Got A Good Grade In Physical Therapy Because I Ordered A Sex Toy Life Is Fun

Mob Psycho 100 II OP 

Depression comic

Between "for fuck sake" and "for fuck's sake", it's the latter, but it is my understanding that a paragraph+ best summarised as 'for fucks' sake, why?' is better than either. Scale number of paragraphs to how annoyed you are, and how likely they are to have a decent reason.

Trying to avoid insulting them while getting the point of the swearing across anyways is better, especially if you can deploy the correct number of paragraphs, and especially if they aren't actually insulted.

coworker moment 👍

in mesopotamia there were no 'cover letters' or 'curriculum vitaes'. there were just, pots.

Blackout poetry exists on a dual axis from "banal" to "insightful" on the input side and "kind of deep" to "incredibly fucking dumb" on the output side, and while taking something banal and producing something kind of deep is well and fine, for my money taking something insightful and rendering it incredibly fucking dumb is where the real art is.

i mean this as is they seem like they’re good at the subject but honestly interpret it as whatever

The issue isn't them being in a landfill, really - that has its own explosion risk issues, of course, but once it's in the landfill, I suspect glass would be worse anyways.

I haven't heard this claim about them exploding compactors, but rather of them exploding in incinerators (one of the many things one shouldn't burn). Irregardless, this isn't 'it'll start a trash fire' but rather, that they'd destroy a much more expensive piece of equipment and, in the case of the compactor, not actually wind up in the landfill they were meant to get to.

AirPods Are a Tragedy

Apple claims that AirPods are building a “wireless future.” Many people think they're a symbol of disposable wealth. The truth is bleaker.

We’ve seen exactly one case of someone claiming to of “stolen” someone else’s headmate, but it was with the headmate in question’s consent and the other system was involving a particularly dangerous form of in-system abuse that basically only occurs in tulpamancer communities and is rare there - the tulpamancers tend to understand that trying the sort of thing claimed is a bad thing to do to proper, fully formed headmates, while everyone else tends to simply lack the framework to abuse other headmates *that badly* in the first place.

On System Hopping...

So, we’ve seen a fair amount of crap leveled against system hopping.

As approaching old-farts-status within the online plural community, and a trauma-formed system with DID that’s sick of seeing misinformation, let’s address some things.

DISCLAIMER: While belief in system hopping varies WILDLY within the community, let’s assume for the duration of this conversation that it DOES exist in some form. (Because this is a belief, you’re lack of it doesn’t change the fact that: the concept exists, that a lot of systems do believe in it, and that there’s a LOT of misconceptions out there about it.)

First off, let’s define system hopping. System hopping is the (neither scientifically proven nor disproved) phenomena where a system member travels from one system, to another. This can be either permanent, or temporary, and can be either a full switch over or the system member meeting in some nebulous space “between” systems.

Got it? Cool.

Now that we’ve got the “what”, let’s go over the who, when/where, why, and how.

Who “system hops”? Contrary to popular opinion, system hopping is not a belief that is exclusive to endogenic (or any other non-traumagenic) systems. Plenty of traumagenic systems believe in it, too.

We’ve seen many folks say that trauma-formed systems, or systems with DID/OSDD/etc, don’t believe in it– or “can’t do it” even if they do– because it’s a “spiritual thing”. Surprise! Plenty of trauma-formed systems are spiritual, or feel their systems have a spiritual basis, just as plenty of non-traumagenic systems aren’t, and feel their systems have a psychological basis. (And many systems of all origins are a mix of both spiritual and psychological!)

Also… it’s not just a spiritual concept. More on that in a bit.

Tl;dr, any system of any origin, regardless of diagnosis, can believe in system hopping or claim to experience it.

When/where do systems “hop”? Usually, if system hopping happens at all, it happens between systems that are very close. Usually systems that are dating. It is often pre-planned. The idea that systems can “steal” someone else’s system members is a common myth, and we’ve never heard of it actually happening. (Though, rarely, abusive systems might try and convince their victim(s) that it’s possible.)

Sometimes, systems (especially gateway systems or systems who believe their inworlds are a factual space somewhere) will form “between” spaces between their inworlds where sysmates will meet up without actually “hopping” across systems.

Most systems who believe in system hopping will outright tell curious systems to only attempt it with systems they know and trust, and make sure there is a shared understanding that it’s not something a system can force onto another system. Planning it in advance helps ensure it’s a mutually agreed upon thing, and helps reduce the risk of negative “oh your sysmate came over here”/”oh we came over there” claims.

Why do systems “hop”? Systems who claim to experience system hopping usually do it to visit friends or non-platonic partners in other systems. We’ve also seen system members who have “left” one system, “show up” in the second system some time later. (This is not the same as System B “stealing” System A’s sysmate– it’s a sysmate fully vanishing from System A on their own and reappearing in System B. This could be a case of System B forming a factive or introject of System A’s sysmate, but who’s to say.)

