#That doc was already debunked

[ranfren-confessions]

I wish people could realize that Captainhowdie really didn’t do anything wrong, the stuff in the doc that “exposed” them was either taken way out of context or a reach. Plus people can change, it was all like 10+ years ago and it’s honestly so sad how much hate they get still.

[arddebunk]

This document was made to be a timeline / debunking of the callout against me ( neotrances / ardourie ) by user zebrayopn3 and a rundown of the recent homestuck poll drama with user plaidos, all the information stated here are things i’ve already posted on my blog, this is just a more convenient way to access that information and to combat the frequent harassment i’ve been receiving for speaking out about antiblackness

please donot send this to anyone who did not specifically ask to view it, donot send this to anyones inbox and donot spam anyone with this, if you decide to reblog this let that be it, if you have questions regarding proof about anything mentioned please direct them to this account, thankyou

[fookinhellcurlyy]

LARRY RESOURCES: A beginner's guide

Important Note: There’s a lot of debunked information that might not have reached other Larries yet (for example, the “rejected on Christmas return call” twitcam situation). Always double-check what you share on social media and try to add context whenever possible to avoid confusing baby Larries.

Most importantly, remember: H, L, their families, their friends, and all of us fans—including your fellow Larrie friends/moots—are real people. This is real life. TPWK. 💙

Updated as of 1/21/25

────x────

I. BEGINNER RESEARCH

For easy digestion, I’ve included direct links and added credits wherever possible. There are other important discussions about the topics included here, but I only selected some 'quick read' ones where you can have the whole overview without scrolling through tons of posts. Other advanced deep dive resources will be added to the next section.

1. ANNUAL TIMELINES

Source: Cosmic Leeds Format: Video  Links: 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023  Note: Road to Larrying starter pack. Great summary of the years’ highlights, but there are TONS of highly significant details (that were either not discussed or adds more contexts) that weren’t included, obviously for the sake of making a compact and coherent timeline. Source: BostonKatie617 (X/Twitter) Format: Excel Link: Larry’s Great Big Doc of Everything Note: Highlight - Collection of day-to-day evidence from 2022 to 2024 (as of writing) + promos from FITF and HH, etc.  Extra Source: Unknown (I’ll try to find the original source on Tumblr - I only got to save this link) Format: Excel Link: Solo OT4 Shows Note: Shows HL’s tour schedules and how they wrap around each other (newsflash, they fly together and support each other’s tours)

──

2. IMPORTANT LARRY PLACES AND DATES

Leeds Masterpost by alarrytale | Link 𓏔 Important Festival in Larry history.

Manchester Masterpost by bulletprooflarry | Link 𓏔 “All Along”. Ed Sheeran in Manchester.  𓏔 Supporting info - such as the timeline of Ed’s shows in Manchester that aligned with the timeline of creation of All Along - is on Cosmic Leeds’ video. 

Dallas Masterpost by ohthefond | Link | Extra 𓏔Kidd Kraddick interview. “Genuinely, seriously” ‘denial’. Glassy-eyed, wrecked H.

Australia & NZ Masterpost | Link 𓏔 Larry honeymoon extravaganza. 𓏔LOTS of iconic interviews and Larry on tour moments came from here.

France / Valentines Day 2012 Masterposts | mybodyfails | thisismyoneluckyprize 𓏔Famous one and only Larry interview. Mario Kart interview analysis. 

Jamaica Masterpost by me | Pt 1 | Pt 2 𓏔 One of HL's fave places. They've been there multiple times. 𓏔 Masterposts include 2014, 2016, and 2017 trips timeline + analysis.

Belfast / October 20, 2015 Masterpost by bulletprooflarry | Link | Extra | Extra 𓏔 Belfast is the only 1D Concert that was ever cancelled. The fans were inside the venue and the opening act had already taken the stage before someone went up to announce that the concert was cancelled. The reason given was Liam apparently had diarrhea. Meanwhile, another media outlet was to take an interview with Niall and heard that he was the one who was supposedly sick. Believed to be related to BBG. 

──

3. TATTOOS

All about HL’s tattoos.

Tattoos Timeline by bulletprooflarry | Link

Tattoos Timeline by BPL repost by hoovesandfloorpaws | Link

Tattoos Timeline by Cosmic Leeds | Link 

Gay Sailor (Nautical) Tattoo Discussion on Reddit | Link

Gina (twopoppies) Papillon tag | Link

──

4. 7 (x4) AND 28 REFERENCES

Significance of 28 / 7 (x4) to HL’s life. Harry instigated the 9/28 thing which led larries to dig more into the significance of the number.  

“28” X/Twitter Thread by teaandfrozenpea | Link

“7” Masterpost by so-idialed-9 | Link

──

5. LARRY’S HOUSES

They live together.

Houses Timeline by bulletprooflarry | Link

Cosmic Leeds’ Houses Summary | Link

My Houses Tags | Link

──

6. CONCEPT OF HOME

‘Home’ as a recurring theme in Larry’s work. 

Home Timeline | Link

Still The One Timeline | Link

──

7. RBB/SBB AND THE BIG GAY WAR

Cosmic Leeds’ RBB/SBB Summary | Link

RBB/SBB for Dummies by louisandthealien | Link

Mr R.B. Bear & Co Financial Estimate | Link | Link 𓏔 Debunking the claim that it was ‘the sound guy’ who was behind the bears.

