#ANTI TULPAMANCER
Text
Don't even get me started on the child support
#syscourse#humour#anti endo#pro endo#anti tulpa#pro tulpa#this is funny#anyone can reblog#i think we all need a laugh#i laughed WAY harder than i should have#don't take this too deeply#it's just a singlet talking to a tulpamancer
53 notes
·
View notes
Text
So while actual researchers were doing an AMA on r/tulpas, anti-endos were complaining about their doctors being pro-endos.
Spoiler: She's not on your side. Your doctor doesn't support your hate. And she has a better understanding of the underlying psychology than you.
Wow!
Imagine the sheer gall to be someone who hasn't graduated high school telling a licensed doctor that they don't have the right to talk about a mental disorder because they're "not a specialist."
To be fair, I would say the behavior in that second post does look to be a bit unprofessional... If I were stupid enough to take anything an anon there says at face value after watching anons to that blog repeatedly lie and grossly misinterpret reality to feed into their victim complexes.
But I just genuinely don't trust that they're repeating those events back accurately.
And it's just so satisfying to watch them realize that their own doctors don't support their bigotry.
So yeah...
Today we learned that Stanford University spent $50k on an fMRI study into tulpa systems that's shown significant differences in the brains of tulpamancers while their tulpas partially possess their limbs, and one of the lead researchers in this project believes interest in this phenomenon to grow.
All while anti-endos continue to complain that their own doctors are pro-endo.
Yes, today is a very good day! 😁
#syscourse#pro endo#pro endogenic#anti endogenic#anti endo#sysblr#multiplicity#plural#plurality#endogenic#systems#system#actually plural#actually a system
251 notes
·
View notes
Text
Attention: After Talking to Another Real System, I've Come to Believe That the Endo Community is Being Infiltrated and Controlled by CIA Operatives
I need everyone to be aware and be vigilant because the threat is real. The endogenic community was invented to divide us and keep us distracted.
Having combed over several big potential CIA operatives, I've narrowed the field down to four possibilities. Remember that any or all of these could be CIA operatives, but I'm certain at least one has to be.
Possible CIA plants
@guardianssystem: This system claims to be a pro-endo "traumagenic" system as a way to give themselves authority. They have activity across multiple websites including TikTok and X. They're notable for compiling this document of "sources" to prove endos exist. This document is everywhere. It has suspiciously become the main compilation of endo sources that they love to link to at every turn.
@cambriancrew: They're a tulpa "system" who runs r/tulpas. For anyone who doesn't know, "tulpamancy" is essentially a form of brainwashing. Tulpamancers say they can change a person's brain to give them headmates, and they've convinced multiple "doctors" to back them. All of this sounds like MK Ultra stuff. Cambrian Crew, besides being an outspoken endo, appears to be well connected, and used those connections to help organize an AMA on r/tulpas. In this AMA, their CIA-paid doctors claimed to have conducted brain scans on tulpamancers that showed changes in brain activity when their tulpas were possessing limbs.
@sysmedsaresexist: A nefarious saboteur, Sysmedsaresexist posed as a prominent anti-endo voice for YEARS, building up a massive anti endo following on this site. Between their SysmedsAreSexist and JustAnotherSyscourse blogs, they practically single-handedly ran the "#shit endos say" tag dedicated to mocking endos. But then all of a sudden, they turn? And like CambrianCrew, SysmedsAreSexist appears to have a close relationship to "doctors," posting a screenshot of an email from Colin Ross, an expert in DID, that appears to support the existence of endogenic systems. All of this looks like a years-long psyop to gain people's trust and convert them.
@sophieinwonderland: Finally, that brings us to Sophie, another tulpa "system." She also has her own page filled with endo "sources" though not as detailed or widely disseminated as Guardians'. The more I looked into this one, the more disturbed I became. Sophie is, as far as I can tell, the system who started "The Future is Plural," the mass movement which we all know seeks to traumatize children en masse and give them dissociative disorders. She also openly brags about teaching people methods to dissociate and hallucinate, says that she believes she can rewire people's brains, and cheerfully is arguing in favor of propaganda.
Please, whatever you do, do not engage with these people. Not only to avoid harassing them, but because if they are indeed CIA operatives, it may not be safe to do so directly. I may be putting myself at risk just by talking about this aloud, and I believe they're already trying to discredit me, but I feel someone has to talk about this.
Community input in finding the spies is incredibly important.
Knowing all of the facts, I'd like to know who you all think is most likely a CIA operative.
