Unrivaled Excellence

Idk when I was younger, you could just go and go and find exciting new websites full of whatever cool things you wanted to explore. An overabundance of ways to occupy your time online.

Now, it's just... Social media. That's it. Social media and news sites. And I'm tired of social media and I'm tired of the news.

You're right that the internet is smaller than it used to be, but there's still some cool stuff left in the corners. I'd recommend checking checking out Neocities if you haven't--it's an independent web hosting platform like Geocities of the old web, and there are hundreds of interesting and active pages discoverable both through their search function and through web buttons (links attached to small pictures with the title of a website) within the websites themselves. Here are three examples of web buttons you may find in link pages:

Most Neocities websites have link pages or button collections with anywhere from tens to hundreds of these. Don't be afraid to explore!

If you're looking for something more like a search engine, I can point you towards Marginalia. It's not a particularly smart engine, but it's perfectly usable if you've ever been taught to use search engines back when they were mostly run through keywords instead of full sentence comprehension. There's also an "about" and "tips" section on the front page with more information. The algorithm of Marginalia can be filtered by the user to allow, disallow, or require JavaScript depending on your needs, plus there are filters designed specifically to prioritize web 1.0 sites or mostly text-based ones. It is possible to search for modern websites with it, but it can return websites from just about any decade (since the invention of the web, obviously) so long as they contain the information you're looking for. For example, here are some random interesting sites I've found using Marginalia:

Native Languages of the Americas: Native American Cultures

BASIC HTML COMPETENCY IS THE NEW PUNK FOLK EXPLOSION!

Earthbound Text Labs by Bill Eager

The possibilities for discovery are truly endless.

Now you might want to know about directories. These make browsing for websites easier, but require you to read through and judge which ones to visit, as there aren't algorithms ranking the sites besides the whim of whoever coded the directory. Some of them have themes, others don't. Here are two that I've used:

Yesterlinks Directory

Ichigo Directory

Directories can be harder to come by just by surfing the net, but they aren't impossible to find. Many personal websites have their own directories of interesting sites hidden within them.

Webrings are similar to directories, but are actually more community-based. You have to register your website to be a part of a webring, usually by sending an email to whoever runs it and meeting some kind of entry criteria. For example, my personal website used to be a part of a webring called Sweet Dreams, which was for websites that heavily utilize color palettes and images of cute things, particularly sweets. Webrings will give you access to a widget upon entry that allow visitors and other members to browse between the registered websites in a massive ring, ergo, where the term gets its name. Webrings can have any theme or criteria for entry. If you can make a website about it, you can find a webring for it.

Now, you might be wondering about social media alternatives. I can't offer much, but I can nudge you towards the idea of forums. Here's one I found that could really use some traffic. I also browse a bit on MelonLand forum, which is actually closed right now--it's currently closed on Mondays--but on any other day of the week, you can find a fun community there dedicated to web revival. You can find it through MelonLand's main page. I'd also recommend checking out SpaceHey, which is a MySpace clone that's customizable and easy to use.

Time for the newest syscourse topic, one that I’ve actually been thinking about quite a bit lately. I had a conversation with my very pro-endo friend about it a while back, and it caused me to realize that the entire issue is really that we don’t understand the distinction between oppression and social stigma, and why exactly endogenic plurals are stigmatized, but not oppressed. And why this doesn’t mean that struggles that they do face are “invalid” (boy, do I hate that whole concept. I hate the whole valid thing. It doesn’t do anything any justice.) 

To start off with, it's important to clarify each of these terms. Oppression refers to the systematic mistreatment, subjugation, and denial of rights by those in power against a specific group. On the other hand, social stigma involves societal disapproval or mistreatment directed at individuals who possess certain characteristics or identities. While the two concepts may intersect, they are not synonymous. 

Endogenic plurals, despite facing challenges in the form of social stigma, do not experience systemic oppression in the same way as historically marginalized groups. The comparison I drew in my conversation with the previously mentioned friend was to communities like furries and therians, who similarly encounter varying degrees of societal rejection. While they may be subjected to ridicule, bullying, or social ostracization, these experiences are not the same as being actively oppressed by institutions and systemic structures.