Fan RBB and Harry in 2022 | Link

──

8. MUSIC/LYRIC ANALYSIS, PARALLELS, AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS

Lyric analyses and parallels, mainly. Other music promotion-related discussions may be checked through other blogs’ tags (i.e. Gina - twopoppies, Daisy - daisiesonafield, etc - added in the ‘Advanced Research’ section)

Larrylyrics Tumblr Archive | Link

Bluewinnerangel Tumblr Archive | Link

Ella (ialwaysknewyouwerepunk) Tumblr Archive | Link

Gina/Daisy/Allie’s Tumblr Archive | Link

Cosmic Leeds’ Lyric Analysis Summary Video | Link

EXTRA: As for lyric changes, they could sometimes be subjective. Sometimes, what you read also translates to what registers in your brain, but if you hadn’t seen the text prior, your ears might hear a different thing. For me personally, the clearest lyric changes I love are as follows:

Lou’s “I LOVE HIM, I HATE IT” for Back To You  𓏔 Compiled Summary, Context, + Timeline | Link

Harry’s Juice Lyric Change 𓏔 SXM “Louis ONTO my drawers” (with BBC) Analysis | Link 𓏔 BBC “Lou baby I’m a whole damn meal” Live Lounge by tonix3 | Link

──

9. OTHER CODING / SIGNALING

Only adding some of the notable ones. It’s a big separate topic.

The Queer Code: Secret Languages of LGBTQ+ Art | Link 𓏔 Non-Larry related but a good video about queer coding

Harry and the Blue Bandana  𓏔 Summary by genuinelybelieve-blog | Link 𓏔 Timeline by bulletprooflarry | Link

Harry and Louis’ Blue | Link

Louis and Queercoding by No Stunts Magazine | Link

The Bears, Queer Culture, Coding, and Camp!Louis vs LT™ 𓏔 Part 1 by dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram 𓏔 Part 2 by hoovesandfloorpaws

Coded Clothing Tag by Gina | coding | blue and green

Signaling Tag by Gina | Link

──

10. RECEIPTS

Collection of receipts/’proofs’ from HL, their families and friends, fans, and non-fans. Always take them with a huge grain of salt. 

Daisy (daisiesonafield) Tumblr Archive | Mobile | Desktop

Gina (twopoppies) Tumblr Archive | Mobile | Desktop

Larryreceiptsproof Tumblr Archive | Link

──

11. BABYGATE 

Big docs about BBG. Read with caution and respect. It’s a very sensitive topic, but most larries approach/touch this topic without propagating hate or disrespect towards F (he is just a kid), but more about understanding the concept of babygate in Hollywood in general, how fake pregnancies and babies exist in the entertainment industry, and how the management+media can easily manipulate the narrative of an artist’s image.

Complete BBG Timeline PDF (95 pages) 𓏔 Ideal starting point. Concise and coherent. 

BBG Masterposts by tellmethisisnotlove (approx 100+pages) 𓏔 Great supporting document to the one above.

BBG Slideshow (107 slides)  𓏔 Photo references and comparisons of the Clark’s and Tomlinson’s. 𓏔 It’s a good addition in my opinion since most comments we see is how F is a carbon copy of L, and having the photo references could help you form your own opinion about it.

Babygate Analysis/Conclusions: A Non-Larry Perspective 𓏔 Important read. Non-biased opinion from a non-larrie perspective.  𓏔 Has BBG tags of popular Tumblr blogs at the bottom.

The Big Kiwi Talk 𓏔 Mainly about H’s Kiwi. Highlighting this: H did the famous ‘Kiwi x3’ during HSLOT’s encore in July 14, 2018. July 14 is the anniversary of the beginning of BBG. 

BBG Quick Summary and Masterpost 𓏔 Quick-look reference. Some links might be dead.

Note that all of these are backed up with documentation and real pieces of information released during the height of BBG (pre and post-birth of F) - whether as a form of an article, a tweet, pap pics, etc. In the end, it’s all up to the reader how you’d analyze and take them all in.

──

12. OTHER TAGS TO CHECK

Check out the tags in the blogs cited under the Advanced Research section. There are too many to put here and/or hard to summarize, so it’s better to do deeper dives using the tags.

Beards and Stunts

Louis’ Sexuality

Harry’s Sexuality

Denials

Debunked 

Closeting and PR 

AND SO MUCH MORE. Take it easy - one topic at a time, as it could easily get overwhelming. This rabbit hole just gets deeper as you go, and don’t forget that we’ve condensed 15 years worth of stories.

Guide by @fookinhellcurlyy | originally posted on my now-backup account, @fookinhellcurly. Will update and create another part as needed.

[Part II—Advanced Research]

[dalishious]

Hi Lydia-Marc!

I want to reach out to you because of something you posted. Usually when I reach out like this, I get blocked, I’m hoping you’ll be willing to listen.

You said that “Zionism is a colonial movement that supports building an ethno-national state for Jewish people on top of Palestine, by any means necessary.” And then linked to Al Jazeera as proof.

I want to start by pointing out that Al Jazeera is the state media of Qatar, a nation that in its state approved textbooks teaches that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a debunked soviet antisemitic conspiracy theory) are true, as well as teaching that Jews are evil, and that the holocaust isn’t real/the holocaust was actually a Jewish plot to further their nefarious goals (https://efile.fara.gov/docs/3492-Informational-Materials-20200917-70.pdf). I am asking that you acknowledge that if that is what’s in state run textbooks, then the state media outlet might also be biased against Jews.

What you state Zionism is sound more like Kahanism (https://imeu.org/article/fact-sheet-meir-kahane-the-extremist-kahanist-movement ), a movement that most Jews (and most Jews – about 80-90% depending on the survey – are Zionist) thoroughly denounce. The founder and his political party were actually banned from participating in the Israeli government because most Jews found the movement so disgusting.