#syscourse#anti endogenic#anti endo#fuck endos#endos fuck off#cia#mk ultra#brainwashing#undercover#endos do not interact#endos dni#endos not for you#aemogai#anti endo mogai
78 notes
·
View notes
Text
i’ve been in a mood for a bit so. this would make anti endos mad eheheh
you ain’t a bad person for making yourself dissociate. tulpamancers or other non-disordered systems, no sysmed’s gonna come busting down your door ‘cause you decided to practice possessing or switching or putting yourself in a trance, hypnotizing yourself, or meditating.
dissociation isn’t inherently distressing, people do it constantly intentionally and unintentionally.
#endo system#endogenic#pluralgang#endogenic system#pro endo#mediple system#actually plural#system#plurality#endo safe#traumaendo#just always make sure you have your headmates’ consent ofc lmao#make sure they’re ready#lambert complains
33 notes
·
View notes
Text
The tulpa discourse is so weird?
Sorry but the vast amount of tulpamancers aren’t even on tumblr? It’s dumb to change a term that connects us to research, media, tv episodes, Ted talks, huge communities, resources, etc. There are different languages that use a derived version of ‘Tulpa’ such as ‘タルパ’ (Tarupa) for the Japanese community.
Just because because a handful of already anti endo people/systems said that it was cultural appropriation, even when there are Tibetan Buddhists that don’t think it’s cultural appropriation. It’s not even the original word, is a mashup of Tulku and Sprul-pa. It’s not a word that existed, and the practice of tulpamancy has almost nothing to do with Tulku or Sprul-pa.
So say if we banded together and tried to change the term like suggested. How many tulpa systems would actually change. Probably not too many, just the tulpa systems on tumblr. Can we really get the majority of systems who use other websites like Reddit, discord, forums, etc to change? What about websites like Tulpa.info and Tulpa.io? Do we have to abandon those too?
So let me get this straight, we lose websites, major parts of the community, representation, research and almost all resources, for what? To please the anti endos who already don’t like us? Sorry but I’d rather make anti endos mad. I usually prefer to be respectful even to people with different opinions but not when that means dividing a whole community.
I don’t usually post about syscourse but I think this is a really dumb argument.
(Also since this is a syscourse post, anti endos are allowed to interact)
107 notes
·
View notes
Note
(I'm not plural, but I'm in a community that has a lot of systems (alterhumanity) and I never understood one thing about syscourse, I would like to ask you because I want to better know other members of the community. )
How different are endo systems from transid stuff?
Additionally: can you be an endo system who didnt self diagnose? Im asking because I saw a self-dx blog that was strictly anti-endo and it made me wonder because afaik being endo is almost always self-dx'd.
I see anti endo DNI and pro endo DNI almost equally thrown around and Im just here. Not getting it at all.
You don't have to answer if you don't want to though! I just thought this would be a good place to ask because this is a syscourse blog
Hi! We'd be happy to answer these to the best of our ability. Most of this is simple once you're in the community for a time but it's easy to see how it could be difficult for an outsider to understand.
To begin, plurality is absolutely different from transid stuff. Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably from the transid community first plural community second. Like with many things transid they like to try and slot themselves and their beliefs into our communities and co-opt it for their own use (if you can't tell, we're not exactly big fans, although transids are allowed on our blogs so long as they know we're not supporters, dnis are stupid in our opinion). The plural and endogenic communities are entirely separate from that movement, however.
Plurality refers specifically to the concept of being more than one identity/person within the brain and body. Endogenic means that your plurality formed for any reason other than trauma. An important thing to keep in mind going forward is that plurality does not inherently equal a dissociative disorder, unlike what many may say against us. The entire cornerstone of the plural community is that these experiences are often non-pathological and can occur for various reasons. For example this blog is ran by the Candlelight Society, we're a tulpamantic system, meaning we used tulpamancy to shape and for the most part create our system and plurality. There's plenty of people with DID/OSDD who also use the plural label, but the label itself is for everyone who experiences a state of being more than one regardless of origin or experiences related to it. The difference between this and transid should be pretty obvious. The closest thing we can think of to an overlap is the concept of "transplural" but that's just another way of saying created system brought into our community by transids, and is for the most part considered a ridiculous term in comparison to tulpa/tulpamancer, parogenic, or created system.
Onto your other question, this one's actually kind of funny, because it implies endogenic plurality is something that's diagnosable. Endogenic plurality is, as said earlier, not pathological or even a largely medically recognized thing at all. Plurality is an opt-in label, like alterhuman. You decide whether your experiences match up with the experiences described by the plural community. For that reason saying whether plurality is something that is self diagnosed or not is a bit silly really. You don't often hear people saying they self diagnose as alterhuman, not in our experience anyways.
