sysmedsaresexist - Tumblr blog

sysmedsaresexist · 7 days

Note

imagine if syscourse was in the bible. and god said let there be syscourse

Genesis 1 - The Tumblr Creed

1 In the beginning...

God created the endogenic and traumagenic systems.

2 Now psychiatry was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the expanse.

3 And God said, "Let there be syscourse," and there was syscourse.

4 God saw that the syscourse was good, and he separated the pros from the antis.

5 God called the pros "ableists," and the antis he called "assholes." And there was arguing, and there was happiness--the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be sysmedicalism between them to separate system from system."

7 So God made the internet and separated the reddit under the expanse from the Twitter above it. And it was so.

8 God called the reddit "fdc." And there was arguing, and there was happiness--the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the systems under the umbrella be gathered to one place, and let harassment appear." And it was so.

10 God called this "tumblr," and the gathered systems he called "syscoursers." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let tumblr produce memes: laughter-bearing jokes and images on the internet that bear small chuckles with happiness in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.

12 So tumblr produced memes: jokes bearing images according to their kinds and images bearing jokes with happiness in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was arguing, and there was happiness--the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be research on the expanse of the internet to separate the pros from the antis, and let them serve as signs to mark the passage of seasons and days and years,

15 and let them be hidden in the expanse of the internet to give reason for the fighting." And it was so.

16 God made two great fallacies--the first to govern the pros and the second to govern the antis. He also made other fallacies, I guess.

17 God set these fallacies in the expanse of the internet to give hope to the systems,

18 to govern the happiness and the anger, and to separate pros from antis. And God saw that it was good.

19 And there was arguing, and there was happiness--the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the internet teem with misinformation, and let falsities fly above reddit across the expanse of twitter."

21 So God created the great systems of the internet and every traumagenic with which the internet teems, according to their kinds, and every endogenic according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

22 God blessed them and said, "Be loud and obnoxious and increase in number and fill tumblr with anger, and let the harassment increase on the internet."

23 And there was arguing, and there was happiness--the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the tulpas produce living creatures according to their kinds: ponies, creatures that move along the ground, and hot anime characters, each according to its kind." And it was so.

25 God made the tulpas according to their kinds, the ponies according to their shows, and all the hot anime characters that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make tulpas in our image, in our likeness, and let them participate in research of all kinds, over all the internet, and over all the technology."

27 So God created tulpas in (wo)man's own image, in the image of ponies he created them; pro and anti he created them.

28 God blessed them and said, "Be loud and obnoxious and increase in number and fill tumblr with anger, and let the harassment increase on the internet."

29 Then God said, "I give you every joke-bearing meme on the face of the whole internet and every paper that has sound and unsound conclusions in it. They will be yours for arguing.

30 And to all the syscoursers of the earth, the pros and the antis--every system that has the breath of life in it--I give an inbox that receives anonymous messages." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was arguing, and there was happiness--the sixth day.

#syscourse #yes 1-31 are below the cut #i worked hard on this #heretical meme #Tumblr syscourse creed #shit post #tw religion #anti endogenic #pro endogenic #safe for all systems

9 notes · View notes

sysmedsaresexist · 10 days

Text

I've tried a dozen different ways to word this response, I've given up, come back, given up, but I can't stop thinking about this post, so I'm just going to talk and I hope you'll give this consideration. It's by no means an attack on you or endogenics.

I want this to be a history lesson, and a chance to discuss the appropriateness of different arguments (???)

I think... this post is really bad. I don't think it's conveying the point you wanted to make in a way that's beneficial to anyone in syscourse.

I think it would have been a lot better to combat fusion directly, rather than make this anti vs pro. There's no indication this person is anti. It's just a person with DID, saying things that are true to them, and that are understandable based on age. Now that's not to say you shouldn't correct them, I'm glad you did, hopefully they can see the other side.

But here's the thing. Anti psych and anti fusion rhetoric are endogenic points.