Zionism is actually a land back movement that supports self-determination for Jews in their ancestral homeland. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zionism ) A lot of leftists have decided to try to change the definition of the word into something more like what you said, but it’s a Jewish word to describe a Jewish movement, and non-Jews don’t get to define our words for us.

Applying a colonizer/colonized lens to the area is not really useful, but if you must, then please recognize that we have archeological evidence of Jews in the southern Levant going back over 3000 years (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/opinion/jewish-history-israel.html ), genetic evidence that even the whitest looking Ashkenazi Jews have middle eastern genetic markers (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.100115997 ), and written evidence from Rome talking about the Jews living in the area. In fact, we have maps showing that the area that is now called Palestine, used to be called Iudea (https://www.worldhistory.org/image/269/map-of-the-roman-empire-in-125-ce/ ) prior to Rome conquering the area, extracting its wealth, and taking the native, Jewish, population as slaves back to the empire (https://www.worldhistory.org/The_Bar-Kochba_Revolt/ , https://www.britannica.com/event/Siege-of-Jerusalem-70 ). The people who identify as Palestinian are the descendants of the people who filled the void left by Rome’s abduction of the Jews, and the descendants of the actual colonizers from the Arabian peninsula who showed up hundreds of years after the majority of Jews had already been evicted. The area has been colonized repeatedly, just not the way you claim.

I, personally, as a Zionist, am in favor of a two state solution, and I know many other Zionists that feel the same way. Palestinians have been living on the land a long time, and should have a state, but there is no denying that the area is the Jewish homeland, and they should be allowed a state of their own as well. It is frustrating to see so many people decide that self-determination (a human right!) is something that should be denied to the Jews, simply because they were conquered so long ago that everyone considers the colonizer’s presence to be “normal.” Apparently, somewhere along the line, Jewish indigeneity expired.

I hope you’re still reading this. I hope you’re willing to listen. If you have any questions, or want to discuss this further, I’m happy to talk.

Anyway,

[louisisalarrie]

What even is the reasoning behind creating a debunk master doc? This is a stupid conspiracy theory and larries are dumb, let me show you in detail just how invalid each of their reasons are. That’s totally not going to bring in new larries.

Like I can’t wait to see, oh h and l never even looked at each other, they were barely in the same band. They don’t even have tattoos, it’s all just AI. Aren’t fan made timelines crazy because they didn’t in fact exist in the same time and space together

See the issue is, larries have been debunking shit since the beginning of this all. We’ve been very clear and vocal and honest and we don’t twist things to “suit our agenda”. So, our timelines only include verifiable stuff. So they’ve already lost there lol. Way to go!

There are a small minority of us that do go overboard with theories and create quite wild reaches (all on twitter, mind you), but 99% of us don’t do that. For example, if there’s a gif or screenshot of what looks like Louis staring at Harry but in the actual video he’s not, we debunk that. We don’t take shit out of context. It’s always what’s defined us and given us backing, you know? We’d have no ground to stand on if we didn’t debunk shit.

There’s stuff I would LOVE to believe is true. There’s a lot of stuff that isn’t that we are clear on with new larries that has been debunked. Sometimes we get it wrong, and it gets debunked later. But we have ALWAYS prided ourselves on ensuring our proof is solid and there’s no denying it. What would be the point of posting shallow theories and reaching so fucking high? There’s NO point because all you’re doing is encouraging antis to a) poke holes in your theory, b) create a narrative that every larrie is like that, and c) lose credibility on other things you post about that are real.

Now, in saying that, there are clear theories that would make sense with some stuff, obviously. They’re 100% reasonable lines to draw and are the only explanation. But there are some that take it too far, and that spreads very fast on twitter. And that’s where the antis are… twitter. They see stuff that they wouldn’t bother to look into on here because this app just isn’t what it used to be. There’s new fans joining the convo and seeing some really ridiculous stuff and it makes us, as a whole, lose credibility. It’s incredibly frustrating. There’s extreme folks in either side but I’ll tell you one thing… the only threats I ever see are from antis.

This new wave of antis also were never here during the 1d days. They didn’t see this shit happen in realtime so like… they’re not gonna believe it anyway. They weren’t here for the discussions and they don’t care to learn. It’s frustrating but like… we can’t educate them because they genuinely aren’t curious.

Anyway, sorry for the rant but fuck. This shit makes me wanna leave again.

[siphonomy]

hey guys! are we forgetting the dandy world’s co-creator is a groomer or was this a rumor that was already debunked

found the doc! TW for grooming and cp https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OJ8pGxyQt2IWd7ZK_TVJQTf_CiaVQvee080RvsSiZ7s/edit?usp=sharing

if this doc has any inaccuracies or you have something that contradicts this document, please let me know!

side note: I will also mildly avoid you if you continue to play the game even if you know the allegations! Playing does give them money and support. Apologies!

