#<- not entirely sure if ableism is applicable but just in case

[somepoetwannabe]

You don't have to answer, but I'm just curious:

What, to you, makes DID/OSDD more "proven" then non-disordered systemhood? That seems to be the point you keep coming back to.

Because OSDD/DID weren't always medically recognized. Does that mean before they were medically recognized, plurality itself wasn't real?

You INHERENTLY can't "prove" a subjective experience, and to apply that logic to anything psychological in nature is to ignore the limitations of psychology as a science, which is itself anti-scientific.

I don't have dyslexia. If I suddenly declared that dyslexia isn't real because I don't have it and nobody can objectively 100% without a shadow of a doubt prove to me that it is, regardless of how much supportive evidence there is, I'd still be wrong.

I will never experience the same experiences as a dyslexic person. Doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that the patterns in the wider human population heavily suggest that it's a neurodivergency that exists, because hey, there are all of these people with dyslexia symptoms!

Similarly, there are all of these people claiming to have symptoms of plural experiences without trauma. Not my experience, but ignoring it would be stupid.

And the idea that it must not be "real plurality," but that it could be something else is... I hate to say it, but that's ableist. "Ableist" in this case being used as a word for prejudice against neurodivergent people, yes including those whose neurodivergency may not be a disability in a vacuum but very much is within a societal context, such as endogenic systems.

(^ I could write a lot more on this point in particular, of why the word "ableism" actually is applicable in this situation, but that's ultimately not the point of this ask.)

First off using people with psychosis as your argumentative scapegoat just alienates psychotic systems, and yes, those two things don't cancel out. Even if it was psychosis that doesn't rule out systemhood as a possibility, and the possible interactions between psychosis and plurality definitely aren't studied enough to make that claim.

Also you're inherently promoting the idea that neurodivergent people should not be trusted to speak on their own experiences, which is ableism. I don't think there's any room to argue on that fact.

Especially given that plurality as a subject is extraordinarily under-researched. Even OSDD/DID are far from fully understood.

- A (traumagenic!) system member with a passion for psychology who doesn't really appreciate how y'all have presented psychology as a field.

(Sorry if I come off as rude, I speak rather bluntly but I'm not trying to offend. I am genuinely trying to engage in productive conversation. /Gen)

DID/OSDD is medically recognized, with an accepted theory of how it is formed and a known way/ways to treat it. That is what I regard as “proof” so to speak. You are right, DID/OSDD were not always medically recognized, and I would not claim they were not real prior to medical recognition. However, I do not claim endogenics are completely impossible or definitely do not exist, nor do I refuse to treat them with empathy and respect. I simply offer alternative explanations for endogenic experiences, and possibilities more medically supported than the idea of them being systems. Because of this, I am not entirely sure what your point is here. Just because something might be possible doesn’t mean I should immediately believe it. What I am saying is, without substantial evidence, I have no reason to believe in the idea of endogenic systems being possible. You cannot expect me to trust claims, and I hope you can acknowledge why I may not. Especially online. The idea you cannot prove a subjective experience is…interesting. I am no expert on matters of psychology – I have no qualifications and am simply a high school student with an interest in it – so I am not qualified to speak on that. However, I am yet to see psychology support the idea of endogenic systems. I am also unsure what you mean by “anti-science”. Again, I do not actively claim endogenics are not real, as there is as little evidence to support that as there is to support that they are real. It is not that nobody can 100% prove to me it is, but rather nobody can prove to me at all (as far as I have seen). “Regardless of how much supportive evidence there is"…there is no (or at least none I have been exposed to) evidence for endogenics, but please feel free to give resources if you have any. I am open to be proven wrong. “I will never experience the same experiences as a dyslexic person. Doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that the patterns in the wider human population heavily suggest that it's a neurodivergency that exists, because hey, there are all of these people with dyslexia symptoms!” People lie. That is a reality of life. There is proof of dyslexia [neurobiology supports the idea of dyslexia and there is an understanding of how it occurs in people, though not what causes it] and they are medically recognized. I do not ignore endogenic experiences, as that would be irrational. I would be screaming into a void and arguing against a blank wall. Listening to endogenics is something I must do to come to a reasonable conclusion on whether I believe there is a possibility it is possible to be endogenic. I’d need you to elaborate on the ableist point. I’m not quite sure how it is ableist to propose that there may be other explanations for endogenic experiences. For me, this would only apply if endogenics were supported by psychology and had a suitable theory on how they occur but I was simply choosing to ignore the already fitting explanation. That is not what I am doing. I am not claiming to know other people's experiences better than they do, I am not saying for a definite I know what causes endogenics to experience something akin to plurality. Also, you cannot be ableist to someone who is not disabled. You may say or do things that stem from ableist belief systems, but you cannot be ableist to an abled person. I don’t understand what you mean by “may not be a disability in a vacuum but very much is within a societal context”, you are either disabled or you are not. While someone’s disability may not affect them every second, even when their disability is not affecting them disabled people are disabled nonetheless. Please do feel free to elaborate on these points. (1/2)