How does system hopping work? Honestly, we don’t know! Even if we assume it happens, studies haven’t been done on it. There’s two main schools of thought we’ve identified–

1. Spiritual.

2. Psychological.

With spiritual sorts, one of the most common explanations we’ve seen is that inworlds are basically pocket dimensions that exist out there in the universe somewhere, and so, with systems that are close (and work this way) a sort of gateway opens up between the inworlds. Or, a sort of grey area forms between the two inworlds, where sysmates between systems can meet.

With psychological sorts, the most common explanation we’ve seen is that both systems develop a “version” of the same sysmate. That version will go dormant in one system, while waking up in the other, giving the appearance of one sysmate “hopping” between systems.

And because it’s worth repeating:

Not all non-traumagenic systems believe in system hopping, of ANY kind, and not all who do are spiritual. Not all trauma-formed systems DON’T believe in it, and not all who do are psychological. The belief in– and any experience with– system hopping is not unique to any one system origin, nor is it tied to a dx status.

But isn’t it dangerous? The short answer is, it’s not inherently dangerous. Can the concept of it be used to abuse people? Sure, but so can the entire concept of systems. Anyone who wants to abuse someone, can use anything to abuse them, including the idea of system hopping. There are in fact people out there who have, do, or would use system hopping to claim they can “steal” sysmates, “break in” to your system and hurt sysmates, or claim that your system did so (or threatened to). But these are people using a needlessly maligned belief to cause harm. That does not mean that the belief is harmful.

(We personally don’t think it’s possible for a system to “force” their way into another system without both parties agreeing, anyways. Every experience we’ve had or seen that we consider genuine system hopping, it’s been mutually agreed upon (though not always consensual unfortunately), a sysmate showing up in a second system after for sure vanishing from the first system, or an accidental sort of “meeting in the middle” rather than an outright “swap”.)

So then what are some red flags? A few things to watch out for, if you decide to be more open minded or attempt this concept yourselves–

Don’t attempt to do this with any system you don’t know. That’s the obvious one, but sincerely– if you haven’t known a system for more than a couple years, if you don’t have a strong and healthy relationship– don’t try it with that system.

Both systems involved need to have good communication. Are you both spiritually based systems? Is one of you more psychological, while the other isn’t? You need to be clear about what you both think is happening. If one system feels like their system member is actually hopping into someone else’s inworld, while the other system thinks that they’re just developing an introject, that’s a situation ripe for potential problems. Make sure both participants know and agree on what’s happening.

Do not let anyone “talk you into it”. If it’s something you don’t think is possible for your system, and/or the idea makes y’all uncomfortable, say no. If the other system keeps pushing, then you really need to reconsider your relationship with that system. This is never something you should be forced into, or have to be “convinced” to try/do. It should be something both systems are interested in, and excited to try. If you’re not, don’t do it.

Similarly, if a system tries to convince you that one of your sysmates “came over” into their system, or that one of theirs “came over” into yours, when you know that’s not true– that’s a warning sign. Stand your ground, and if they push, consider getting out of that relationship ASAP.

Same for if someone claims that your sysmate did something wildly out of character. If you know that it’s something that couldn’t, wouldn’t, or didn’t happen, stand your ground and get out of there when feasible.

And while this feels obvious to us… if someone accuses you of “stealing” a sysmate, or threatens your system with such a thing, get the hell out of there.

So what do you all believe, TLC? We generally have come to the consensus that system hopping, as a general concept, likely does exist. (For statistics, we’re a trauma-formed system with DID, and we’re spiritually based.)

We are very skeptical of individual claims of it– kind of like how we believe in ghosts, but we question the ghost stories of other people. :P Of course, we don’t know how it works, only that we’ve had experiences we can’t explain– and we know others have, too. We personally don’t purposefully engage in it, because our system is closed (once someone comes in, they don’t come back out), but we did have an incident a LONG time ago where a system member was confirmed gone in a system we knew, and they showed up here, with memories we couldn’t have known about.

That said, we don’t think it’s possible, much less desirable, for all systems.

In any case, it’s never been proven to be real or not. There’s no studies out there, to our knowledge, testing it. So everyone needs to come to their own conclusions. We just ask that people not spread outright lies about the concept, or shit on people who do believe in it.

I thought that Hopepunk was just part of the broader what I'mma call Xpunk - where X is a thing, and punk actually just means future for some reason.

If grimdark isn't a genre, does that mean hopepunk isn't, either?

(With reference to this post here.)

"Hopepunk" is basically the culmination of nerd culture's mistaken propensity to treat genre as a prescriptive checklist of tropes. The term's proponents invented a definition of a genre of media they believed ought to exist, then went about looking for examples of media that fit that definition. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way – genres in media are something that can only be identified after the fact, as a description of emergent trends in the dialogue between creators. If you try to declare a genre into existence by fiat and work backwards to figure out which media belong to it by going down a checklist of tropes, you just end up with a random grab-bag of works which aren't meaningfully in dialogue with each other.

(Some definitions of "hopepunk" do admittedly somewhat resemble romantic fantasy, particularly the late 1980s to early 1990s strand, but as far as I can tell this is coincidental – it's abundantly clear that most of the term's proponents have never read a Mercedes Lackey novel!)