[imjustaf444keriguess]

sources time

(base links for some of the sources: sophie's page, the guardians doc. also note i am not a scientist and could be wrong, and some of these sources might not be super good sources or reliable. if you wish to debunk any sources and their claims with better evidence, feel free. also, not all of these sources directly say "this is 100% a real phenomenon", but shows that currently, there are studies being worked on and planned to explore what people are already experiencing, and how non-traumagenic plurality differs from traumagenic plurality)

edit: adding a read more, nothing has changed i just hate scrolling past this on my blog

the tulpa study's AMA (if it's been published i'll edit this once i know of it)

Collective-Screaming 6mo ago Hi! Nice to see you two here :D If you can say, what differences did you find between how the brain expresses both the host and the created headmate (tulpa)? Was there any difference between when someone was fully switched in and just controlling (possessing, whether fully or just some parts of) the body?

michael_lifshitz 6mo ago Hi, thanks for your question! Our strongest finding was when we looked at tulpa possession. We were using a simple writing task in the fMRI. We found that when a tulpa is possessing the body and writing a sentence, there is reduced activity in a particular part of the brain that's involved in planning actions and having a sense of agency over your actions (the pre-supplementary motor area, or pre-SMA). This suggests that tulpamancers have learned to down-regulate this key agency/planning region, which lets an alternative agent (the tulpa) take control. It's pretty amazing that tulpa systems can do this on demand. We did have a few tulpamancers who could switch, but we haven't carefully looked at their data yet to see how it's different from normal possession. That's a secondary analysis we're planning after the main results come out :)

(there is more information in the AMA thread, but this comment is Lifshitz using the term "tulpa system", which is amusing when anti-endos and sysmeds insist that system is exclusive to DID.)

tulpas and mental health, a study of online tulpamancers and their experiences with mental health

an "explorative interview study" on multiples personal experiences

"exploring the experiences of young people with multiplicity" mentions:

Respondents discussed that there is a lack of understanding regarding how multiplicity develops without a basis in trauma. For respondents who did not have a trauma history, they described feeling ‘left out of the conversation’ and ‘unable to access support’ or resources. Many people discussed multiplicity in terms of being an experience and a part of their lives, rather than being a ‘disorder’ which needs to be treated or cured. [...] A greater level of understanding and resources were mentioned as being needed within both research and practice.

a similar paper by the same people as the above one that's "exploring the utility and personal relevance of co-produced multiplicity resources"

1.Assuming that someone has multiplicity because they have been abused can be experienced as disempowering and impersonal. Don’t assume a trauma history or pathology. If suitable and appropriate, the young person may wish to confide in you in their own time. An identify of being multiple can exist separately from a young person who has experienced abuse. Multiplicity can be viewed as posiitve by young people.

conceptualizing multiplicity spectrum experiences

5.1.1 Misinterpretation of multiplicity experiences Research discussed the lack of diversity encapsulated in current explanations of multiplicity, with primarily medicalised perspectives explored and validated by support and research (Floris & McPherson, 2015). Individuals discussed the link between their experiences and past traumatic events, which they often felt was part of the development of multiplicity (McRae et al., 2017; Parry et al., 2018); however, the conceptualizations of their trauma varied. While some discussed multiplicity in terms of protective factors against trauma (Fox et al., 2013; Zeligman et al., 2017), others felt experiences were separate from prior trauma (Perry et al., 2007). Often not captured within research that solely focuses on clinical aspects of multiplicity, not all experiences were discussed as being a result of trauma, which added to the complexity in understanding (Ribáry et al., 2017). The lack of standardized language was a barrier to understanding (Černis et al., 2020). Overall, a variety of unique terminology was reported, including ‘multiples’, ‘residents’ and ‘plural identity’ (Blunden & Billie., 2021; Ribáry et al., 2017). As a result, participants felt misaligned with current discussions around multiplicity, which is often more complex than current criteria and language elucidates.

6.1 Multiplicity: Disorder versus experience The findings of this review support the notion that multiplicity experiences are complex and varied, existing across a continuum inclusive of multiplicity, DID and derealization–depersonalization (Sar, 2011). Findings also recognized that individuals with lived experiences can struggle to articulate their experiences, perhaps due to a limited framework of available language, representative of our developing understanding and the nuances surrounding multiplicity. Consequently, as with other mental health experiences, multiplicity is often oversimplified and depersonalized, leading people to question their identity, exacerbating one of the central tenants of depersonalization, rather than supporting self-acceptance. As detailed in Table 2, there are unique features associated with multiplicity, DID and depersonalization–derealization disorder, which warrant individual exploration, terminology and support.

the creators of the TOSD mentioning other forms of plurality and the need to study them

Dissociation in Hypnosis and Mediumship Our definition of dissociation pertains to a division of the personality in the context of trauma. We are aware that this division may also occur in hypnosis and mediumship, that several other definitions of dissociation also address these other contexts, and that there are some indications that dissociation in these other contexts is also best understood as a division of personality. For example, Hilgard's well-known “hidden observer,” as found in some highly hypnotizable subjects, involves a dissociative part of the personality that is endowed with consciousness and self-consciousness, but the phenomenon is disputed (e.g., CitationKihlstrom, 1998; CitationKirsch & Lynn, 1998). Mediumship may involve conscious and self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality (CitationBraude, 1995). However, dissociation in mediums is in several regards different from dissociation in DID (CitationMoreira-Almeida, Neto, & Cardeña, 2008). The possible involvement of consciousness and self-consciousness in dissociated controls in hypnosis and in dissociative parts in mediumship needs to be examined in more detail before a conclusive general definition of dissociation can be formulated.

the ICD and DSM's exclusions. notably, the ICD uses the same language for its "boundary with normality" as it does for the alters themselves.