#-👁️‍🗨️//Jon #syscourse

[aspen-heights-wc-rewrite]

Master Post.

Basics/goals of the rewrite

So the point of this is to fix some issues I have with the Warriors books, and also have some fun. So here’s a slightly more detailed list! Not exactly in order of importance, it’s just which order it comes to me while eating dinner.

Let’s stop the super creepy age gaps. They’ll either be changed to be a super small age gap or treated as seriously as possible for the absolute horror they are- if not removed completely.

Some timeline issues/characters disappearing or appearing in between books. Heavy step still gets to un-die though.

Deal with the ableism in ThunderClan.(I specify ThunderClan as they’re almost entirely the one guilty clan.)

GIVE THE CLANS DIFFERENT CULTURES ALREADY(like how it’s implied in the first series)

Let’s deal with the xenophobia

Deal with the sexism in Warriors

CHARACTER ARCS(OR FAILED CHARACTER ARCS) FOR ALL

Let the leaders die a lot more often and cycle through

Character. Interaction. Is. Necessary.

Hey, let’s NOT have incest.

Nursery tales stay for longer!

Rules applicable to the rewrite

They’re cats with nigh magic medicine and know how to for the most part avoid dangers that lower the average life span of stray cats so they get an average of 20 years of life, average of 30 if a leader doesn’t loose lives to anything but complications with old age(which won’t happen besides a very few cases)

All cats who believe in StarClan have a basic connection to them, but upon touching noses with the moonstone/moonpool this connection is strengthened to a point of easy communication

All the after lives are normally connected, but StarClan/TDF are weird- as in they’re not on the earth like other after lives. They’re in a different realm of existence, so for this dreams are sometimes re-routed to peer into it. Other dead cats can roam the earth for as long as they want or can ‘pass on’ and forever live in their dreams but as far as everyone else is aware they’ve ceased to exist

Cats get vaccines from 6 weeks old until 4 months old so any former kittypet who’s been around humans at that age before leaving definitely gets the vaccines, and even those who become kittypets later in life then leave get them too. For sake of funnies they don’t need the revaccination

They actually have to note the status of any invading cats/predatory animals/prey to make sure it doesn’t have rabies or anything.

They can make basic tools. They have seemingly human-level intelligence. So they can make a lot of more rudimentary stuff, and working teams can even make stuff like very basic toys. They can probably carve soft wood too. Pretty much if you can make it with your thumb taped down and small knives on your nails they can probably make it.

Each life a leader gets corresponds to a different life they have to deal with, but it’s selected based on which one is more useful in that moment. So if they’re given compassion, patience, justice, and bravery in that order but then die to a fox they go right to bravery being added in and the rest still remain. This does unfortunately cause a lot of extra problems resulting in deaths each life has an overwhelming push. So in this example there could be a flash flood with a warrior in the middle where trying to jump in would spell certain death, the leader would jump in without hesitation.

Reincarnation does not happen.

The cats can just sleep and wake up whenever as long as their duties are done. The only times they are needed to wake up at a certain time are for dawn/dusk patrols, battles, gatherings, and ceremonies.