So essentially what you've done here is say, "antis, look! It's not just endos, it's DID systems talking about endo ideas!"

In which case, antis are still saying fuck endos.

Saying DID isn't a disorder isn't an anti point. Saying fusion is murder isn't an anti point. Why did you make this pro vs anti?

This. Doesn't. Help. You're just confusing people more about what each side believes. And without any real way to discern how this person is anti... it just looks like you're saying that because they have DID, which is becoming a more and more common idea in endo spaces.

History is repeating itself.

Only, I don't think this had anything to do with endos, and it was a mistake to bring them into this.

Specifically in the context of this post, DID and endo history have been lost in the conversation. The endo community as we know it now developed out of the natural/empowered multiple movement (many still use those terms), which started the anti psych crap, and it largely had to do with fusion. They rejected the MPD diagnosis and therapeutic intervention, and out of this, grew the idea that systems are more than just trauma responses, and finally into no trauma required. Endogenic systems.

You say you see most anti fusion talk in CDD spaces, but as a blog that screenshots shit for a living, the most vile anti fusion talk comes from pro endos. The biggest pro endo syscourser on Twitter created an entire tag to exclude systems that fused in any way, calling any fusion murder and suicide. Anti fusion, while normal to come across in CDD spaces, is more prominent in endo spaces, and there is not a single person who will disagree with that, except for you, apparently. Final fusion has always been looked down on in endo spaces because it's rejecting that plurality is a normal, healthy state of being that doesn't need to be "fixed". It's not a disorder if it doesn't need fixing.

And it's easy to see why, fusion can be scary. It's not talked about enough in a positive way, and many fused systems are ignored and ridiculed when they try to talk.

Point is, considering this person's age, they would have been right in the middle of this original divergence of communities into natural multiples and MPD multiples, at a time when fusion was still being forced on patients. When it was the only goal in therapy.

In this way, as an older DID system myself, I don't blame them for being anti fusion.

In fact, I would even say, it's people like this that paved the way for endogenic systems in the first place.

Which is why, again, I think it would have been better to approach this from a, "myths about fusion, debunked!" post, because it would have reached both sides in a less combative, syscourse/origin-centric way. Pro endos are going to ignore the post because it's aimed at antis, and antis are going to roll their eyes because those are pro points. You've alienated any possible audience that might learn something.

Something like anti fusion is a both sides issue, very much so. But you've presented it as an anti endo issue without any actual merit behind that point, because it's not anti rhetoric.

This isn't origin discourse. You made it origin discourse. And I don't understand why. And it's not doing that very well. You've made the target audience the one that already agrees with you?? How does that help?

I don't even know that I would call most anti fusion rhetoric "misinformation" as much as I would call it fearmongering, by people who have been fearmongered themselves. It's a personal belief that only becomes a problem when they start pushing it on others.

I don't know... I hope this was coherent.

For anti-endos who think it's just mislead endos creating misinformation within the community, let me copy/paste a few juicy tidbits from a 50+yo DID System who's been rejecting treatment for over three decades that I just furiously argued with:

"I think fusion is another form of singlism. It's prejudice against multiplicities."

"You're making a case for a choice you wouldn't even choose. I don't get it. It's like stabbing yourself without knowing you are doing that." (Because I was arguing that every System should make that choice for themselves)

"I experience it as prejudice. I'm not demonizing anyone except the people who suggest it, who are always singletons"

"That's why I think the idea of final fusion is a myth that is pushed by singletons who are not aware of how prejudiced they are against multiplicities. Worse, it's a prejudice many multiplicities have internalized."

"That's like advocating for that Christian practice for changing gay people into straight people. It doesn't work. It's not humane." (Yes he really did compare final fusion to conversion camps)

And finally, my personal favourite: "DID is not a disorder."

Pro vs anti in regards to endogenic Systems is not productive. It won't accomplish anything. The misinformation is COMING FROM BOTH SIDES.

