On The Origin Of Headmates

[xXRonPaul_42020Xx]

You're kidding, right?

Nope. Why do you find this hard to believe?

As Marvin said, this shit is on the fringes of psychiatry. There are many in the mainstream who not only don't think it is truly legitimate, but its therapist induced. It's one of the most controversial subjects in the field.

There are many in the mainstream of psychiatry who consider giving toddlers amphetamines to be a good idea too. It has very little to do with the actual evidence. There was/is a large campaign against Doctors who openly speak about or treat DID.

You are referencing something completely different. The debate over DID is a debate over whether dissociative states exist in such a complex form and postulating that patients believed to have DID had simpler dissociative disorders but were encouraged by psychiatrists into acting as though they had this form

First off, there is something called "Labelling Theory". Therapists "encourage" patients into showing signs of all kinds of illnesses, this is only considered evidence against that disease existing in cases of MPD. Second, lots of people draw a distinction between DID and MPD on that exact same line. No, complex alters do not occur in normal garden variety DID. MPD is not just the result of trauma it is the result of intentionally torturing/drugging/hypnotising someone with the explicit purpose of creating alters. You can debate if this is possible, you cannot debate that large amounts of money have been funnelled into this research by the US Govt. Look up the testimony of Regina Louf if you want a "credible" source. Or http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/07/fbi-uncovers-red-state-sex-dungeon-ring.html if you want a more recent example of how these techniques are being used.

So basically it comes down to this, either fuckloads of money and manpower were dumped into developing this technology THEN massive amounts of people came forward, all suffering from the psychiatrist created delusion of being a victim of these techniques. Or there are real victims of mind control who are largely being silenced and ignored.

 

[AnOminous]

Nope. Why do you find this hard to believe?

For one thing, you cited a lunatic site, ritualabuse.us, which is run by crazy people who believe there is a Satanic conspiracy of cultists who ritually abuse and rape people and cover it up, and that this is magically discovered by "therapists" who then uncover "suppressed memories" of this shit.

Only crazy people believe shit like that.

 

[xXRonPaul_42020Xx]

For one thing, you cited a lunatic site, ritualabuse.us, which is run by crazy people who believe there is a Satanic conspiracy of cultists who ritually abuse and rape people and cover it up... Only crazy people believe shit like that.

Which is why if you take up the most superficial aspects of "Satanism" then your crimes become too crazy to believe and victims are too scared to come forward. Even when they do they arent believed.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/370439/Jimmy-Savile-was-part-of-satanic-ring
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...le-ring-ritually-raped-up-to-25-children.html

and that this is magically discovered by "therapists" who then uncover "suppressed memories" of this shit.

No, this is a disinfo campaign. There is nothing but anecdotal evidence of recovered memories of these things, the evidence for ritual abuse and mind control doesnt come from recovered memories or hypnosis but from people very straightforwardly reporting their experiences. The whole idea of therapists recovering fake memories was created by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, mainly to be used a legal defense in child abuse cases.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

To help get us back to the topic I think that headmates are more close to Tulpas than DID but on tumblr making a Tulpa isn't seen very positively so they claim that it is DID. I think that creating a Tulpa can be quite productive but headmates don't give the same self awareness because they are a constant act of self deception

 

[Mesh Gear Fox]

The whole idea of therapists recovering fake memories was created by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, mainly to be used a legal defense in child abuse cases

Do you live on planet Earth?

 

[Tranhuviya]

@xXRonPaul_42016Xx

Do you really believe in the "testimonies" of these victims as indisputable fact? If I was a criminal, baby-raping Satanist or no, I'm sure I wouldn't take the little shits up in a hot-air balloon and dig tunnels. Such actions seem rather...overcomplex, when you could just perform the evil baby-rape satanic rituals out in the back.

I suppose you also think Michelle Remembers is 100 percent honest-to-god truth.

 

[xXRonPaul_42020Xx]

@xXRonPaul_42016Xx

Do you really believe in the "testimonies" of these victims as indisputable fact? If I was a criminal, baby-raping Satanist or no, I'm sure I wouldn't take the little shits up in a hot-air balloon and dig tunnels. Such actions seem rather...overcomplex, when you could just perform the evil baby-rape satanic rituals out in the back.

I suppose you also think Michelle Remembers is 100 percent honest-to-god truth.