The time line will be mostly the same

Important things to note/lore changes needed to be known

The Code of the Clan stories are actually going to be canon! Sorta. Since SkyClan was kicked out the leaders came up with new history stories to remove SkyClan and just came up with the Code of the Clans things. They’re commonly used to teach kits the warrior code and why it’s important(most cats who join the clans at apprentice age or older just get the code told to them so it doesn’t hold the same weight. This leads to more setting it aside for what’s right)

StarClan can actually be completely clear with what they’re saying, but they only are told the future by Midnight who isn’t always available and sometimes deems it begs to not get involved so they make up super vague prophecies to try and make it seem like they’re helping. Only a StarClan ‘council’ knows about this and is allowed to speak in dreams. It’s about 5 cats for each clan

Tags you’ll see

#aspen heights rewrite

Everything gets this lol

#aspen heights- design

Designs for characters and places!

#aspen heights- LORE.

From tidbits of information to plotting out 7 years of battles this is all stuff that will feature in Aspen Heights

#aspen heights

Actual project stuff! Like writing or art

#asks

Just responses to any asks i might ever get somehow

Important Posts

N/a

#aspen heights rewrite #warrior cats

[solipsistful]

@blobuwu-syscourse (hopefully you don’t mind me not direct reblogging -- long post :V)

ahhhhh yay somebody who knows what they’re talking about!

You’re totally right about the 2005 study. I’m so sorry.

However.

Seriously.

That is absolutely what the structural dissociation theory characterizes the EP in PTSD as.

And it’s kind of bullshit. Actually the entire book, which a lot of people, especially endos-equals-ableism, like to characterize like a holy book, has a lot of bullshit but I’m planning to go into that later

this is from a study critiquing the theory of structural dissociation from 2014: “According to the theory of trauma-driven structural dissociation of the personality, the primary configuration in PTSD and complex dissociative disorders is the existence of an apparently normal personality (ANP) and a dissociated emotional personality (EP). The ANP maintains executive control most of the time and carries out daily adult functions. The EP spends most of its time not in executive control, but takes over intermittently when there is a switch of executive control, which occurs in dissociative identity disorder (DID) during periods for which the ANP has amnesia. In PTSD, the EP can take full executive control during a flashback in which orientation to the present is lost, and the person is in a full reliving of prior trauma. An EP is a psychological structure that is a separate, dissociated biopsychosocial subsystem of the whole person, with its own sense of subjective selfhood.”

so yes, the entire theory of structural dissociation is actually arguing that PTSD is essentially a lesser version of DID in which there’s two system mates.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with this, a lot of people I know with “simple” PTSD act like this and describe their “sides” this way. Could easily be a sort of median system going on.

but here’s the thing

the ANP is regarded as an almost normal person, the EP is not. so the people we know? the people who are alters in OSDD-1 systems? yeah, they are considered to be “functioning on instinct rather than on intelligence.” (again, from The Haunted Self, which Structural Dissociation comes from, quoting Sylvia Fraser)

Oh, by the way, the author of the study above also proposes that people suffering from Depersonalization/Derealization which I definitely have concurrent with my depression may be part of systems with two ANPs, so ha, a scientist thinks I’m a system and calls me a part of one in it

the fantasizer/hypnotizability thing is a different argument completely from the usual one about the “fantasy model of DID”, specifically: some people are prone to dissociation with no apparent cause

Bottom line: if people can have non-dysfunctional OSDD-4 without trauma, why not non-dysfunctional OSDD-1?

Yeah I sorta see what you're saying re: non-problematic, non-traumagenic DDNOSs. Though I still don't really think it's too applicable -- they're different disorders, after all. Like, the idea of non-problematic dissociative trance is baked into the definition: trance also covers a lot of religious experiences across the world. Plus, not even all the dissociative disorders are seen as traumagenic anyway -- depersonalization/derealization disorder in particular is known to occur without anything trauma-related at all! (Despite posts going around claiming that the dissociative disorders are all traumagenic, grumble grumble.)

That... actually feeds a bit into structural dissociation, since the idea is that, if SD only refers to traumagenic things, it excludes some cases of DP/DR. And that's one of the Problems that paper brings up, “So like... are we not calling that ‘the same kind of dissociation’ then?”

(Nitpick -- I'd call the Ross paper more like an "op-ed" than a study. He's not going out and studying data etc., just personally commenting on the theory.)