We need to start ignoring origin as a topic to be exhaustedly argued about in a purely circular manner and start combating the misinformation on both fronts because it doesn't matter what origin someone has when it comes to validity or existence. What matters is the misinformation being spread by BOTH sides.

37 notes · View notes

sysmedsaresexist · 10 days

Text

Me, twenty minutes into a rant: -- So biblically, Moses is definitely a singlet

Singlet partner: the things i have heard spoken in this house... what?

#syscourse #not syscourse #religion tw #it would be funnier if Moses was a system #because there were supposed to be two of everything #GET IT #/bricked #wait shit

27 notes · View notes

sysmedsaresexist · 11 days

Text

Genesis 1:26 - Who is 'Us'? Exodus 4:16 - Moses is Elohim?

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. "

The meaning is threefold, but not endogenic or plural.

First, in Jewish tradition, God called a meeting with the angels, and that's who 'Us' is referring to. Catholicism rejects this idea so I don't know much about it. If anyone wants to jump in, that'd be cool.

Second, plural theory, and this is where the fight is. However, the argument is actually that God is three separate people, not a system. In other words, not that type of plural. This is an important argument, as these branches of religion are monotheistic.

Third, and the accepted reading, God is referring to himself as the Trinity-- father, son, and holy spirit, which are all one and the same.

According to the Christian Research Institute, "Finally, there is warrant in the immediate and broader contexts to support the idea that the plural pronoun us refers to the divine plurality of the Trinity."

The reason God uses 'Us' is because he is creating man and woman in the context of the holy trinity-- a context of everlasting and infinite relationships in the godhead.

Finally, the next verse, God refers to himself in the singular. "God created humanity in his image, in the image of God he created it; male and female he created them” (1:27).

Is Elohim plural?

"So long as the question is about the form, the answer is yes. That, however, does not mark the end of the relevant questions that should be asked. There is a second important question to be answered, about the meaning of the word. Is the sense of the word elohim plural? The answer is that it is not.

Those who argue the nature of God from the fact that elohim is a plural form make a fundamental mistake. They are under the impression that it is the form of this word that determines its sense!

There is one more question: How did a reference to the true God end up as a plural form? Since the question is about the form, it is a question about the Hebrew language. It is not about the nature of God. Even so, the answer is not difficult to understand. Hebrew has its own characteristics as a language. Among these is the way in which it expresses might, authority, and reverence.

In Exodus 4:16, Moses is told that Aaron would be to him for a mouth, while he would be for a god (elohim) to Aaron. The form of elohim is plural, yet Moses was clearly one person — not a group or family of beings. This is sufficient to indicate that a distinction must be drawn between the form and the sense of a word. Second, Moses was to be like elohim to Aaron only in the sense that he would be in a position of more authority and respect. The same expression is used in 7:1, where Moses is told that he would be like elohim to Pharaoh." [X]

#syscourse #plurality #not syscourse #pro syscourse conversation #religion #debunk #this is probably the last I'm posting about this #i have a lot of trauma around religion unfortunately #this topic has kind of put us off a bit #tw #not endogenic #not a system #not actually plural

8 notes · View notes

sysmedsaresexist · 11 days

Text

Come quick, babe, new diagnosis just dropped

#OSDD STANDS FOR WHAT???#not sure who asked but okay???#shit singlets say #did memes #osdd memes #????? help #not syscourse #syscourse

20 notes · View notes

sysmedsaresexist · 11 days

Text

I was raised roman catholic and want to highlight the difference in the RC Trinity

(I adore this post, I just want to share another denomination's take on the trinity)

God the Father is the Lord, Creator of everything

God the Son is how we believe that God came to earth as Mary's son-- God in human flesh

God the Holy Spirit is the power of God in our daily lives, and embodied love

In RC, Jesus explicitly stated that he was God. Even those who believe the Holy Spirit to be the angel that came to Mary or the baptismal angels aren't exactly wrong, as those are believed to be God's divine presence on earth

It's sort of the phases of God in our lives and in the Bible.