I believe there have been enough overlapping testimonies to confidently say that it is real. Ive never seen read Michelle Remembers but I do know Regina Louf was able to very very accurately describe details of the Dutroux case.

Look into the Dutroux case and then tell me that organized abuse doesnt exist.

 

[norrington]

I believe there have been enough overlapping testimonies to confidently say that it is real. Ive never seen read Michelle Remembers but I do know Regina Louf was able to very very accurately describe details of the Dutroux case.

Look into the Dutroux case and then tell me that organized abuse doesnt exist.

By that logic, alien abductions, prophetic holy visions, and past life regression are all real.

On the other hand, I think the 'does some form of Multiple exist or are they just faking' debate is sort of useless, since with any mental illness, at least one verifiable, respected and well-informed psychologist has suggested that it's made up. I read a really long one about how schizophrenia is self-induced as a way to avoid dealing with the responsibilities of adulthood.

Frankly, debating whether or not a disease of the mind exists is much less productive than debating whether or not the current method of treatment is helpful or harmful. If psychologists believe it's a disease induced by psychologists, and therefore that acknowledging and continuing to interact with the patient is somehow doing more harm, then they should disavow it. But even if it is created by psychologists, calling it made-up may not be the most effective way to treat it.

In the end, even if the patient's doing it on purpose, you have to be some kind of psychologically abnormal to do that shit, so you need some kind of treatment regardless; I don't see how figuring out where the alternative personalities are coming from and whether they're genuinely felt or made up is worth while.

Especially considering the fact that our minds can convince us something is true if we think it long and hard enough; the question then becomes whether any individual patient truly considers it real, whether they're distressed by it, whether they're functioning in day to day life with or without it, et cetera. In the end, multiple personalities is probably a delusion under a larger 'general delusion' umbrella, just like clinical lycanthropy is a culturally influenced form of delusional psychosis that is ultimately just an eyecatching subset of regular, non-werewolfy delusional psychoses.

 

[Marvin]

By that logic, alien abductions, prophetic holy visions, and past life regression are all real.

On the other hand, I think the 'does some form of Multiple exist or are they just faking' debate is sort of useless, since with any mental illness, at least one verifiable, respected and well-informed psychologist has suggested that it's made up. I read a really long one about how schizophrenia is self-induced as a way to avoid dealing with the responsibilities of adulthood.

Frankly, debating whether or not a disease of the mind exists is much less productive than debating whether or not the current method of treatment is helpful or harmful. If psychologists believe it's a disease induced by psychologists, and therefore that acknowledging and continuing to interact with the patient is somehow doing more harm, then they should disavow it. But even if it is created by psychologists, calling it made-up may not be the most effective way to treat it.

In the end, even if the patient's doing it on purpose, you have to be some kind of psychologically abnormal to do that shit, so you need some kind of treatment regardless; I don't see how figuring out where the alternative personalities are coming from and whether they're genuinely felt or made up is worth while.

Especially considering the fact that our minds can convince us something is true if we think it long and hard enough; the question then becomes whether any individual patient truly considers it real, whether they're distressed by it, whether they're functioning in day to day life with or without it, et cetera. In the end, multiple personalities is probably a delusion under a larger 'general delusion' umbrella, just like clinical lycanthropy is a culturally influenced form of delusional psychosis that is ultimately just an eyecatching subset of regular, non-werewolfy delusional psychoses.

The question of whether or not it's "real" is another way of saying "is there a possibility they can consciously control (and thus eliminate) it?"

Assuming they can't control it, then our only option is to provide ways to mitigate it.

On the other hand, if it isn't "real", then telling them to grow up might be more effective than justifying their behavior by treating it as a legitimate disorder, one worthy of respect. Giving a fake disorder respect gives crybabies another topic to cry about. "I'm disabled ", they say. If you respond with "you're faking it and we're not going to entertain your delusions", that might just be what's best in that situation.

Not in all situations, of course. It's a complex topic. Like it might be worth being more considerate of, say, addicts. Sure addiction is physically controllable, but it's incredibly difficult to control, so maybe it might be helpful to be less judgmental and more considerate when dealing with addicts.

I think about this a lot because I wonder about the ethics of using placebos as treatments. I am always arguing against goofy alt medicine, and a common response is "well if it helps improve their lives, who are you to tell them it's not real??"