I would also like to highlight that the challenges endogenic plurals face are largely only present within the Western context. Outside of that, they not only ‘would be’ but are very easily accepted, sometimes for religious/spiritual reasons. I had someone from the Middle East (not going to specify which country because I don’t know if anyone knows who this is and would prefer to not dox them lol) describe to me that they once thought that they were endogenic – they were open to their family and community about this, and were very widely accepted for it. It was seen as creative, and a beautiful thing! But once they discovered that they had formed their system through trauma, and that they had DID, it became different. Suddenly it was something to be shunned – this is largely because it isn’t the system that’s the issue. It isn’t the concept of plurality that is an issue, by and large, it’s the trauma. It’s the fact that this is a disabling condition. It’s the fact that when you have DID, you have a rare mental illness. It’s the fact that you are experiencing trauma responses that are unpalatable to those who don’t understand them. 

That’s far from the only story I’ve heard of that type, and I’ve particularly seen a LOT of Asian systems speaking about acceptance of endogenic plurality vs. rejection of DID in their cultures. This is a very West-centric argument, and also goes to show how narrow of a perspective many of the current larger syscoursers pushing endo oppression as a concept have on the subject of oppression. 

You may say, “But, there’s a potential for systemic oppression and violence against endogenic plurals! We just don’t have enough data, because they’re not “out” yet.” My friend said this! I appreciated the point, because it allowed me to highlight my above argument about endogenic plurality outside of the west and also the fact that historical patterns of systemic oppression and the reasoning for such and the examination of parallels with other marginalized groups and their histories with oppression reveal that such concerns are really just… Not warranted. Genuinely, the struggles that endogenic plurals face are much closer to that of the furry community, or that of the therian community. These groups also have to deal with with societal misunderstandings and negative perceptions. Just as with endogenic plurals, the issues they face stem from a lack of understanding rather than a deliberate effort to oppress. If either of those groups were to be open about their identities, they’d face similar struggles – and they do. It’s not exactly the wisest thing to talk to your boss about being a furry or a therian, and it’s liable to get you some hate/bullying/mistreatment directed towards you at some point. It’s stigma.

While endogenic plurals may experience interpersonal mistreatment and possibly even limited job opportunities due to being open about their identities, these challenges are primarily driven by social stigma and negative perceptions. It's worth noting that any systemic violence or marginalization they encounter often stems from an intersection with already marginalized groups, such as the queer or neurodiverse communities. Sure, many endogenic plurals are queer or otherwise neurodiverse, but that intersection and further the violence directed towards it can’t exist without the existence of those other identities. A cishet, white, NT and otherwise non-marginalized endogenic plural isn’t oppressed. A trans, ND, POC who is an endogenic plural is, but not because of their plurality, though it does create a different (and notable) intersection with a few of these aspects. 

If you’re a femboy on HRT, that’s a different case. No matter how you cut it, that is a form of queerness and is still queerphobia directed at you for such, and is still coming at you from an angle where the only difference between what you’re experiencing and any other kind of transphobia is your internal way of identifying yourself.

The point to all of this is that endogenic plurals do not have their own axis of oppression, though they can still intersect with other axes and frequently do. Without either being perceived as or already being a part of an otherwise oppressed group, the systemic oppression isn’t there. Endos face misdirected ableism, sure, as well as other things. But it’s not because of plurality and directed at plurality.

I think your comparison isn’t really equivalent, because the hypothetical person that you mentioned is facing misdirected transphobia, yes, but they’re already a part of the same/an overlapping group — They are still oppressed for being queer — because that is a queer identity.

More accurate comparison would be a cishet man being harassed for being accused of being trans. He is not trans, he is not queer, and he’s certainly not oppressed for… Looking a bit trans to some people. He is just an unfortunate victim of misdirected transphobia. Does that mean his issues aren’t real? Does that mean they shouldn’t be talked about? Does that make them not hurt or not matter? No. It means that they need to be addressed accurately in order to actually be taken care of.

Time for the newest syscourse topic, one that I’ve actually been thinking about quite a bit lately. I had a conversation with my very pro-endo friend about it a while back, and it caused me to realize that the entire issue is really that we don’t understand the distinction between oppression and social stigma, and why exactly endogenic plurals are stigmatized, but not oppressed. And why this doesn’t mean that struggles that they do face are “invalid” (boy, do I hate that whole concept. I hate the whole valid thing. It doesn’t do anything any justice.) 

To start off with, it's important to clarify each of these terms. Oppression refers to the systematic mistreatment, subjugation, and denial of rights by those in power against a specific group. On the other hand, social stigma involves societal disapproval or mistreatment directed at individuals who possess certain characteristics or identities. While the two concepts may intersect, they are not synonymous. 