Roman Catholicism is a monotheistic religion, so believing God to be three separate beings is heresy. The Trinity is the way we understand how the three beings are one and the same in a single, chronological story. These three concepts have the same nature, substance, and being.

St Augustine tried to define the Trinity and essentially said that no analogy can properly convey the RC Trinity without leaving any question on whether they are one and the same or three distinct beings, but the intention is that they ARE one and the same, in every sense.

Here's a website that repeatedly gives examples of how God is not more than one. Hopefully, some of the analogies help people understand better.

Christianity and Plurality

I want to preface this with a few different things.

Firstly, I don’t fully identify with the label plural, even if I used to; I struggle to see my plurality as “plurality,” even if I do technically fall under that label. I’ve been working on finding a good alternative, but at the end of the day, I still associate with certain plural ideals and symbols, and regardless of how much I’d rather not associate with that community, I am forcibly put into that community due to my disorder. I feel qualified to talk about plurality from a personal experience lens, but as always, do not take my word as the one and only truth.

Secondly, I have wavered somewhere between Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, and various other styles of “ex-Christian who is traumatized by the religion.” I’m not entirely sure what label to apply to my religious ideals, particularly as, I didn’t think I’d be figuring this out due to… syscourse, of all fucking things. Through all of this, I think I’ve determined I am Christian, just… loosely.

Lastly, connecting to the syscourse point: I really don’t want to make this post. The only reason I am is because I haven’t seen people who share my perspective speaking out, despite knowing that many do, and I figure… If I won’t, who will? As a Christian who struggles with modern Christianity, and a system who struggles with modern Plurality(™), I feel the need to speak up about all this drama lately regarding the topic of a Plural God, and how it is negatively impacting me. I want to speak my truth, y’know?

So, let’s talk about it.

When I was still going to church weekly, I was part of both the children’s worship and the more adult sermons. I watched the sermons for adults before heading downstairs to work with the children and see their lesson. By and large, I appreciated the latter far more than the former, as I felt it got to the core of the religion without frustrating semantics and vague ideas.

In all of these spaces, when the topic of the Holy Trinity was mentioned, it was… odd and definitely confusing for me, especially as someone who struggles with AND without things being seen in absolutes. I’m unsure what denomination I fell under (my parents refused to inform me, saying we’re all the same under God) but the approach was the same for the three different churches I recall attending.

The Holy Trinity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) was a triad of things. The Father was God, the Son was Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was what came after Jesus’s death. However, it was secondly the phrase, “My God is three-in-one,” referring to the idea that God is present in all of those ideals, having given the world Jesus, and having predetermined Jesus’ sacrifice to save us from our sins. Lastly, the Holy Trinity was a concept and belief, and that was what was focused on the most. See, the denominations I was raised in specified that belief in God and the Son and the Holy Spirit were just that: a belief. That our belief in God is what made us worthy of salvation, and thus, the Spirit of God was in all of us.

It was known to me that God was not also Jesus and was not also the Holy Spirit. They were separate, but each part informed the other, and our understanding of those three separate parts formed one unified belief.

With this new rise of the comments that God is an endogenic system… It feels incredibly disjointed from the childhood beliefs I’d learned and absorbed. Suddenly, my belief is something that isn’t factored in; the Holy Spirit is now something solid and tangible, an entity rather than my faith in Christ and the Lord. The best comparison I’ve been able to come to is how people play with Greek myth, making it more modernized while ignoring the original premise and meaning behind the myths -- No, no, Persephone wanted to marry Hades, really (ignoring the kidnapping of Greek maidens and the betrayal inherent to motherhood, yada yada yada yada).

If God were an endogenic system, suddenly, Jesus’s sacrifice is the death of God as well (as headmates share the same body). Unless people are attempting to say that Jesus’s death was only innerworld, in which case, we’re now saying, “The death that led to the salvation of humanity from eternal damnation was entirely in the innermind of God.”