TLDR: we're very different from transid concepts and we're an opt in label, thus kind of always self diagnosed if that even fits at all due to our non medical nature.
Hopefully this helps put some things into context. This was pretty quickly and sloppily written so forgive any grammar mistakes. Also if you'd like to learn more about plurality, tulpamancy, or some general syscourse topics feel free to send more asks and we'll provide some sources that may be useful to you when we have the time.
Have a great day!
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
Hi there and welcome to the plural community blocklist. This blog is designed for the pro endo plural community to be able to quickly block others to avoid unwanted interaction.
This blog is ran by a pro-endo system. We will not be publicly sharing information related to us, this includes our other blogs and related socials. You can refer to us as the @pcb-system
---
Here is a post compiling research and information on endogenic plurality
---
Tags:
Plural blocklist - the blocklist listings!
Mod note - mod things
Asks - answered asks
❌ - user has been banned/deleted/deactivated but post kept for archival
User self submission - user submitted themselves
Submission - general submissions
Anon submission - anonymous submission
---
We will do our best to keep the blocklist posts out of specific tags.
If a user has definitely posted to either fakedisordercringe or systemscringe then that will be noted in red text on the post, this will require evidence which must be shown.
---
What can be submitted?
▶️ anti-endo content in inclusive tags.*
it must have one of the following tags:
Plural, plurality, actually plural, etc.
Pro endogenic, endogenic, pro endo, endo system, endogenic system, endogenic pride or another clearly pro-endo tag
▶️ Hate/harassment if it can be confirmed who the user who sent it is.
▶️ Insistence that endogenic systems aren't real/don't remember trauma/etc.
▶️ Anti-tulpa content in tulpamancy tags
The following tags must be on the post:
Tulpa, tulpamancy, tulpamancer or another clearly pro-tulpa tag
▶️ Untagged triggering content in plural tags
These will be tagged as required and any images under read more and/or blurred for safety.
▶️ Clear unwanted interaction from anti-endo systems
▶️ General pluralphobia
*anti-soulbond, anti spiritual systems, etc content in related inclusive tags also counts here.
---
How to submit
In order to submit you can either use the submit function or you can send us a message if you would prefer to be kept anonymous/not have you main blog attached.
What we require
A link to the users page
For posts: a screenshot of the content showing tags or a link to the post itself
For harassment: a screenshot of the message/ask/reblog or link if possible.
---
How to block guide
---
Master-lists:
plaintext master-list
---
This blog is not meant as a list for harassment, none of us condone harassment and if found to have been harassing people you will be blocked and added to the list.
If a pro-endogenic blog does end up on here they will be marked:
Pro-endo but submitted for X reason
#endogenic#plural#endo safe#pro endo#plurality#plural community#syscourse#pinned#tulpamancy#pro tulpa#pro endogenic#plural system
34 notes
·
View notes
Text
changing tulpa terminology: what would it look like?
we’ve seen some fearmongering stating that the goal of changing tulpa terminology is to divide the tulpa community from the endo community, to discredit tulpamancers and current research, and to make previous guides unusable. it sounds like some people are trying to frame this discussion as a group of anti endos attempting to tear apart the tulpa community. these are nasty rumors that are just untrue! we’d like to talk about how this transition away from culturally appropriative language could occur.
step one: acknowledge something’s wrong
the tulpa community needs to come together to address the racism in their spaces. we have seen folks on r/tulpas and in other spaces speak out on the cultural appropriation of their terminology, but they tend to get dogpiled and drowned out by folks who aren’t interested in listening and changing for the better. our own post we made was removed very shortly after submitting it! it’s imperative that the community learns how to center marginalized voices when discussing issues that directly affect them, while unlearning racial stigmas and biases along the way.
step two: find a new term
once it’s well understood that racism should not be tolerated, the community could choose a term that can best represent their experiences that isn’t rooted in the fetishization of central asian religion and culture. we’ve heard of parogenic, thoughtform, and willogenic as all potential new labels! our wife (who used to identify as a tulpamancy system) switched to willogenic for a while, but lately they’ve been vibing with “paro” as a replacement for tulpa and “paromancy” as a replacement for tulpamancy.
step three: updating resources and guides
this would involve changing website titles and communities, like “thoughtform.io” or “r/paros.”
when it comes to the wealth of resources and guides available, not every guide will need to be completely rewritten! it should be enough for folks to add disclaimers to the top of their works. something like “it has come to our attention that tulpamancy terminology is actually cultural appropriation. the author(s) of this work are switching to parogenic language in their every day lives.”