And that argument can be hard to respond to.

 

[norrington]

The question of whether or not it's "real" is another way of saying "is there a possibility they can consciously control (and thus eliminate) it?"

Assuming they can't control it, then our only option is to provide ways to mitigate it.

On the other hand, if it isn't "real", then telling them to grow up might be more effective than justifying their behavior by treating it as a legitimate disorder, one worthy of respect. Giving a fake disorder respect gives crybabies another topic to cry about. "I'm disabled ", they say. If you respond with "you're faking it and we're not going to entertain your delusions", that might just be what's best in that situation.

Not in all situations, of course. It's a complex topic. Like it might be worth being more considerate of, say, addicts. Sure addiction is physically controllable, but it's incredibly difficult to control, so maybe it might be helpful to be less judgmental and more considerate when dealing with addicts.

I think about this a lot because I wonder about the ethics of using placebos as treatments. I am always arguing against goofy alt medicine, and a common response is "well if it helps improve their lives, who are you to tell them it's not real??"

And that argument can be hard to respond to.

Well, yeah, I think the addiction comparison is somewhat valid, especially since certain addictive drugs are no more physically addictive than fast food; cocaine, for instance, has minimal physical withdrawal symptoms. The addiction is almost entirely psychological, so cocaine addicts should be able to get over it on their own, yet treating them via rehab is considered no less valid than treating an opiate addict who suffers from crippling physical withdrawal symptoms upon cessation.

As far as giving them something to cry about, if the biggest concern is that it'll give random idiots something to cry about on the internet, then you've lost, since they're gonna find something to cry about regardless because they're aching for sympathy anyway. As far as giving them something to feel sorry for themselves about within the scope of psychological treatment, no psychologist or psychiatrist worth their salt is going to encourage that; it's harmful to the recovery process no matter the disorder, to say oh well I have this disorder therefore I am no longer liable for my actions or wrongdoings.

That's not the purpose of naming a psychological disorder; the purpose is so that psychological research can effectively catalog the same groups of people with the same symptoms and figure out which treatments do and don't work for them (and you know, file with insurance or whatever). So the only debate over whether or not a disorder should be considered valid is almost purely a matter of "does this disorder merit a separate treatment with distinct nuances from a treatment which is the standard for another disorder this disorder might otherwise be a subcategory of." How much personal control they have is irrelevant since if they merit treatment to the extent that the psych would be willing to diagnose a full blown disorder, it's already disrupting their day to day lives; if it were somehow beneficial to them (outside of the way that it's beneficial in the fucked up backwards logic of a mind trapped in deep depression/addiction) to keep it going, they wouldn't be seeking treatment. Alternatively, if it weren't beneficial to them and they had control over it, they'd've stopped doing it.

I mean, no psychological treatment is going to amount to "oh I see, you're secretly just a big fat lying liarface and need to get over yourself." Because it doesn't help anything.

As far as the ethics of placebos go, I'm not even sure why you oppose placebo treatments when they're shown to be effective. If you oppose everything that's effective or useful in certain controlled scenarios, but is simultaneously frequently subject to excessive overuse and has the potential to ruin lives, what's your argument against prohibition, or the banning of the prescribed medical use of opiates in the treatment of chronic and/or severe pain, or a government ban on religion?

TL;DR- Debating whether or not a psychological disorder is real or not is best left to the psychologists. All the rest is just you getting annoyed by what someone else chooses to do with their life and the fact that they cook up bullshit reasons to justify their actions; acting like you have the scientific higher ground in the argument is no more relevant or realistic than them claiming to have a fake diagnosis in the first place.

 

[Marvin]

Well, yeah, I think the addiction comparison is somewhat valid, especially since certain addictive drugs are no more physically addictive than fast food; cocaine, for instance, has minimal physical withdrawal symptoms. The addiction is almost entirely psychological, so cocaine addicts should be able to get over it on their own, yet treating them via rehab is considered no less valid than treating an opiate addict who suffers from crippling physical withdrawal symptoms upon cessation.

I actually don't take cocaine addiction seriously for that very reason.

As far as giving them something to cry about, if the biggest concern is that it'll give random idiots something to cry about on the internet, then you've lost, since they're gonna find something to cry about regardless because they're aching for sympathy anyway.

