person and reporting that they found it hurtful and sad that a practice they were persecuted against was turned into something it was not. It isn't the most credible voice if ONLY because its a game of telephone, but its a reasonable, realistic, and understandable sentiment to have and I think its worth acknowledging when discussing these sorts of things.

I'm honestly getting a bit tired of typing on this so I'll likely call it quits for Part 1 on me rambling about this, but I've honestly come to find that as a whole, our system really finds that there is a lot more to this topic than "one side good one side bad" especially if we are intending to address the topic in a way that can promote education, awareness, and an overall better community for all individuals.

Our AAPI lens and our Buddhist lens have historically clashed a lot, as it has with just a number of our other backgrounds and our values in allying with individuals with trauma histories (cultural or not) AND our value for the complex diversity of human experiences, self expression and phenomenon.

I don't really have a closing statement or anything for this, but I wanted to share it some as food for thought; anyone is welcome to engage in good faith conversation and discussion.

[antisyscourse]

just to clear the air, we do not allow any form of syscourse on our blog, as a previous asker tried to accuse us of. if you truly believe we do, I'd like to see factual receipts of this, because i'm unaware of it! if we have allowed any syscourse to enter this space, I'd like to say that we are incredibly sorry. we are not trying to harm anybody, we are autistic, so sometimes we do not pick up on subtle jabs towards others in the way that some might. but I know for a fact I have not outright allowed anybody to state any syscourse here. furthermore, sysconversations is a long deleted blog because it quickly got too overwhelming to run. i cannot personally help that most of the questions featured there came in from endogenic systems, that is out of my control. antis were more than free to interact, i quite literally encouraged it, but to no avail. that blog is lost to history and not necessarily relevant. anywho, if you are going to name drop me, please provide receipts. thank you!

[ID: STOP! this is a syscourse free blog! it is a safe space for all systems, so please go away if you intend upon stirring up drama!] (though i suppose in this case it's inevitable.)

Not the same anon, but about the ‘antisyscourse’ blog: they have another blog for syscourse ‘conversations’ and it’s an endo cesspit too

why am I not surprised?

[system-of-a-feather]

Basic Conversational Respects / Boundaries

I figured since we are a lot more selective with what kind of content we engage with on tumblr dot com and what sorts of conversation we are willing to participate, these are some foundational basic assumptions and general principles I intend to address people with on here that I would like to be reflected back. This is Part 1 or 2 of the general "Boundaries" that will be added to my pinned post.

These are also some values I hope #sysconversation picks up. I am not the "creator" of the tag as it was a group effort of few individuals, not all of which I remember, but I do like to take some interest in cultivating the culture of the tag, so I'll share this there too.

Unless there is clear evidence otherwise and/or repeated lack of consideration, assume that the person you are talking to is meaning well and does not mean malice or harm; some people have trouble regulating their emotions and/or communicating in an effective and productive manner and a lot of people are not informed on certain topics; its best to assume that people have good intent but are struggling to phrase what they mean in a way that is "best" because of a number of potential things that can make it difficult; this is especially important in conversations with populations of neurodiverse and traumatized individuals as language, emotional regulation, and communication can be particular difficulties

If someone is reporting something from their existence, assume they are being truthful to the best that they can with the language and words that they know. If someone is using a term that is "not appropriate" or "the right usage" without clear derogatory intent, assume that they either 1) don't know the context or information of it or 2) have reasonable and understandable justification as to why they have found / felt that the word fits and meet them at that place to develop understanding

A person knows themselves best, first and foremost, ESPECIALLY compared to online strangers

Attempt to minimize the amount you assume about a person - especially regarding culture, mental health experiences, life experiences and trauma history. Labels that they use do not mean they fit into the stereotypes of other people in that group and every topic is a complex and multilayered topic that intersects with a lot of cultural dynamics.

Arguing, personal attacks, and debating who is "right and wrong" or "good and bad" is unproductive and helps little to no one. If the discussion becomes a point of arguing who is better than the other or assigning value to positions and discussion, its best to disengage rather than to waste the energy.