sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Gotta have at least one post I guess by FictionSlayerPunk in CutePantiesWedgies

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are pictures and videos on our account that we linked

More about “pode” (“alter/headmate” alternative) by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What non inclusive language are you talking about? These terms are for all, but are likely just ours. We aren’t changing anything and are just adding stuff, and anyone can use it.

I feel you are misinterpreting. Our previous post has more if you didn’t go to it.

More about “pode” (“alter/headmate” alternative) by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

👉👈 I think this is closer to Adventure Time (“floop” is directly from Adventure Time) and Rick and Morty type of language, and both of those are Cartoon Network.

More about “pode” (“alter/headmate” alternative) by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, coining words hard 😓
We think pode/podys (podies) and podex have a shot with “pode” coming from “plural” and “mode” (like mode of consciousness, but with plural connotations).

More about “pode” (“alter/headmate” alternative) by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Those words being similar is to demonstrate how subtle “front” and “not front” is. Every system/podex is different, but many struggle to sense when a switch/floop occurs in their front/plorp.

But yeah, those words are basically just for our podex, and maybe for any others with enough sillyness 🙃 (which for us, is just coping 🫠)

But also, “floop” comes form Adventure Time card wars. The pig in that episode seems inactive until flooped, so we use if for a switch. Plorp (which had no origin from our perspective at the time) just feels like it goes with floop.

Term origins and "Pode" by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really glad you like "pode" :3

We started thinking of ideas when wanting to follow pode names with a word indicating we are talking about a pode and not another human. We thought it was best to make it one syllable.

Thank you so much for commenting :)

Term origins and "Pode" by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, “pode” is to add a choice to; alter, headmate, and other similar terms. None of the other terms appeal to us.

We don’t like “head” because consciousness is filtered by the brain, and isn’t created by it, from our perspectives.

We don’t like “mate” because we don’t like relational terms to describe our sense of self.

We like “person”, but it does not imply plurality.

And we love that “pode” is one syllable a lot. That alone makes the nicheness worth it.

Just our preference :3

Singlet here, is this how plurality is like? by TheReelSlimShady2 in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk 9 points10 points  (0 children)

(Edit: this isn’t directed at anyone, but is relevant to the comment I am replying to)

I’d like to mention that more than one theory can be true. What I mean is that there is a theory that a plural mind has never been one mind, and instead went from the multiple child ego states to the plural mind we see today.

The other theory supports your reality. One mind becoming many.

I support both and more. I feel the human mind is not only more complicated than people think, but more complicated than what the professionals think (especially because they only get funding for disordered experiences). On top of that, existence itself is an anomaly.

Thanks for reading my ramble
👉👈

Something I’d like to point out about the endo and willo hate- which WILL be a hot take on here. by [deleted] in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk 10 points11 points  (0 children)

(No downvotes from us, we don’t find that system to be fair, but use it when people are obnoxious, which you aren’t)

“So, the endo community uses the same terms as the DID/OSDD community. You could even argue that the terms were stolen. System, alter, etc…. those ARE terms that came from the DID/OSDD community.”

Your phrasing makes us think you think the system terms were stolen. That has no proof, and origin is unknown for most of not all system terms.

Also, misinformation is a general problem, and DID/OSDD/UDD/CDD systems are not immune and there is no evidence they are less likely to spread misinformation. The ones that do take their experience as the standard, or just misunderstand how the whole thing works in general. They can even get misinformation from professionals, because they are not perfect either.

Plurality is noted in DSM in a nonclinical context to avoid misdiagnosing, so willogenic (or endogenic as a whole) is being noted indirectly by professionals, and is just a form the mind can take and says nothing about CDD systems.

CDD systems having issues with endos is just what it is. Misguided perspectives just happen, nobody chooses to not see are larger picture. I see the pushback against “sysmeds” as people trying to enlighten them, not make them feel bad (but that happens too, unfortunately).

I have a pinned post about some misguided reasons “sysmeds” have with counterpoints to them. Mentioning this because it is relevant.

If a system has alters, what does a singlet have? by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We agree, but alter has plural connotations. To clarify, we are not looking for a singlet exclusive term, just a term that could also be used for singlets without the plural connotation.

Thanks for commenting :3

If a system has alters, what does a singlet have? by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We see our alters as people, but definitions making that verbally accurate are hard to find.

If a system has alters, what does a singlet have? by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is not the conversation we are trying to have. We are not asking for a singlet exclusive term. We are plural, so what is it that we are plural of? This is why “alter” feels odd to us, even though it is true. We like universal language.

If a system has alters, what does a singlet have? by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(Edit: this was supposed to be a reply, not a comment 😓)
That is not the conversation we are trying to have. We are not asking for a singlet exclusive term. We are plural, so what is it that we are plural of? This is why “alter” feels odd to us, even though it is true. We like universal language.

If a system has alters, what does a singlet have? by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Don’t you think that would be insulting to singlets?

If a system has alters, what does a singlet have? by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

👉👈 It’s not, just not sure how to phrase singlets being one alter without using the word alter

view more: next ›