of course, if people want to completely rewrite their guides, they’re welcome to do so!! when this point is reached, we’d happily put our english degree and paper-editing experience to work by offering to rewrite guides for those who are interested in changing their language. it would be amazing if other plural writers could come together to help the community make this shift while maintaining current resources out there!
step four: reaching out to researchers
after the shift has been mostly achieved online, it’ll be time to contact research professionals. it could start with getting in touch with the authors and institutions that have already published tulpamancy research, explaining the community shift away from that language, and asking the authors of the works to include disclaimers about the terminology they used.
additionally, it could involve reaching out to those who are currently working on or completing tulpamancy research, and ask them to adjust their language use before their research is published.
language changes, and researchers should not only understand this but be more than willing to adjust the language that their research uses in order to better reflect the concerns of religious and racial minorities. this has happened in the past with slurs and terms like “transsexual,” which are now not used by researchers who study these phenomenon.
(note - we’re not comparing tulpa terminology to slurs here. we’re making the point that researchers have to change or adjust their language all the time, and this is no exception.)
step five: reaching out to the public
if anything, changing the terminology will improve public perception of plurality without trauma. to outsiders, it may seem like the community is coming together to deal with a racism issue that’s persisted for decades (which is true!).
people can reach out to reporters, write medium articles, and talk about this shift in language to people they care about in their own lives and in online spaces. if the community believes that change is possible, then it only becomes a matter of taking steps to achieve it.
we know that this shift will take quite some time to pull off, but the more people who get involved, the faster the change can happen! if you want to start small, you can start by daring to call out racism and cultural appropriation within your own community when you see it. even baby steps in the right direction count as progress!
we are not an expert on linguistics, and while we’ve existed in the tulpa community for over a year, we haven’t exactly been an active member. but these are our thoughts on how this language shift could occur. we’d be happy to discuss this more or answer any questions to the best of our ability!
and for those who haven’t seen it, please check out our document compiling asian/tibetan buddhist voices and their thoughts on tulpa language.
35 notes
·
View notes
Text
The very nature of Lila is intended to be unknowable, and this is how she is knowable.
When I look into a mirror, I see my own face reflected. I can Look at it, and tangibly register its presence. I cannot necessarily depend my existence upon it, but I can point at it and use it as evidence of my existence, in the same way I can leave a footprint in the ground, and point to it as evidence as my existence. I am not necessarily saying *I* exist, but something had to have made that footprint- so I can say I am the one to have made it.
Now, Lila has no reflection. Lila IS the reflection, in a way. Lila has no qualia (while William does.) in a sense, Lila is anti-qualia, being based and formed off of William’s qualia. (This is standard tulpa Making procedures. No two tulpas can be identical, even if intended to be, as no two tulpamancers are identical. After all, no two forms of qualia can match. No one can perceive something exactly the same as someone else.
So what does this mean for Lila? Well, since Lila is a thought form designed to be unknowable, that means I see her based off of my own qualia. If it makes it easier to understand, no one sees Lila exactly the same as anyone else. This is precisely how Lila is unknowable, because everyone is seeing her in a different light. She is not a demon, not exactly a tulpa, not a jungian archetype- she is a concept. A thoughtform.
Lila is the mystery of not knowing who Lila is. Lila is a thoughtform. Lila is qualia eating itself.
All of this making no sense? Exactly. Lila is not supposed to be understood. Basically, Lila is not a “thing” at all. Lila is quite literally a concept. A thoughtform.
58 notes
·
View notes
Text
What's this blog?
This is a support and info blog that aims to help educate others, provide support, and help correct misconceptions that often surround the existence of endogenic systems (mixed origin allowed here as well!).
What kind of posts will this blog make?
💐 Reblogs of informational or positive plural content
💐 Answering asks looking for support (all origins welcome! Yes including tulpamancers)
💐 Answering asks from potentially anti-endogenic (or questioning) people. Please filter the tag "#anti-endogenic inquiries" if you do not wish to see these.
💐 Allow asks for endogenic or mixed origin systems to vent about mistreatment or exclusion they've encountered in plural community spaces. Please filter the tag "#endogenic-vent-asks" if you do not wish to see these.
We will try to have a consistent tagging system for all of our posts, so anyone can easily curate what they want to see.
Why "alterhuman" in the tags?
While not all systems are alterhuman in nature, there plenty that are, and we'd like this blog to reach there as well. If answering asks or reblogging a post, it will not be tagged as alterhuman unless the OP is part of that community.
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
Really not a fan of the way anti-endos are shitting on people having spiritual experiences because of their race when nearly every 'tulpamancer' views their experience psychologically
Just, from one person who has spiritual explanations for their plurality (that we don't personally view as religious), can we agree to stick to bashing the language people (mis)use and not police whether or not they get to have spiritual/metaphysical beliefs about themselves based on their race.