Endogenic plurals, despite facing challenges in the form of social stigma, do not experience systemic oppression in the same way as historically marginalized groups. The comparison I drew in my conversation with the previously mentioned friend was to communities like furries and therians, who similarly encounter varying degrees of societal rejection. While they may be subjected to ridicule, bullying, or social ostracization, these experiences are not the same as being actively oppressed by institutions and systemic structures.

I would also like to highlight that the challenges endogenic plurals face are largely only present within the Western context. Outside of that, they not only ‘would be’ but are very easily accepted, sometimes for religious/spiritual reasons. I had someone from the Middle East (not going to specify which country because I don’t know if anyone knows who this is and would prefer to not dox them lol) describe to me that they once thought that they were endogenic – they were open to their family and community about this, and were very widely accepted for it. It was seen as creative, and a beautiful thing! But once they discovered that they had formed their system through trauma, and that they had DID, it became different. Suddenly it was something to be shunned – this is largely because it isn’t the system that’s the issue. It isn’t the concept of plurality that is an issue, by and large, it’s the trauma. It’s the fact that this is a disabling condition. It’s the fact that when you have DID, you have a rare mental illness. It’s the fact that you are experiencing trauma responses that are unpalatable to those who don’t understand them. 

That’s far from the only story I’ve heard of that type, and I’ve particularly seen a LOT of Asian systems speaking about acceptance of endogenic plurality vs. rejection of DID in their cultures. This is a very West-centric argument, and also goes to show how narrow of a perspective many of the current larger syscoursers pushing endo oppression as a concept have on the subject of oppression. 

You may say, “But, there’s a potential for systemic oppression and violence against endogenic plurals! We just don’t have enough data, because they’re not “out” yet.” My friend said this! I appreciated the point, because it allowed me to highlight my above argument about endogenic plurality outside of the west and also the fact that historical patterns of systemic oppression and the reasoning for such and the examination of parallels with other marginalized groups and their histories with oppression reveal that such concerns are really just… Not warranted. Genuinely, the struggles that endogenic plurals face are much closer to that of the furry community, or that of the therian community. These groups also have to deal with with societal misunderstandings and negative perceptions. Just as with endogenic plurals, the issues they face stem from a lack of understanding rather than a deliberate effort to oppress. If either of those groups were to be open about their identities, they’d face similar struggles – and they do. It’s not exactly the wisest thing to talk to your boss about being a furry or a therian, and it’s liable to get you some hate/bullying/mistreatment directed towards you at some point. It’s stigma.

While endogenic plurals may experience interpersonal mistreatment and possibly even limited job opportunities due to being open about their identities, these challenges are primarily driven by social stigma and negative perceptions. It's worth noting that any systemic violence or marginalization they encounter often stems from an intersection with already marginalized groups, such as the queer or neurodiverse communities. Sure, many endogenic plurals are queer or otherwise neurodiverse, but that intersection and further the violence directed towards it can’t exist without the existence of those other identities. A cishet, white, NT and otherwise non-marginalized endogenic plural isn’t oppressed. A trans, ND, POC who is an endogenic plural is, but not because of their plurality, though it does create a different (and notable) intersection with a few of these aspects. 

GLADLYYYYY I'ma just rant because I can and I love talking about this

Endogenic systems are systems that do not form due to trauma and via other means. Examples: (a long list of em)

Parogenic: Parogenic systems are systems formed from free-will. This includes tulpamancy, thoughtform and soulbonding.

Quoigenic: Quoigenic systems are systems that 1) Don't know and don’t care what their origin is 2) Don’t wish to disclose their origin 3) Are mixed origin

Protogenic: Protogenic systems are systems that were born plural or have been plural for as long as they can remember (from what I've noticed this seems to be the most common)

Neurogenic: Neurogenic systems are systems that are formed by pre-existing mental illnesses or neurodivergencies

Tulpa: Tulpa systems are intentionally created systems using tulpamancy/thoughtform processes.

Gateway system: Gateway systems are systems that have a connection to another universe and have exits and entrances where headmates can come and go. (This is primarily what I am I do believe)

Median: Median systems are systems that are more connected than typical systems. The alters in these systems are most commonly called facets. Median systems bridge the line between singlet and system.