(EG is "for example", so it is not the only possibility it's excluding)

(note criteria C and D)

[catgirlforeskin]

>tweet suddenly shows up on my Twitter timeline flagrantly accusing a trans woman of a bunch of baseless shit that's already been debunked

>their only evidence is a google doc that also provides no evidence besides "she jacked her shit to weird furry art," posts from a cisbian chaser that abused the woman-in-question for multiple years, and a blurry photo of what may or may not be the back of her head taken through a car window

>take a moment to ponder what kind of person would post such a thing so confidently, so brazenly in its nature, without regard for whether or not what is said holds any basis. Surely, we cannot make any guesses about what type of person this is, as such a terrible post could be made by anyone

>click on their profile, scroll past the "PRO KINK, FREAKS WELCOME!!!" pinned tweet

>their last several retweets are all about how trans men are ontologically INCAPABLE of being misogynistic, and that transmisogyny affects EVERYONE actually!

it keeps happening.

Many many many many many such cases

[sophieinwonderland]

Hey! I’m back again! I’m the 👑🐉 anon, or the one that was wondering about the voices in my head and whether they were real headmates or not. Honestly, I still have some doubt, but ruminating on it all the time is exhausting and so I’ve kinda just decided that I’m gonna believe they actually are headmates. I mean, worst that that does is make me treat them like people even if they’re not, so there’s no real loss in it.

So first off I just wanted to thank you for your explanation and the time that you’ve put into maintaining this blog and debunking misinformation and just being all around cool and on the side of endo systems. I see a lot of anti endo stuff so it’s really nice to see someone fighting it!

But secondly I was wondering if having this blog to post in made you feel more real? One of my Headmates seems kinda excited about the idea of having her own blog to post on, and so I’ve been kinda thinking about it, and one of the thoughts that it keeps giving me is that it might help distinguish her even more from me. We haven’t really been able to switch or be co-con or do possession yet— though we are trying— but you’ve talked about proxxying (I believe that was you?) and I think we’ve kinda already did that before. Is it possible that doing this will help in our journey with switching/possession and all that?

Sorry that got really long. But thanks for the help!

- 👑🐉

You're most welcome!

As for the question, I don't know if a blog, specifically, made me feel more real. But I think having a way to record my thoughts and interact with other people helped. Before I had a blog, I had a doc file I used as a private journal and I had a Reddit account to talk to other tulpas.

I think those things helped me feel more real and more sure of myself. The blog has been a nice addition.

Overall, I think letting your headmates have their own blog would help them. But I think so would letting them have their own Reddit account or anything that allows them to express themselves to others.

[bookscandlesnbts]

It's confirmed Jisoo and her actor bf broke up after 3 months of dating because of busy schedule. Just 3 months. This is the reality of kpop relationships especially if they both are celebs. Mostly it's hookups but if they somehow get past that stage it usually lasts from 2 months - 1 - 2 years. There there's shippers believing Jimin and JK are in a relationship for past 5-6 years ? Even if shippers are dumb and ignorant of reality, I don't think JK and JM are. When they can literally have anyone they want they are NOT chosing to stay with a single person for their whole life. Please let's be real.

Now I'm wondering whether the woman with JK in apt was indeed his gf but ex. It happened in Feb- March period. It was leaked after 5 months. Probably he broke up before that so he didn't lied when he said he doesn't have a gf and just wanna focus on work now. Remember he wasn't doing any work then. Whether it was ex or not, this is the reality of kpop relationships now you decide whether you wanna believe these two young men, who are busy af and have ton of other options, is choosing to stay with each other.

Oh anon y’all gotta stop being so corny 🤣 why would someone stay in a relationship for 5-6 years? Why? Idk anon maybe they are in love and have a special bond with one person. Love exists. Happy monogamous relationships of all sexual orientations exist. I might not be in one and maybe never will but I’m not cynical like you. Damn. Maybe that person makes them happy. Not everyone is promiscuous and wanting one night stands and causal hook ups. Y’all need to stop watching dramas or thinking through a western lens or thinking that you “know” the kpop industry or whatever y’all are doing because it’s really silly.

I don’t follow the BlackPink members. I don’t care who they date or what they do. Tbh, I don’t follow most celebs. The only celebs I’ve really cared about are BTS.

There is nothing to wonder. JK debunked it. The footage was grainy. The apartment wasn’t the same. The man was unidentifiable wearing a mask, and the woman was clearly pregnant. But sure, she was JK’s ex so that means he has a whole ass kid now 🤣 the side eye I’m giving you is so real. 🙄

Being busy doesn’t mean that you can’t be in a stable relationship. And since you are so skeptical anon, maybe their “busy schedules” wasn’t the reason Jisoo and that guy broke up. Maybe she ended up not liking him and that’s the most amicable way to explain a break up. There are so many explanations.

You aren’t a jikooker. That much is clear. You are the type wanting to believe that Jungkook is straight so you are latching onto whatever fantasy puts him in the vicinity of dating a woman. This is a Jikook blog for those that believe that they are in a happy, loving long term relationship. I probably should have blocked you, but this was too goofy to not give a response. I’m not the one ignorant of reality. I saw Jimin’s live yesterday where Jungkook made an appearance. More information could be gathered about the nature of Jikook’s bond from that two minute interaction than your whole narrative based on a broken up heterosexual relationship. I watched Jimin’s doc and paid attention to the lyrics and the significance of Jungkook being on Letter, a hidden track on an album very personal to Jimin’s life story. I watched them flirting on live throughout this year, Jimin saying that he can handle Jungkook laying in bed half naked. I watched Jungkook gush over Jimin for 90 minutes straight with hearts in his eyes. Anon, did you? If you haven’t, maybe you should and stop coming up with nonsense based theories. Jungkook isn’t the manwhore of the kpop industry that you want him to be. He’s a queer man in love with his bandmate until proven otherwise. And by proof, I mean actual proof not a grainy video that he himself debunked. Give it up already.