I'd say the theory is more like "DID as an extension of PTSD -- alters (at least EPs) are basically elaborated flashbacks" than "PTSD as lesser DID". Since PTSD's EP is very limited, like "just some memories and emotions that haven't been integrated and are therefore "stuck" being their own separate thing." I’m not really comfortable calling that “multiplicity” any more than saying superegos and ids are multiplicity.

Even the idea of "subjective selfhood" is... weirdly not particularly multiple. It's trying to capture that feeling of "I am, in the first person present tense, back in the trauma (or at least, feeling its emotions)" -- that's seen as enough to make up a "different self", even though that "self" is by definition incapable of holding attributes like "a separate identity". Nijenhuis’ response to Ross covers some of the specificities about his view of “selfhood” (pages 66-67) (and he’s The Philosopher of the bunch, so I imagine the selfhood stuff is coming largely from him ;P). It’s a really phenomenological argument that feels less about personhood than it does about experiences of perception?

So, that all brings up a problem around "these are EPs because they literally have a first-person perspective, and these other symptoms are e.g. just non-structurally dissociated intrusive thoughts"? Ross leans hard into "maybe it's all SD?" (elsewhere he's argued that almost all mental illness is somehow traumagenic :V) Hence DP/DR potentially being two ANPs (which... doesn’t make sense to me, since structural dissociation is all about “avoidance of EP material”), but that’s more Ross throwing out some way to use SD to explain DP/DR, not so much an accepted part of the theory. 

(And I’m emphasizing that it’s Ross because he’s, uh, disreputable in quite a lot of ways or at least he should be, but he keeps showing up in dissociation research huh? Like he’s headed in the direction of trying to explain schizophrenia as structural dissociation, too, which... I’m sure the structural dissociation authors are Not Happy With. :V)

And heh yeah, a lot of depictions of EPs are not very nice, about being trapped in thoughtless trauma reactions etc. Which I think characterizes how EPs act in PTSD, CPTSD, and BPD (and tbf, ANP really is more “apparently normal (but therefore pretty abnormal)” than “almost normal” -- there’s a lot of ways that ANPs are meant to be similarly “trapped” and running on instinct, e.g. fear of EPs). Sorta a problem with their generalizations, I guess? There are a lot of ways that trying to identify specific system members as ANP or EP falls apart, and that whole “EPs = functioning at a “lower” more immediately threatened level” is part of it. That could characterize when people with DID have flashbacks, but then does that make a non-flashing-back trauma-holder less of an EP?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Which I guess is part of the way I see it, the theory of structural dissociation as being about minimizing the idea of DID as “look, multiple people in one body!” Everyone is parts, because “the personality” is the overall thing; there are no “multiple personalities” -- elaboration (i.e. parts having personal identities, ages, etc.) (which is bad, ofc) is a spectrum, therefore it’s okay to lump OSDD-1 with BPD and CPTSD under “secondary structural dissociation” and treat them pretty similarly (which!! calling it a spectrum is potentially pretty interesting!! but that’s not how the authors address it 🙃) -- alters and flashbacks are in some way “similar things” -- etc.

I can imagine the “spectrum of elaboration/emancipation” thing almost recognizing a pretty broad definition of “(traumagenic) plurality”, but that would require the theorists wanting to claim that DID is multiplicity-as-in-separate-people in the first place, bleh.

- Ace

#syscourse sorta #special interest: structural dissociation #long post #all the asides make me think that there's some Thomas leaking through here but if he is he's not 100% awake yet :V #hopefully it's not too rambly

[thunderoad]

I think that's the point tho like sure Harry won fair and square but that's because the award was skewed in his favor. The award was literally invented for one direction to win, so the stakes aren't balanced. They didn't invent an award that little mix could easily win the and reason why is because people aren't predisposed to giving women credit for their success the way they do for men

definitely! i agree that he had a massive advantage (being a former member of 1d) over any of his competitors for a fan-voted award, and i totally agree that sexism is deeply-rooted in every aspect of our culture and society. but i also think that framing harry’s win as having a one-to-one correlation with sexism is an oversimplification. (also btw the brits have been awarding the british video of the year since 1985, albeit with a hiatus from 2003-2013, when 1d started winning it.) 