Soulbonds: Soulbond systems are systems with a lot of soulbonds. Soulbonds are souls from another universe that have latched onto the system or host. Typically these systems have a lot of fictives however the soulbonds can come from any universe not just fictional ones.

THESE ARE JUST A FEW :D I could list plenty more but I'll save you from that.

Now let's rant, next part is facts.

Most research shows that Disacoiative disorders such as DID and OSDD don't have to be caused by trauma, trauma simply increases the odds to have it. A lot of endos do have trauma but that's not the primary cause for their system and may not be a cause at all.

Several studies show endos do exist and some even say up to 2% of the population is simply naturally plural WITHOUT trauma.

For some systems it may take weeks to form a new alters, some a matter of minutes. It's been shown these experiences vary between endos and traumagenics pretty much equally. There is no one way to be plural, but we do share very similar experiences.

And lastly this isn't research but this is still knowledge about endos, so here are my experiences and views.

Time for the newest syscourse topic, one that I’ve actually been thinking about quite a bit lately. I had a conversation with my very pro-endo friend about it a while back, and it caused me to realize that the entire issue is really that we don’t understand the distinction between oppression and social stigma, and why exactly endogenic plurals are stigmatized, but not oppressed. And why this doesn’t mean that struggles that they do face are “invalid” (boy, do I hate that whole concept. I hate the whole valid thing. It doesn’t do anything any justice.) 

To start off with, it's important to clarify each of these terms. Oppression refers to the systematic mistreatment, subjugation, and denial of rights by those in power against a specific group. On the other hand, social stigma involves societal disapproval or mistreatment directed at individuals who possess certain characteristics or identities. While the two concepts may intersect, they are not synonymous. 

Endogenic plurals, despite facing challenges in the form of social stigma, do not experience systemic oppression in the same way as historically marginalized groups. The comparison I drew in my conversation with the previously mentioned friend was to communities like furries and therians, who similarly encounter varying degrees of societal rejection. While they may be subjected to ridicule, bullying, or social ostracization, these experiences are not the same as being actively oppressed by institutions and systemic structures.

I would also like to highlight that the challenges endogenic plurals face are largely only present within the Western context. Outside of that, they not only ‘would be’ but are very easily accepted, sometimes for religious/spiritual reasons. I had someone from the Middle East (not going to specify which country because I don’t know if anyone knows who this is and would prefer to not dox them lol) describe to me that they once thought that they were endogenic – they were open to their family and community about this, and were very widely accepted for it. It was seen as creative, and a beautiful thing! But once they discovered that they had formed their system through trauma, and that they had DID, it became different. Suddenly it was something to be shunned – this is largely because it isn’t the system that’s the issue. It isn’t the concept of plurality that is an issue, by and large, it’s the trauma. It’s the fact that this is a disabling condition. It’s the fact that when you have DID, you have a rare mental illness. It’s the fact that you are experiencing trauma responses that are unpalatable to those who don’t understand them. 

That’s far from the only story I’ve heard of that type, and I’ve particularly seen a LOT of Asian systems speaking about acceptance of endogenic plurality vs. rejection of DID in their cultures. This is a very West-centric argument, and also goes to show how narrow of a perspective many of the current larger syscoursers pushing endo oppression as a concept have on the subject of oppression. 

You may say, “But, there’s a potential for systemic oppression and violence against endogenic plurals! We just don’t have enough data, because they’re not “out” yet.” My friend said this! I appreciated the point, because it allowed me to highlight my above argument about endogenic plurality outside of the west and also the fact that historical patterns of systemic oppression and the reasoning for such and the examination of parallels with other marginalized groups and their histories with oppression reveal that such concerns are really just… Not warranted. Genuinely, the struggles that endogenic plurals face are much closer to that of the furry community, or that of the therian community. These groups also have to deal with with societal misunderstandings and negative perceptions. Just as with endogenic plurals, the issues they face stem from a lack of understanding rather than a deliberate effort to oppress. If either of those groups were to be open about their identities, they’d face similar struggles – and they do. It’s not exactly the wisest thing to talk to your boss about being a furry or a therian, and it’s liable to get you some hate/bullying/mistreatment directed towards you at some point. It’s stigma.

