Thinking about it, they were all about a general phenomenon/belief. I can't recall any scenario where someone said that they disbelieve a specific person's statement about a phenomenon. I think perhaps if it was more permisable for people to question someone directly you'd have fewer posts making broad dismissing statements about X phenomenon.
The problem with specific statements is that they can be taken as attacks. If someone says to someone else, "I don't believe the kids in your system are really kids, they just think they are," it's not exactly a pleasant thing to hear. Take out the "I don't believe" part, as most comments do for brevity, and you have a statement that many systems would adamantly argue against and consider insulting. (Generalized statements aren't really better, though, as people tend to write those with a few specific examples in mind that they just aren't sharing.)
I believe it really does just boil down to disbelief in expressed identity or religion. Kids in systems, SRA or polyfragmented, non-abuse origins, dissociative multiples, spirits, soulbonds, otherkin, astral travelling, the creation of new people, the possibility of fragments or shards that aren't whole individuals, non-sentient system-members, and all sorts of issues that people believe in or don't believe in-- these are all matters that involve either a system or individual member's identity (as a kid, as survivors of abuse, as a spirit, as otherkin, etc.) or spiritual belief (in spirits, in astral travel, in YHWH, in the Goddess, in Yog Sogoth, in no gods at all, in Heaven or Hell, in the existance of other earths, in the existence of only this earth, in science as the only plausible method for finding objective truth, etc.). This is why the arguments can get so volatile: it touches on the most sensitive and highly prized facets of many system's lives (and many singlet's lives, too, for that matter).
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-03-30 03:24 am (UTC)The problem with specific statements is that they can be taken as attacks. If someone says to someone else, "I don't believe the kids in your system are really kids, they just think they are," it's not exactly a pleasant thing to hear. Take out the "I don't believe" part, as most comments do for brevity, and you have a statement that many systems would adamantly argue against and consider insulting. (Generalized statements aren't really better, though, as people tend to write those with a few specific examples in mind that they just aren't sharing.)
I believe it really does just boil down to disbelief in expressed identity or religion. Kids in systems, SRA or polyfragmented, non-abuse origins, dissociative multiples, spirits, soulbonds, otherkin, astral travelling, the creation of new people, the possibility of fragments or shards that aren't whole individuals, non-sentient system-members, and all sorts of issues that people believe in or don't believe in-- these are all matters that involve either a system or individual member's identity (as a kid, as survivors of abuse, as a spirit, as otherkin, etc.) or spiritual belief (in spirits, in astral travel, in YHWH, in the Goddess, in Yog Sogoth, in no gods at all, in Heaven or Hell, in the existance of other earths, in the existence of only this earth, in science as the only plausible method for finding objective truth, etc.). This is why the arguments can get so volatile: it touches on the most sensitive and highly prized facets of many system's lives (and many singlet's lives, too, for that matter).