the thing is, if you institute a one to one correlation between a man winning and sexism, which is what i think the original post implied, then you have to totally disregard the efficacy of every vote, and everyone who voted. again, i’m NOT saying that sexism (and racism for that matter) hasn’t had a degenerative impact. and representation is a huge issue: of those artists nominated since 2014, only 6 were women. but feminism argues that all genders ought to be equal, not that we ought to invert the current misogynistic power structure and subjugate men. 

people turned out to vote, and in order to uphold a democratic system like a vote, you have to respect what they voted for; if it’s a shitshow (like, say, the 2016 american election) then that’s certainly indicative of factors such as sexism, internalized misogyny, racism, classism, ableism, and a whole host of other issues. however, these are also deeply embedded in our culture and society, and even to imagine what the world would be like without them would push our conversation into sheer hypotheticals. so we can’t disregard the results of a vote in the first place; what we can do is take the results as an indication of what issues are present whether we acknowledge them or not. to decide that voters can’t represent themselves at all is to reject democracy and institute an autocracy, which we certainly don’t want, either. 

ideally, the winner and all of their competitors will have been presented with the same opportunities, advantages, and privileges. we obviously don’t live in that idyll, but democracy in itself is still a valid idea. our job isn’t to decide what the results should be, but to ensure that the people who vote represent (and are representative of) the values we uphold. again, that’s obviously not the case of the world that we live in, but the same people who voted just now will be voting for years to come, and you’re gonna want those votes to mean something! at its best, a democratic institution such as a vote is still our best means of assessing public opinion. 

sexism and misogyny weigh in favor of everybody who’s not a man. we see proof of that in every corner of everyday life. but in order for the system to be feminist, a man’s gotta have an equal shot, just like everybody else. that means he’s gonna lose a lot, but he’s also gonna win sometimes. unfortunately, we don’t get to decide which instances are deserved and which occur as a consequence of voter bias. however, and again, a feminist response to that problem isn’t just to dictate that men lose, but to ensure that other genders have a fair shot, which consequently will result in men losing more often.

so to get back to your point, i FULLY agree that little mix were biased against, as sexism and racism implicitly and explicitly bias us as a society against everybody who’s not of a certain type (white man). and, personally, no, i don’t think harry deserved to win; the dude didn’t even turn up to collect his award, and they also got a lot more production value, i thought, out of their fairly low-budget video than harry did out of a much larger budget, never mind its applicability to the subject matter or the song itself. 

all i’m saying in these many, many words is that a vote is still a vote, and i still want these democratic processes to count for something when the tide begins to turn and women and other genders start edging out male mediocrity so that the best man, woman, or other gender can rightly win. and that changes with voters, not with disregarding the vote entirely.

#[arwa voice] shut up sav #anon

[wineanddinosaur]

The New York Sommelier Dedicated to Creating a Better, More Inclusive Restaurant Scene

“I remember when I started working in restaurants, people would say, ‘Oh, I’ve never been served by a guy in a wheelchair,’” Yannick Benjamin says.

Benjamin was in a car accident and paralyzed from the waist down in 2003. An Advanced Sommelier with the Court of Sommeliers, he’s worked at NYC fine dining restaurants Jean-Georges, Le Cirque, and Oceana, and is currently head sommelier at Manhattan’s University Club.

“I hope that, one day, it becomes just as normal as being served wine by someone who is able-bodied,” he adds.

Courtesy of Yannick Benjamin

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires such public-facing businesses as bars and restaurants to be accessible to people with disabilities. The law is inconsistently enforced, however, and many bars and restaurants are extraordinarily difficult for disabled folks to navigate. Entrances might be up short flights of stairs, or bathroom stalls too small to fit a wheelchair inside.

How pervasive is this problem? On May 22, 2019, Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema said he will start including accessibility information in his restaurant reviews — otherwise, D.C. diners who are disabled or have limited mobility have no way of knowing what they’re in for when they go out to eat.

“Typically, the hostess stand has been designed specifically for non-wheelchair users, which means I’m way too short to speak comfortably with the host or hostess,” Ace Ratcliff, who uses a wheelchair, writes in Eater.