Oh no, I'm not talking about internet dumbasses. They're a lost cause.

As far as the ethics of placebos go, I'm not even sure why you oppose placebo treatments when they're shown to be effective.

The placebo itself is ineffective. It's the act of taking the placebo that is effective, and even then, not so much. There are ethical issues about informed consent with actually trying to "treat" someone with placebos. At the end of the day, I don't think lying to people about the nature of their treatment is a net positive.

TL;DR- Debating whether or not a psychological disorder is real or not is best left to the psychologists. All the rest is just you getting annoyed by what someone else chooses to do with their life and the fact that they cook up bullshit reasons to justify their actions; acting like you have the scientific higher ground in the argument is no more relevant or realistic than them claiming to have a fake diagnosis in the first place.

I think you're misunderstanding my position. I distinguish being annoyed by someone's behavior from finding someone's behavior worthy of mockery. I think when you're annoyed by someone's behavior, it affects you a lot more personally.

I'm not annoyed by people claiming to have multiple personality, I mock them. Of course, the assumption I make is that multiple personality isn't scientifically justifiable. However, if it is scientifically justifiable (and I do leave that debate up to qualified professionals), then I'd admit I was wrong.

I find multiple personality to be silly in the same way that homeopathic medicine is silly.

 

[norrington]

I actually don't take cocaine addiction seriously for that very reason.

Oh no, I'm not talking about internet dumbasses. They're a lost cause.

The placebo itself is ineffective. It's the act of taking the placebo that is effective, and even then, not so much. There are ethical issues about informed consent with actually trying to "treat" someone with placebos. At the end of the day, I don't think lying to people about the nature of their treatment is a net positive.

I think you're misunderstanding my position. I distinguish being annoyed by someone's behavior from finding someone's behavior worthy of mockery. I think when you're annoyed by someone's behavior, it affects you a lot more personally.

I'm not annoyed by people claiming to have multiple personality, I mock them. Of course, the assumption I make is that multiple personality isn't scientifically justifiable. However, if it is scientifically justifiable (and I do leave that debate up to qualified professionals), then I'd admit I was wrong.

I find multiple personality to be silly in the same way that homeopathic medicine is silly.

Placebo shit:

Yeah, it is a tough question to parse apart, ethically, but I think a lot of it is tied to the economics of medicine.

I mean, I don't think there's anything unethical about a doctor saying 'take this pill, it'll cure you' if there have been double blind scientific medical studies showing that it will; I understand what you're getting at, with the argument that we have a right to know what it is we're taking, and in that scenario, if the patient were to reply 'hang on, how does this work exactly and what is it made of' then the ethics of making up some bullshit claim to convince them would be unethical, I think? Because at that point it's not a statement of fact backed by verifiable research (unlike the earlier 'you taking this pill will help you, it's scientifically proven to not have any potentially adverse side effects'), it's obscuring or misleading the patient as a means to an end. I think at that point, a doctor is obligated to say that it's more or less a placebo, and the treatment becomes a non-option, more or less. Still, I don't think the patient asking those precise sorts of questions and putting the doctor in a position where they'd have to lie is the normal situation, and given the fact that placebo effect is rarely going to be more effective than any viable alternative (and it's certainly not going to be lifesaving), I don't see as much of an ethical issue from that standpoint.

An issue does arise, though, when you consider that the patient is paying for sugar pills out of their own pocket. But that's a whole different can of worms.

The actual argument at hand:

It's fine if you think it's silly, based on what you've said, it sounds like you think a lot of principles of psychological treatment and diagnosis is silly (and not without some justification, of course, psychology is such a massively fuzzy and difficult-to-verify field of study that questioning the validity of the basis of most psychological treatments is valid), like with the treatment of cocaine addicts. I think my problem was more with the basis of the argument and the general wording, I guess?

Like, psychologists doubt the validity of it as a distinct disorder, but they don't doubt that the people coming to them for treatment claiming to have six distinct personalities in their brain are some kind of disordered and in need of help. Ergo, using 'psychologists doubt whether it's a real disorder' is sort of misleading in the context of the argument that's being made here, I guess is what I've been pushing back against.