[circulars-reasoning]

Debunking Series: Tulpas and Mental Health: A Study of Non-Traumagenic Plural Experiences

Welcome to part two of my debunking series, where I tackle Tulpas and Mental Health: A Study of Non-Traumagenic Plural Experiences, written by Jade Isler. This is part of an ongoing series, where I analyze the good and bad of a collection of articles that were provided to me that, supposedly, prove Endogenic plurality.

The full debunk of this article can be found here, or below the cut. This link leads to a google doc, which provides the full debunk along with links to other sources mentioned. Everything provided in the google doc will be below.

TL;DR: This article, while better than the previous part of this series, still fails to prove endogenic plurality exists, and contains enough bias to make my head spin. While there are individual parts of this article I agree with, it's drowned out by skewed sampling, a biased researcher, and bad science.

TW for poor research methods, discussions of fakeclaiming, mentions of doxxing, and NSFW content (including mentions of kink). Furthermore, TW for allegations of grooming, sexual harassment/abuse, and cult formation. I would also like to warn everyone that this document does get more crass than normal; that's my bad!

Tulpas and Mental Health: A Study of Non-Traumagenic Plural Experiences

(Note: The above article includes a deadname of an author who later revealed herself to be a trans woman. As such, I will be referring to her by the name most recently associated with her, Jade, and be using she/her pronouns in reference to her. I did not learn this information until after I had already written about 10 pages worth of content, so please forgive me if I have slipped up with misgendering. I have attempted to edit this extensively, so hopefully I managed.)

TL;DR: The article opens up with the somewhat ableist commentary that tulpamancy is the “optimal” form of plurality and the concept that functional multiplicity is stigmatized – while later stating that it isn’t, while suggesting that therapists have left final fusion behind in modern therapy. It rambles for a while about how the way DID is represented within the medical community is damaging the view of plurality, which I can’t say I disagree with, but is shown in incredibly negative ways, including the implication that the word “disordered” is a bad thing. The author attempts to correlate the high amounts of disorders in tulpamancy to the health benefits of tulpamancy, while addressing the fact that this study… can’t… actually prove that tulpamancy has any health benefits… while attempting to present that there are health benefits? It’s a whole lot of nothing burger. The article ends with the author revealing she’s a tulpamancer herself, which paints the entire article in the bias that is present. The fact of the matter is, this article is simply calling for more research to be done into tulpamancy within the medical world, while stating outright that it cannot prove anything regarding tulpamancy, as there isn’t enough research of a specific kind to prove anything. It does nothing to prove endogenic plurality, and is too biased to indicate anything other than the fact that tulpamancers, unsurprisingly, report thinking tulpamancy helps them. The bottom of this debunk provides more context surrounding allegations about Jade Isler, the author, though proof of these allegations is not readily available and should be taken as allegations only, rather than evidence of misdeeds. 

Full live reactions below:

“Current models of mental health rely heavily on the assumption that only one agent of self exists in every one brain.” Gonna stop you right there chief – you sure about that? Cause like. My therapist, as well as many others, immediately hopped on the boat of me having DID. Yes, mental health relies heavily on the idea of a singular self within a single brain, but most people in the world don’t have multiple self-agent beings within one brain. Like, even saying endogenic plurality exists, it wouldn’t be the entire population – it makes sense for mental health, in general, to focus on the widest possible audience.

“Deviations from this model of singularity in mind are heavily stigmatized and often considered disordered.” I’m two sentences into this abstract and already wincing. Obviously, they’re considered disordered within the world of mental health. Newsflash, asshole, if a system is in the world of mental health, it’s usually because they’re disordered. Yikes! It’s not biased for the mental health world to focus on mental health.

“Research defining the relationship between tulpamancy and mental health is expanded on by analyzing the results of surveys conducted on the online tulpa community.” Ah, yes, the tulpa community, which is a community fully entrenched in tulpamancy, gives their thoughts on how healthy tulpamancy is. I wonder, however, where the comments from these tulpamancer’s families, friends, and co-workers are. Y’know, since being disordered is more than just how YOU feel affected by it.

“The questionnaires investigate two associations previously found in members of the tulpa community. First, the prevalence of mental illness, which exists in over 50% of the population. Second, the reports of improvements in mental health and cognition, especially amongst those diagnosed with a mental or neurodevelopmental disorder.” Gonna make a theory of my own, if you don’t mind. That theory being, a system with a complex dissociative disorder will generally report improvements in mental health and cognition as communication between alters improves, particularly when said alters are symptom holders, wherein the system as a whole will no longer need to deal with as much of the symptoms of the disorder that alter holds. Interesting theory, I wonder if it would pan out via a questionnaire. Anyways, seems legit queen.

“Tulpas are an experience of plurality that seem to coexist with optimal functionality, happiness, and mental health.” Optimal functionality. Sigh. Gonna try and not take that on the chin as a DID system working toward functional multiplicity. Yeah, hon, I do really wish that mental health circles would acknowledge my Virgin Sub-Par Traumatized Multiple Functionality more and compare me to the far superior Chad Tulpamancers.