Also. No offense but we see people when they like posts calling experiences 'roleplay'. It's fakeclaiming. Treat it that way.
25 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hi! I,, have a question with some specific context that could, potentially, spark some conversation.
I’d say its relatively important to the context to note that I’m also a dx DID system, but im an anon, so take of that what u will.
When our system’s body was around 11-12, our system’s host “created” an alter. Basically like the host had an active role in creating him as opposed to, idk, a regular split or something. What we do know is that this headmate/alter of dubious origin, has fronted in traumatic times and took role as primary protector for years until our current primary protector was reintroduced to the host through therapy. It was also how the host established communication internally with “the actual” system so early, before we knew we were a system.
My only question here is would that be considered “endogenic” origins for a headmate? By all means, we are DID system, and only split based on traumas and survival, but *literally* only this headmate/alter has caused internal conflict for the system, but especially the host who created him (and is still around).
The host originally believed that, when we were first diagnosed, there was absolutely no way that we could have DID because of the active creation of that singular alter, which our psychologist acknowledged, but pointed out otherwise, thru a slew of, like, legitimate reasons (its 12am and we leave for a trip soon, my wording isn’t great, but for some reason, I just cant *not* write this ask).
I, unnamed alter in the system, am wondering if active creation in an alter is possible? I guess in general? It was entirely a form of survival for ourselves at the time to make the alter/headmate of dubious origin, he was what the system needed at that time, but we wonder what terminology we would use for him, or what he would be considered, community wise ig. To be blunt, its almost a validation thing in a way.
Our system is anti-endo. We dont believe systems can form from anything other than trauma in formative years, but the active creation thing seems??? Not a normal experience and maybe, like, invalidating to our existence??? We have alters from before he existed, but he was like our ground zero in communication. The alter that helped “bridge the gap”. The host loves him, and he loves the host. They were attached at the hip until the diagnosis because his existence felt inherently invalidating BUT thats not the point and more venting
TLDR ;
The host actively made a dude in our head who ended up being a main factor in our survival at the time but because the host *actively made* the dude, as opposed to “normal splitting”, does that make him inherently “endogenic”?
Hi, that's normal! And anyone who says otherwise can fight me. Thank you for sending this, it's really not talked about enough.
CDD systems can and do "create" alters, though it's typically not quite that simple once you get into the subconscious.
Firstly, once the development of the sense of self is interrupted in childhood, you've already completed the step that "tulpamancers" are trying to learn. Personally, I don't believe it's possible to dissociate to that extent once the sense of self is developed (I think they're already highly prone to dissociative tendencies, take from that what you will), but CDD systems are already ten steps into the process and it's not out of the realm of possibility (and in fact, it's highly reported) that CDD systems frequently create alters in a number of different ways, including processes similar to willing and creating alters into existence. People with DID already dissociate really good, it's not shocking that we would be able to will a new member into existence with enough thought and pressure. We're just not thinking of it as something similar to endogenic or created alters until it's pointed out, or we understand that there's something deeper at play.
But that's active creation, and now we get into:
"If there's a need, the brain will supply."
This is more based on the personal interpretation of alters in the process of becoming aware, but can be applied to brand new alters.
One general interpretation is based in denial and a feeling of a lack of control, and is similar to active creation.
It's extremely easy to convince yourself that you did this, purposefully and with intent. That you chose systemhood and that you chose to create this alter. CDDs are caused by factors entirely outside of our control, and people will look for, and find, a sense of control in any way possible.
Including telling yourself that you're doing something consciously, even when you're not (loosely based on the same idea as this).
Which came first, the fragment or the need? Was there already a fragment floating around that you helped to pick a name and appearance, and that contained traits that you needed, whether you consciously knew you needed those traits in your system or not? Or did you realize you needed those things, and a fragment came forward to pick up the role?
It doesn't help that alters can be created from overwhelming situations (not just traumatic situations), and the brain is notoriously bad at letting you know when you're stressed and overwhelmed. Not only that, but alters can take years to make themselves known, making it impossible to pinpoint their creation (unless they know, but they usually don't).
So did you really pick that name? That trait? Or was it already there?
The second interpretation is simply misinterpretation.
I have an alter that took a liking to an OC and became that. Again, which came first, the character or the alter? Does it matter? Was I writing based on an alter that already existed but that I couldn't communicate with? Or did a fragment take a liking to the character and traits? Did I look at those traits and think, "I could really use that right now," and my brain agreed? It would be very easy to misinterpret the entire situation to mean that I created this alter, either by complete accident or purposefully, consciously or unconsciously. Where do we draw the line at "created" alters? Does it need to be active creation? Or creation after the fact based on ideas that you liked and wanted? Did you know you wanted them?