But that's whatever, really, it's basically semantics after a certain point, so I appreciate you entertaining my nitpicky bullshit here. I don't agree with a lot of your views of psychological treatment and disorders, I think, but I'm pretty sure if we actually got into all that shit we'd find that our differences of opinion are rooted in fundamental differences in how we see shit like morality, human nature, whatever the fuck, and Christ knows you can debate that shit for decades. If you want to, I mean, I'm game, but we might need a different thread and/or topic to get into that shit.

 

[Marvin]

It's fine if you think it's silly, based on what you've said, it sounds like you think a lot of principles of psychological treatment and diagnosis is silly (and not without some justification, of course, psychology is such a massively fuzzy and difficult-to-verify field of study that questioning the validity of the basis of most psychological treatments is valid), like with the treatment of cocaine addicts. I think my problem was more with the basis of the argument and the general wording, I guess?

To me, the biggest problem is that psychology is a pretty young science.

I have friends with serious, legit psychological problems. I watch them having to deal really subpar treatments. But honestly, those subpar treatments are better than nothing. So I do understand the "something is better than nothing" idea.

I think it's important to keep in mind the bigger picture: that, while something is better than nothing, our ultimate goal is to improve the state of the art.

Like, psychologists doubt the validity of it as a distinct disorder, but they don't doubt that the people coming to them for treatment claiming to have six distinct personalities in their brain are some kind of disordered and in need of help. Ergo, using 'psychologists doubt whether it's a real disorder' is sort of misleading in the context of the argument that's being made here, I guess is what I've been pushing back against.

If someone's fucked up enough to go to a shrink, there's probably something to investigate. I would imagine their shrink would kick them out pretty quickly if there wasn't anything of substance. I trust the doctor's competence.

I mostly approach the topic from the perspective of someone who rides public transit a lot. I ride public transit a lot and I meet lots of weirdos there. (I've had local bums give me nicknames, for example.)

If someone on a bus is telling me they're multiple personality, I'm going to be incredulous, to say the least.

 

[AnOminous]

I actually don't take cocaine addiction seriously for that very reason.

The after effects are actually very serious. Cocaine both desensitizes the brain to the normal neurotransmitters mediating pleasure and, at the same time, exhausts the brain's supply of them. It takes a long time for the brain to return to normal levels, but much longer for it to react normally to those levels.

The result is a very lengthy period of not being able to enjoy anything at all. This anhedonia, as it is called, is a very strong motivator for relapse. The relapse rate for cocaine is pretty terrible, just as it is for alcohol or opiates.

 

[Marvin]

The after effects are actually very serious. Cocaine both desensitizes the brain to the normal neurotransmitters mediating pleasure and, at the same time, exhausts the brain's supply of them. It takes a long time for the brain to return to normal levels, but much longer for it to react normally to those levels.

The result is a very lengthy period of not being able to enjoy anything at all. This anhedonia, as it is called, is a very strong motivator for relapse. The relapse rate for cocaine is pretty terrible, just as it is for alcohol or opiates.

The more you know...

 

[norrington]

(I've had local bums give me nicknames, for example.)

Off topic, but would you care to share some of these nicknames if you remember any of them, and maybe some descriptions of the people who gave them to you? Now you got me curious.

Also, I'd say comparing the internet to public transit is one of the most valid comparisons ever made on this site, except for the fact that most of us spend an inappropriate amount of time here willingly as opposed to out of necessity.

As far as the cocaine bit goes, I'd never heard the medical term for it or anything about neurological research into the pleasure-receptor aspect of it; I assumed there was just as much dysphoria and depression post-cessation as there was with amphetamine use (maybe more?) but I'd never heard about the research providing it with a physiological foundation.

 

[xXRonPaul_42020Xx]

By that logic, alien abductions, prophetic holy visions, and past life regression are all real.

Aliens are real. So are prophetic visions. But that is beside the point. The point being that there is a lot of clinical evidence for the reality of MPD, if all of the eye witness accounts of this happening dont mean anything to you.
http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(06)00388-X/abstract
http://www.onnovdhart.nl/articles/Moleman_Hart94.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pro/34/1/116/

I don't see how figuring out where the alternative personalities are coming from and whether they're genuinely felt or made up is worth while.

So, you dont see any point at all in identifying the causes of a disease?