While endogenic plurals may experience interpersonal mistreatment and possibly even limited job opportunities due to being open about their identities, these challenges are primarily driven by social stigma and negative perceptions. It's worth noting that any systemic violence or marginalization they encounter often stems from an intersection with already marginalized groups, such as the queer or neurodiverse communities. Sure, many endogenic plurals are queer or otherwise neurodiverse, but that intersection and further the violence directed towards it can’t exist without the existence of those other identities. A cishet, white, NT and otherwise non-marginalized endogenic plural isn’t oppressed. A trans, ND, POC who is an endogenic plural is, but not because of their plurality, though it does create a different (and notable) intersection with a few of these aspects. 

Time for the newest syscourse topic, one that I’ve actually been thinking about quite a bit lately. I had a conversation with my very pro-endo friend about it a while back, and it caused me to realize that the entire issue is really that we don’t understand the distinction between oppression and social stigma, and why exactly endogenic plurals are stigmatized, but not oppressed. And why this doesn’t mean that struggles that they do face are “invalid” (boy, do I hate that whole concept. I hate the whole valid thing. It doesn’t do anything any justice.) 

To start off with, it's important to clarify each of these terms. Oppression refers to the systematic mistreatment, subjugation, and denial of rights by those in power against a specific group. On the other hand, social stigma involves societal disapproval or mistreatment directed at individuals who possess certain characteristics or identities. While the two concepts may intersect, they are not synonymous. 

Endogenic plurals, despite facing challenges in the form of social stigma, do not experience systemic oppression in the same way as historically marginalized groups. The comparison I drew in my conversation with the previously mentioned friend was to communities like furries and therians, who similarly encounter varying degrees of societal rejection. While they may be subjected to ridicule, bullying, or social ostracization, these experiences are not the same as being actively oppressed by institutions and systemic structures.

I would also like to highlight that the challenges endogenic plurals face are largely only present within the Western context. Outside of that, they not only ‘would be’ but are very easily accepted, sometimes for religious/spiritual reasons. I had someone from the Middle East (not going to specify which country because I don’t know if anyone knows who this is and would prefer to not dox them lol) describe to me that they once thought that they were endogenic – they were open to their family and community about this, and were very widely accepted for it. It was seen as creative, and a beautiful thing! But once they discovered that they had formed their system through trauma, and that they had DID, it became different. Suddenly it was something to be shunned – this is largely because it isn’t the system that’s the issue. It isn’t the concept of plurality that is an issue, by and large, it’s the trauma. It’s the fact that this is a disabling condition. It’s the fact that when you have DID, you have a rare mental illness. It’s the fact that you are experiencing trauma responses that are unpalatable to those who don’t understand them. 

That’s far from the only story I’ve heard of that type, and I’ve particularly seen a LOT of Asian systems speaking about acceptance of endogenic plurality vs. rejection of DID in their cultures. This is a very West-centric argument, and also goes to show how narrow of a perspective many of the current larger syscoursers pushing endo oppression as a concept have on the subject of oppression. 

You may say, “But, there’s a potential for systemic oppression and violence against endogenic plurals! We just don’t have enough data, because they’re not “out” yet.” My friend said this! I appreciated the point, because it allowed me to highlight my above argument about endogenic plurality outside of the west and also the fact that historical patterns of systemic oppression and the reasoning for such and the examination of parallels with other marginalized groups and their histories with oppression reveal that such concerns are really just… Not warranted. Genuinely, the struggles that endogenic plurals face are much closer to that of the furry community, or that of the therian community. These groups also have to deal with with societal misunderstandings and negative perceptions. Just as with endogenic plurals, the issues they face stem from a lack of understanding rather than a deliberate effort to oppress. If either of those groups were to be open about their identities, they’d face similar struggles – and they do. It’s not exactly the wisest thing to talk to your boss about being a furry or a therian, and it’s liable to get you some hate/bullying/mistreatment directed towards you at some point. It’s stigma.

While endogenic plurals may experience interpersonal mistreatment and possibly even limited job opportunities due to being open about their identities, these challenges are primarily driven by social stigma and negative perceptions. It's worth noting that any systemic violence or marginalization they encounter often stems from an intersection with already marginalized groups, such as the queer or neurodiverse communities. Sure, many endogenic plurals are queer or otherwise neurodiverse, but that intersection and further the violence directed towards it can’t exist without the existence of those other identities. A cishet, white, NT and otherwise non-marginalized endogenic plural isn’t oppressed. A trans, ND, POC who is an endogenic plural is, but not because of their plurality, though it does create a different (and notable) intersection with a few of these aspects.