--
Mod Quill here to mention something: I also have "created" parts. Again, incredibly normal in CDDs. I also have friends with DID who have parts that "came from God" or "walked in" -- and out of all of those parts, they are all traumagenic, because that's how they choose to see themselves.
The fact that the alter is created doesn't make him endogenic, because based on your description, he's still forming due to the trauma that you've experienced. Now, if you want to call him endogenic, because of the creation process, I don't think anyone's going to stop you -- but you shouldn't ever feel the need to label your alters in that way. You are a DID system, simply put, and regardless of the individual causes of splits, you formed from trauma. You should only be labeling the individual splits if you find that helpful for your recovery.
This alter's creation doesn't invalidate your diagnosis, your trauma, or your system in any single way. It's incredibly common, and I fear that syscourse has made it seem like it has to be an endo thing, when it isn't in the slightest.
------
Thank you to Quill for bringing this back to the most important point. Don't let anyone dictate how you define your system and alters. So long as you're happy and healthy, who cares. That's literally the only thing that matters.
I want to make it very clear that it's not just alter creation that confuses systems, but alters seemingly not connected to trauma at all appearing suddenly or randomly, alters that wake up and immediately go back into dormancy (walk in/out), etc. These are all things that can appear to be endogenic, or mixed origin, but if the basis of your system, the reason you have a system in the first place, is trauma, then everything ties back to that, in the end, and in one way or another.
How you personally interpret your experiences and members, and the labels you use, are uniquely yours.
23 notes
·
View notes
Text
Now, why would you dare me to embarrass you and your pals like that?
I appreciate how you wanted my attention so bad you posted me to not one, but two subreddits.
Makes a girl feel special! 🤣
I have actually never seen Wikipedia cited as a source about endogenic plurality. Though I do see anti-endos all the time, when asked for sources, telling people to just Google things.
Anyway, here's @guardianssystem's document filled with academic papers about endogenic plurality:
I've compiled my own, but honestly, theirs is better organized than mine.
And in the interest of fairness, here are all the anti-endo papers debunking endogenic plurality:
Sorry, I forgot. Those don't exist. Oops. 🤷♀️
Echo chamber? LOL!
Weren't you the one spouting a bunch of lies on Tumblr, got totally debunked, posted the people who debunked you to r/systemscringe to have a hugbox where fakeclaimers could assure you how the people who contradicted you are all fakers, and then blocked everyone who disagreed with you?
Weren't you also the one who, when shown a quote from an expert in dissociative disorders who worked on the DSM-5 saying that a disorder isn't a disorder if it doesn't cause distress, argued that the people who defined what disorder are must be wrong about that definition?
You're a misinformation machine who can only find support when huddled in cringe subreddits. Don't try to talk about people in echo chambers.
Also, you know most of psychology is just... listening to people? That's how it's been as long as the field existed. DID (or MPD at the time) was a recognized disorder since long before the first brain scans were conducted on DID patients. It's saying something though when basically every single scientist who has ever researched endogenic plurality has said they believe it's a real thing, or that it could be. While absolutely zero academic papers have expressed that it's fake.
There is also an fMRI study into tulpa systems that's been in the works, but results have yet to be published.
Sure, if that's what you'd like me to call you, Crazy. 😊
Anyway, Crazy, you should know that just because you personally find something scary doesn't mean everyone will or that the thing is bad. Personal preferences are a thing.
In a study of tulpamancers though, most generally reported their lives becoming better after the practice.
78% reported improvements in their mental health, and 91% on overall life.
There are many out there who would jump at the chance to have someone there with them that knows them intimately, and to never have to be alone again.
If it's not for you, then so be it.
But it's certainly not something to be afraid of.
And maybe, for those who are willing to commit to the practice while America struggles with an epidemic of loneliness, it's something worth being open to.
This is actually pretty fair.
But that's now, and I'm looking at course of history and trends of plural acceptance.
300 years ago, any plural would be viewed as demon possessed and end up tortured or killed for their plurality.
70 years ago, all plurality was seen as a mental illness, and it was common to force plurals, as well as anyone else associated with mental illnesses, into asylums.
30 years ago, the first real plural communities were able to connect on the internet and form in small numbers.
8 years ago, the first studies into endogenic plurality started being conducted. 4 years ago, the ICD-11 acknowledged that you could have multiple distinct personality states without a disorder. 2023 marked the first, but certainly not the last, time a system used their system name as an author of an academic paper.