Especially considering the fact that our minds can convince us something is true if we think it long and hard enough; the question then becomes whether any individual patient truly considers it real, whether they're distressed by it, whether they're functioning in day to day life with or without it, et cetera. In the end, multiple personalities is probably a delusion under a larger 'general delusion' umbrella, just like clinical lycanthropy is a culturally influenced form of delusional psychosis that is ultimately just an eyecatching subset of regular, non-werewolfy delusional psychoses.

Youre making a lot of assertions without referencing any actual research.

 

[Marvin]

Off topic, but would you care to share some of these nicknames if you remember any of them, and maybe some descriptions of the people who gave them to you? Now you got me curious.

Well, there's the guy down by the convenience store who calls me "cheesecake", because I bought a slice of cheesecake there once. Everytime I'm down there, "ey cheesecake, what's going on??"

Another time, I was exiting a liquor store with a 12 pack of beer, and a bum nearby asked me for a brew. So I gave him one and he's been calling me Mr Boh whenever he sees me. (Local brand of beer.)

Spoiler: not really a nickname story, but still funny

Heh, then I got into a religious discussion with some guy on the bus once. I'm not very religious, so the brunt of my argument was "... well, can't you understand why people might not be persuaded by the bible?" It was a meandering discussion, covering religion, pickle styles and society. He was telling me about how all the young people were going to hell, and how "satan is going to have a barbecue with all your souls, unless you repent".

But yeah, at the end of the conversation, he and I agreed to disagree and went our separate ways. But here's the weird part, he started following me after I got off the bus. I don't know, maybe he was going the same way I was going? But while he was following me, he was muttering to himself. Very loudly. He was like 10 yards behind me and I could hear him pretty clearly.

He was saying "satans gonna have a barbecue... satans gonna have a barbecue..." while following me for a few blocks.

Also, I'd say comparing the internet to public transit is one of the most valid comparisons ever made on this site, except for the fact that most of us spend an inappropriate amount of time here willingly as opposed to out of necessity.

Oh yeah, public transit is bonkers.

 

[Jaimas]

Nope. Why do you find this hard to believe?



There are many in the mainstream of psychiatry who consider giving toddlers amphetamines to be a good idea too. It has very little to do with the actual evidence. There was/is a large campaign against Doctors who openly speak about or treat DID.



First off, there is something called "Labelling Theory". Therapists "encourage" patients into showing signs of all kinds of illnesses, this is only considered evidence against that disease existing in cases of MPD. Second, lots of people draw a distinction between DID and MPD on that exact same line. No, complex alters do not occur in normal garden variety DID. MPD is not just the result of trauma it is the result of intentionally torturing/drugging/hypnotising someone with the explicit purpose of creating alters. You can debate if this is possible, you cannot debate that large amounts of money have been funnelled into this research by the US Govt. Look up the testimony of Regina Louf if you want a "credible" source. Or http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/07/fbi-uncovers-red-state-sex-dungeon-ring.html if you want a more recent example of how these techniques are being used.

So basically it comes down to this, either fuckloads of money and manpower were dumped into developing this technology THEN massive amounts of people came forward, all suffering from the psychiatrist created delusion of being a victim of these techniques. Or there are real victims of mind control who are largely being silenced and ignored.

I already covered the origin of headmates pretty simply. Because people want to be special snowflakes and will make shit up to be them.

Here, though, let me drag that canard out back and stab it several times for you though:

Are Headmates/Multiple Systems Real?

No.

There has never been a single credible, peer-reviewed study conducted by reputable scientists proving the veracity of any claim espoused by the Multiple System community. Indeed, a number of Multiple Systems that have been closely-analyzed by professionals indicate that they are, as many have suspected, essentially faking their symptoms for attention.[2]

A fascinating peer-reviewed research paper on Multiplicity showed the clear disconnect in the Multiple System community regarding psychiatric analysis; all reputable psychiatrists espouse integrating any splinter personalities when dealing with someone with MPD/DID in order to enable them to live a life with fewer problems down the line; such integration, to a Multiple System, would constitute murder.

 

[xXRonPaul_42020Xx]

I already covered the origin of headmates pretty simply. Because people want to be special snowflakes and will make shit up to be them.

Here, though, let me drag that canard out back and stab it several times for you though:

Your citation links to: https://archive.is/UPgZR and then to https://archive.is/UPgZR on is a Tortoiskin gainer fetishist tumblr, the other is a college essay about how tumblr multiples arent DID. What do either of those have to do with what I was saying?