Nineteen percent of the U.S. population is disabled, so some 56.7 million Americans can’t reliably look their host or hostess in the eye. These figures are startling, especially when you consider restaurants are in the hospitality business. Retrofitting bathrooms and foyers is expensive, but so is alienating entire swaths of the population. (There’s also basic decency to consider, but, unfortunately, that doesn’t always inspire company budgets.)

Inclusion is important to Benjamin. He’s the co-founder and director of development of Wheeling Forward, a nonprofit organization that supports newly disabled people. Its hospitality-focused offshoot, Wine on Wheels, raises capital and awareness for disabled people in the wine industry.

In April 2019, Wine on Wheels organized a panel discussion on diversity and inclusion moderated by Jackie Summers, writer and owner of Jack from Brooklyn Sorel Artisanal Liqueur.

“Yannick is an incredible human being,” Summers says. “He wants to make sure other people have the ability, the resources, and the support to do what he does. That’s what makes him spectacular. He’s not just doing this for himself. He’s making sure other people can do it, too.”

Courtesy of Yannick Benjamin

The panel discussed racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, ageism, and pretty much every other way identity politics intersect with hospitality professionals’ work.

The conversation about ageism resonated with Benjamin. “You go to restaurants, and I can’t even tell you, it’s very rare that I get served by or meet someone working who’s over the age of 50. That’s something that, going forward, I want to focus on as well,” he says.

Still, he’s quick to note that tokenism is not the solution to the lack of diversity in bars and restaurants. If he had his own restaurant, he says, he would happily hire candidates over 50 years old if they were qualified and capable, not to prove a point about inclusion.

“I don’t want to be hired because, ‘Oh yeah, let’s hire Yannick Benjamin because we need a guy in a wheelchair, it will be a great look for us,’” he says. “I’m hoping when they hire me … it’s based on merit, because I have experience, because I really want the job, and they think I offer a lot of value.”

Like many of us, Benjamin has gone on a job interview and immediately sensed he wasn’t going to be offered the position. Some interviewers couldn’t figure out how a sommelier could do their work in a wheelchair, he recalls. Instead of asking him about it, they simply silently eliminated him from the running.

“No one should ever be forced to hire anyone they don’t want to hire. No one is saying that,” Benjamin notes. There’s a near-constant need for staff in the restaurant business, however; so companies looking for talent would benefit from identifying qualified applicants’ strengths.

Benjamin, for example, created a custom table that he attaches to his chair to use during service in restaurants, and can easily demonstrate how he does his job to interested interviewers. “At the very least, everyone should have some kind of strategic plan to give each and every single [applicant] an opportunity to present themselves,” he says.

Jermaine Stone, president and CEO of Cru Luv Selections, says Benjamin “has so much foresight and empathy, and a genuine drive to change the game and help people.” Stone participated in the Wine on Wheels panel Benjamin organized in NYC in April. “He’s so well-respected because he just constantly pays it forward,” Stone says of Benjamin’s impact on the industry.

Courtesy of Yannick Benjamin

A few days after I attended that Wine on Wheels panel and began reporting this story, I wanted to invite Benjamin to an industry event. I called the venue first to ask if it was wheelchair accessible, and, in doing so, mistakenly gave the receptionist the impression that I use a wheelchair. In an instant, her telephone demeanor changed.

“Ohhh, yes!” she cooed. “There’s an elevator! And a ramp you can use! Absolutely!” This information was useful, and I was glad the venue was indeed wheelchair accessible. Still, I was jarred by how suddenly her tone went from professional detachment to something reminiscent of the one I use with my young nieces and nephews.

I didn’t tell Benjamin about this interaction, but it stuck with me. “Do I think that people are not trying to be open-minded about having more diversity in restaurants and wine?” he asked on a call a few weeks later. “I don’t think that’s the case. I think there’s a lack of mentorship and I think there’s a lack of self-awareness.”

The secret to creating a more equitable industry — and society — is not implementing hiring policies or quotas. It’s recognizing capabilities outside of our own conventions. It’s being open to what other people can bring to the literal or metaphorical table. It’s getting comfortable with being different, and having the confidence to reconsider what hospitality actually means.

The article The New York Sommelier Dedicated to Creating a Better, More Inclusive Restaurant Scene appeared first on VinePair.

source https://vinepair.com/articles/yannick-benjamin-sommelier/