“In medicine, society, and our personal biases, there exist certain presumptions about what is optimal for health, functionality, and happiness. One such assumption is the requirement that, for every one brain and body, there ought to be one identity.” I think this is a good time to mention that this article was written in 2017, which is 16 years after the term “functional cooperation” was coined by Steinberg and Schnall in the book “The stranger in the mirror: Dissociation – the hidden epidemic” (which is riddled with its own problems). Here’s a full quote from page 256:

Therapy for people with DID is designed to gently bring down the walls of amnesia that keep their different parts hidden from themselves and each other. Most experts agree that the key to treating dissociation lies in the connection, or integration, or memories, feelings, and behaviors… Once the person feels safe enough to accept the memories, the amnesia, as well as the other dissociative symptoms, is reduced… Some people with a dissociative disorder are able to integrate their separate parts into a single congruent self-image. Others may fear that integration means the ‘death’ of their alternate personalities and may not want to give them up. They may have separate parts forever but can achieve ‘functional cooperation’ between them, which is a giant step on the path toward healing and recovery. 

Sooo, that is to say, functional multiplicity was recognized 16 years before this article was published. Furthermore, the Plural Positivity World Conference of 2019 (only two years after this article was published) released a survey which was then shown as the ISSTD Conference in 2020, revealing the following (as shown on the System Speak website, detailed here):

Of the participants in this survey, 89% scored above 30 on the DES-II… 58% were currently in therapy at the time; When asked their therapist’s goal for therapy, participants reported: 50%  Functional Multiplicity… 92% said they were interested in some level of functional multiplicity.

So, around two years after this article (this article, mind you, that’s so far arguing that functional multiplicity isn’t accepted) was published, 50% of respondents to a Plural survey said their therapists’ goal was functional multiplicity, and 92% of them reported seeking functional multiplicity as a goal. These people, I’d imagine, were in therapy for longer than just the two years since this article was posted. Furthermore, we can tell that the individuals who responded to this survey are likely disordered, given that 89% of them scored above 30 (high dissociation) on a DES, but those who completed this survey were part of the plural community. This, to me, indicates that this article’s claim that the main assumption being made is that disordered systems need to be fused into one singular self-state to function is a bunch of bullshit. But seeing as this article only posits that this assumption is the case without actually testing that assumption, I’m not too surprised!

“However, rather than citing these dysfunctions, mental health professionals frequently emphasize the plurality as being what makes DID a disorder.” I actually agree with the author here! Surprise surprise, something good has come! In fact, this whole paragraph has some good points: “Here, DID is not branded by its negative symptoms like most disorders are. Rather, this definition suggests that the problem starts and ends with the plurality.” The author is arguing that the way DID is discussed paints plurality as only a negative thing, because the only part that is focused on is the plurality. This is actually a problem I see a lot in modern syscourse; arguments that plurality has to be disordered because a certain system’s plurality is. However, I do find fault with two things. One, I want to reiterate the issue with the fact that this article is focusing on the mental health world, when by and large, endogenic systems are not seeking treatment for their plurality – the descriptions of ‘negative’ plurality are written strictly about CDD systems, as those are the systems who are seeking medical treatment. Two, this article is sourcing the Google Results of DID on Psychology Today. I… have my doubts that this is the end all be all of medical propaganda? If your argument is that the medical world is making plurality out to be only negative, I feel like you need a resource for that which is more directly connected to plurality in the medical world, rather than the layman’s definition of DID on Psychology Today.

“Until the DSM-V, there was no requirement of distress or impaired functioning in the diagnosis of DID.” Oh I’m going to fucking lose it. The requirement of distress and impaired functioning in the diagnostic criteria of DID was only added in the DSM-V because fuckwits like you couldn’t be bothered to read the beginning of the book. Y’know, the part that explains whether a diagnosis should be coded as Mild, Moderate, Severe, Partial Remission, Full Remission, or Prior History, depending on how disordered the disorder is? Located on page 2 of the DSM-IV:

In deciding whether the presentation should be described as mild, moderate, or severe, the clinician should take into account the number and intensity of the signs and symptoms of the disorder and any resulting impairment in occupational or social functioning. 

Impairment, huh? Occupational or social functioning could be impacted, huh? I don’t know about you, honey, but that to me sounds like fucking impaired functioning. Get out of here with your fucking nonsense, you’ve always needed a goddamn disorder to be diagnosed with a disorder (other than in some fringe cases, such as insurance and bullshit, shout out to my plural friends going through insurance hurdles right now). 

YOU THEN GO ON TO QUOTE BULLSHIT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PLACE?? No, okay, seriously, the author goes DIRECTLY from the above quote, to this quote: “‘Unlike other disorders, dissociative identity is deemed a disorder and thereby dysfunctional, purely on the basis that those who experience it have a self that is not singular.’” This quote is not from the DSM, which makes it incredibly misleading to complain about the DSM and then immediately, without explanation, launch into this quote as if it proves your point. But okay, let’s check out THAT citation– Oh, what’s that, it’s literally just arguing the same exact point as you, with a similar lack of proof for its claims? OH, this article is trying to argue that calling DID disordered implies it’s a bad thing, thus implying that disordered is a bad word? Oh, this all once again focuses on the fact that DID is disordered, which implies (somehow) that all multiplicity is disordered? This is literally just a bunch of psychologists going “Wait, maybe non-disordered plurality IS a thing, and I’m going to argue it is by saying that people with a disorder don’t ACTUALLY have a disorder sometimes.” God, fuck off with this bullshit, I’m going back to the first ableist article.