Recently, new plural resources have been designed and put into use. More servers than ever are using Pluralkit. And Simply Plural went from 100k users at the end of 2021 to 210k at the end of 2022.
Progress is happening far more rapidly than you realize. And you had best be ready for it.
BOO! 👻
Oh, hey, I just realized... this is literal pluralphobia!
Liberté!
Egalité!
Fraternité!
And yes, The Future is Plural! 😜
#syscourse#plural#plurality#pro endo#pro endogenic#endogenic#systems#multiplicity#plural system#endogenic system#system stuff#plural community#systemscringe#fake disorder cringe#r/systemscringe#sysblr#system things#actually plural#actually a system#the future is plural#I dare you to post this to your hate subs! 😝
128 notes
·
View notes
Text
Okay, listen up because I've been seeing enough of this content.
We have been seeing bits and pieces of the tulpamancy discourse and even if I don't know the full details, the gist of what we DO know? It's really stupid that people are targeting tulpamancers just because a bunch of anti-endos decided "Oh hey! Let's call tulpa racist!" Forgive me for my colorful language, but this is ✨Horseshit✨
And while we're not some big blog with a major influence, I want everyone to know that we don't usually like taking a stance and just keep to ourselves unless there's something big. THIS is something big, especially with the tulpas being an important part of plurality in general. You wanna know our stance on this? We support tulpas. We're not gonna stop calling them tulpas and we're certainly not going to call anyone who uses the word tulpa "racist". And anyone who tries to tell us otherwise, without any actual SOLID evidence that it really makes a negative impact and it's harmful to call a tulpa a tulpa? Thank you, FUCK you and bye bye! — The Kid
#tulpas#tulpamancy#tulpa#tulpa safe#system#plural system#plurality#plural things#plural community#plural posting#plural#Sorry for the cursing#Yes I purposefully took the extra time to color the curse words#Gotta follow through with the ✨colorful✨ language#dni anti endo#— the kid
27 notes
·
View notes
Note
In anon because I don't want my blog to be associated with syscourse at all.
I'm not even a tulpa or tulpamancer but I just have to say - isn't just renaming the term just like painting over it or being a mask on it?
It's going to be the exact same thing. People are still going to know what they are doing is tulpamancy and still going to be referring to old guides. Also I'm no expert but isn't there also like... Subsections of Tulpamancey? Like deamons and servitors? Are those words not also from the same origins?
(Preface; I am white as hell. If I say something wrong, please let me know).
As far as I’ve been able to parse, as someone who is attempting to get more involved in the various endogenjc communities, Daemons and Servitors are different altogether.
From everything I’ve seen, Tulpamancy is no different from created parts / thoughtforms / willogenics / parogenics / etc.. There are no actual practices taken from Tibetan Buddhism that make Tulpamancy different from other practices, according to tulpamancers I’ve spoken to — in fact, this was an arguing point from many vocal pro-tulpas for a long time. “The word is fine because the practice isn’t at all the same as Tibetan Buddhism.”
Since it’s the word that reflects the racist views of a white bitch who wanted to profit off of Buddhism — not the practice — then changing the term away from that would help cut down on racism within the thoughtform community.
However…
You’re right in that this isn’t “solving racism” or doing anything but changing a single word. There will be racist people in the thoughtform community, or the willogenic community, or— you get the picture. Just like there are plenty of racist anti-endos and CDD systems. It’s disgusting, and horrific, but it exists and needs to be addressed.
The issue is, we can’t stop racism by screaming “don’t be racist” at the top of our lungs. I’m of the belief we can’t stop it at all. But we can do our parts to uplift actual POC voices, and do our best to change what we can control — such as not using racist terms like “tulpa” and encouraging others to change as well. It’s about harm reduction in any way we can manage; those little steps are vital, not only to improve the culture of system (and potentially more) spaces, but to ensure that POC systems feel more welcomed in these communities (where racism is a major problem that goes frequently unaddressed).
#as always; POC voices should be listened to over mine here#syscourse#asks#anon#tulpacourse#shadows in the petunia garden
33 notes
·
View notes
Note
hi! we’re from @kipandkandicore and we’re hoping to make a public google doc listing posts and other testimonies by asian, buddhist, and/or tibetan individuals that explain how tulpamancy language is racist/cultural appropriation.
would it be alright if we used your post in our document? this one in particular:
https://www.tumblr.com/system-of-a-feather/721593982920065024/for-the-record-the-reason-we-are-staunchly
although if you have any other posts discussing the problems with tulpamancy terminology we’d be happy to include them as well!
thank you very much!