It removes the human element of everyone else in these biblical stories. It removes the human context, the failure of humanity (and the successes) from the core essence of Christianity and centers instead solely on this idea of plurality.

Then we get to the Holy Spirit, and it all breaks down more. Now the endogenic headmate of God is inside of me? Now you’re stating that my belief is on the same level as my parts; but it’s not. God is not in my head — he’s in my heart and soul. He’s not an alter.

I will say, this is no fault of those who are sharing this headcanon, but I want to add it to provide context for why people may be feeling particularly heated about this topic. I’m currently in a very stressful time in my life, and this discussion of a plural God has made me start thinking about all of this at an incredibly poor time. Made me start thinking about the concept of the Holy Spirit being an alter, rather than the presence of God’s love in me, and how it’s suddenly more concrete. This has been sending my demonic and angelic alters into quite a tizzy, especially as one of those demons (Numb) is a protector who is certain I’ll be splitting a fucking Jesus introject.

Needless to say, this wouldn’t be good for us.

But do you see how the spiral arises?

I will say, I don’t feel that the belief that God is an endogenic system is inherently bad, and having a belief in God that could negatively impact someone else’s view of God or even just them as a person is not on that person’s shoulders. Again, I only mention the splitting thing because I want people to understand that these topics are stressful — and not just for “ridiculous anti-endos.”

I’m also not saying it’s bad to play around with the concept of God and adopt new beliefs that are outside the norm. Quite the contrary; I’m sitting here with the belief that God is a genderless being using He/Him and They/Them in conjunction, that Jesus qualifies as trans and queer, and that Joseph and his technicolor dreamcoat put on a stellar drag show for the Pharaoh, his lover. I know plenty of Christians who would have a heart attack at these ideas.

The issue I do have is that those who are saying that God is an endogenic plural are not doing so (excuse the pun) in good faith.

When I say that Jesus is trans, I do not do so to “raise awareness of transness in Christian spaces” or to “own the bigots and reclaim Christianity.” I do so because I genuinely believe it to be true, and I like to share that truth. I share it to help others gain more perspective about religion, not about transness. I also share it with those I know would receive it, as I don’t want to push others away from the concept of transness or Christianity by offending them -- religion should not be the starter course of acceptance.

And yet, in all of the discussions I’ve seen of this topic, it has not felt that anyone is actually saying this because they truly believe it. It doesn’t feel like people are saying this to share their joy and wonderment about finding themselves in their religion. It feels instead like people who are purposefully trying to bait anger or confusion in order to manipulate people into learning something, or even simply to be cruel. As a teacher, and as someone who was also manipulated by the church, I can attest that manipulating people in this way doesn’t… help. Why are people purposefully seeking anger? This literally goes directly against the edicts of the God you’re theorizing about.

In the past few weeks, I’ve seen more vitriol at the “colonizing homophobic Christian bigots” than I’ve seen for years, particularly as I’ve tried to avoid any mentions of my religion in public after years of abuse (both from my religious parents, and from non-religious peers). I try to avoid it because people form assumptions about me if I mention my religion, even in passing. Let’s not forget the poll that stemmed from this that lumped all Christians under the straight white label, an issue that persists and that queer Christians have tried to fight for goddamn years.

And all of these people are going on about a plural God.

It just feels… disconnected. Like the people saying this don’t actually say it to connect to God, but rather, to tread on those religious beliefs for their own agenda. It feels like people using my religion for their own means, without actually caring a lick about the meaning behind what I believe.

And that’s why I’m hurt.

I ask kindly that people consider not using a religion they don’t believe in for their crusade for more acceptance of Endogenic systems, or at least, to do so with the intention of actually interacting with the religion as more than a simple mythology. Please try to consider the context of these stories, the power behind these beliefs, and the impact that imposing modern systems (another good pun) on these beliefs could have.

17 notes · View notes