Yeah I don't mind, I would also probably say this post best describes my more general and not-trigger driven thoughts on it as well and this is a more raw hurt-charged vent about it. Both are true and both I stand with, but they are the two sides of the topic.
You can also throw this post too because I'll do a VERY basic TLDR main points of my thoughts on the matter here as well that ties the two very long posts about it down since we are a little more nuanced than we state as just "anti-tulpa" cause Syscourse and nuance is like mixing water and oil.
Priority Points:
White people do not have the right to speak over AAPI on AAPI topics - if they wish to say they are listening to "actual tibetian buddhists" they need to listen to more than just one person on a single reddit and they need to not use said one person as a token pass
"Western Tulpamancy" is heavily based in a sensationalization of Eastern Cultures and beliefs and inherently has a shit ton of Eastern Mysticism baked into its very foundations
"Western Tulpamancers" frequently cite it's "history being based in Tibetian Buddhists practices" like its an ornament
People defending the usage of the term just chronically present heavy disregard for the voices of people's lived experiences on how their rhetoric specifically in the discourse is regularly used against AAPI
It has literally nothing to do with the original idea that is underlying Buddhism and it's honestly a huge bastardification of it
Buddhist individuals - especially when branched upon the different variants of Buddhism, but even within the Tibetian Buddhist crowd - will have differing opinions on this topic and you can't base your entire argument off of cherry picking a single person who agrees; that said, Buddhists that are okay with it are completely fair and valid with their opinion on that and they should be given space; but again, one person saying OK doesn't mean its not doing harm to another
I'll stop dancing around it @/sophieinwonderland and their loyal fan afaik (which is not much cause I only look at their profile rarely when someone links me their bad tulpa takes) @/cambriancrew just straight up do not care about AAPI and white knight about people of Tibet while calling all Chinese people CCP and shit which is just really fucked up and racist in its own; I do think there would be more room for discussion on this term if they just shut the fuck up and/or admitted their intentional or at least internalized racism
Important Nuance but Less Priority Points - Summary take home points of the two long posts:
The problem with the term "Tulpa" and those that can use it is not inherently a racial issue. Buddhism is a very open practice and anyone can partake in it - that being said I can't speak on Tibetian Buddhism as I have heard some people say it is closed and I am not in that practice enough to say. But again, Buddhism generally isn't a "born into it" or "you have to be of this group" philosophy / spirituality and so people who talk about "white people" in terms of Tulpa-discourse are technically wrong if the SOLE topic here is about tulpas and Buddhism. There are many white buddhists and people who were raised deeply in buddhist culture (tibetian, zen, or any other form) and I am of the opinion that those white buddhists who GENUINELY interact with the Buddhist culture can have a valid opinion towards this topic as they are likely approaching the topic with a much more genuine-non-sensationalized view. Because again, Buddhists that are okay with it, I respect and support their opinion and their right to voice said opinion - I simply do not agree with it and stand by my stance as well. Tulpa-discourse is a discourse that - in my opinion - should be left within the Buddhist community, not the system / plural / syscourse community.
While it is wrong to say "white people" in topics SPECIFICALLY about Tulpa and Buddhism, it is not wrong at all to bring it up in terms of racism, cultural appropriation, orientalism, Asian mysticism, and AAPI-hate which are all things inherent in the discussion of the history and foundations of "Western Tulpas". There are two different main points to be discussed in "anti-tulpa" discourse and while they are connected, one is about the spirituality specifically and the other is about the overarching ways white and western people interact with asian and eastern cultures.
Because of this being a two prong discourse and topic, you will get massively different energies from me and willingness to talk to opposing views depending on if you are asking my opinion as an asian individual or as a Buddhist.
As an Asian, I HATE it and its overall just a disgusting a peak manifestation of how white people sensationalize, mysticize, and turn Asian culture into an aesthetic, ornament, and *magical* thing to power psuedo-intellectualism, enlightmenet, and "culture".
As a Buddhist, I dislike it as it is a bastardization and a disrespectful interpretation of a concept; that said I don't have as heavy of a strong hate as - as a Buddhist myself - it is a "small issue" and not something worth the energy and negativity that it takes to commentate on it; that said we have mixed and complicated feelings on "letting it go" because to do so would be to enable a long standing history of westerner's treating eastern cultures as an aesthetic and ornament which in my perspective is a source of great suffering and hurt to many people and on a moralistic level, while it would be better for me to let it go, I also think it would be wrong to ignore it and leave it for the next person. Regardless, our main take on this as a Buddhist is that we dislike it - the effort of which and intensity varies from part to part.
19 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
peachy-doodles
peacheenie's art blog!
ssergiuk
Memoria One!
dana-places
fugacidade
rikert
griffith been trash