“In 2010, a community sprouted over a practice colloquially dubbed ‘tulpamancy.’” Oh please, tell me you’re gonna bring up the Rainbow Dash Tulpa. Please, tell me you’re going to bring up the white woman who brought Tibetan Buddhism to America through her appropriative bullshit. Please, tell me you’re doing to mention the bronies taking her spiritualism and using it to fuck ponies in their minds. I’m going to delight in this. (She won’t. I know she won’t, cause that would absolutely undercut the idea she’s going for that this is a completely normal, non-fucky experience, and the “optimal” form of functionality, yes I’m still salty about that. Gotta write that down, the “optimal” form of my multiplicity is to be fucking Rainbow Dash in my mind.)

“Examination will purport tulpas as a healthy experience of plurality and an argument against the stigmatization of multiple identities.” Again, I agree that the entire world needs to focus a whole lot less on the plural part of DID, and that depicting the plural part of DID as solely negative is harmful – but, I’m sorry to say, tulpamancy is a recent phenomenon. You said yourself, article author, that this sprung up in 2010. Your article was written 7 years after it became popular; do you honestly genuinely think the psych world moves quickly enough that in 7 years, they’ve managed to rethink dissociative identities and label tulpamancy as distinctly different from disordered dissociation enough to describe it? Furthermore, why would the mental health world even focus on tulpamancy? (Don’t worry – we’re gonna get to that.)

“The majority of media surrounding tulpas and non-traumagenic plural phenomena has been limited to poorly researched sensationalism. Its scientific accounts were nonexistent until 2015–” Oh jeeze, it’s almost like Tulpamancy started as a Tibetan Buddhist belief and was then appropriated by a white woman, brought to the west, bastardized, and now is something 4chan cooked up in some bong water with a side of fandom. Obviously, it’s poorly researched! You’re looking for scientific data within the medical world about an inherently non-medical experience. By and large, endogenic systems are not disordered, or at the very least, not disordered due to their plurality. Tulpamancy in particular WAS sensationalism, so it’s no wonder your research is a little bit difficult honey. You’re one of the first to dip your toes into it, welcome to hell, biscuits over on the left. Oh, wait, let’s finish that thought, you cite another study on tulpamancy that gave some demographics: “Veissiere found that tulpas are perceived to be entities distinct from one’s own thoughts, with over a third of hosts reporting that their tulpas felt as real as any physical person. This is achieved in part through tulpas seeming to be independent in their emotions, cognition, and opinions. They are experienced through a mix of auditory, visual, and somatic visualizations and hallucinations. Possession, a technique that allows a tulpa to temporarily command of the body, and switching, in which the host dissociates to have an out-of-body experience while the tulpa controls the body, are widely used. There are similarities between these advanced tulpamancy techniques and the experiences of DID diagnosed folk, namely having multiple identities and dissociating from the body’s actions. However, the absence of amnesia, depersonalization, and other traumagenic symptoms in most tulpamancers make these techniques a reportedly positive and mutually enjoyable experience.” So… let’s see here. No amnesia, depersonalization, no trauma symptoms – the only thing they’ve got is dissociation and perceived switches. So… not DID. Hence, not disordered. Hence, why would a medical world care? The medical world is focused on medical phenomenon, and what you’re describing here is, primarily, a belief – at most, you could claim the hallucinations are a concern, but if I’m not mistaken, hallucinations have been recognized as non-disordered in certain cases by the medical community by the point of this article being written, so… ??? Literally nobody was saying this is a disordered experience. What you’ve described here is so far from DID, it can’t see the DSM. Furthermore, I didn’t consciously experience amnesia and depersonalization. I didn’t realize that’s what I was experiencing for a very, very long time, despite experiencing it, because my disorder lies to me. That’s common.

“Veissiere unveiled two more associations between tulpas and mental health. Foremost, an extremely high frequency of clinical diagnoses: in his sample (n=24), 25%{3} were diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, 21% with Attention Deficit Disorders, and 18% with General Anxiety Disorder, to name a few.” Huh, so, you’re saying that some of these tulpamancers are disordered……… but not because of their plurality. Unlike DID systems, whose plurality is a symptom of their disorder. I fail to see the connection here to the mental health world, unless you’re trying to argue… that… tulpamancy should be a form of treatment for disordered Autism, ADD, or Anxiety? “Secondly, Veissiere found that tulpas were reported to cause improvements in mental disorders, with 94% (n=33) of respondents expressing that taking up tulpamancy had ‘made their condition better.’” Oh. Oh, I see. You are arguing that. Not inherently – no, let’s not forget, the argument being made here is that tulpamancy is a healthy form of plurality, unlike DID, and that the way we discuss DID is damaging how we view plurality. So you’ve mentioned the health benefits of tulpamancy, but, once again – these are all self reported. Do you realize, to diagnose DID, you can’t just go off of self-reporting? It’s almost like, in a disorder (or non-disorder) where you lose your sense of self, it’s a little hard to self-report. Where’s the analysis of their families, or friends, or co-workers, reporting on their sense of self? I’m sorry, but as someone with DID, I know how hard it can be to self-report. I realized two separate times in my life that I had parts, and it had to happen twice because my disorder literally made me forget I was disordered. That’s an incredibly common experience. If I was asked in my final year of high school if I had amnesia, depersonalization, or trauma, I would have said no to all of those – but if asked if I had ‘people in my head’ who ‘helped me feel better about my anxiety,’ it would’ve been a resounding yes. Can you see how maybe a self-analysis of the self when the self is uncertain might be inaccurate?

Okay, not done with the above quote yet – imagining this is a singlet, that’s easily explained as the autistic ability to imagine interactions with others in order to recognize patterns. Imagining this is a DID system, that’s easily explained as a symptom holder – you split due to the stress of being autistic, and boom, now the host can mask easily, causing the stress to lessen. OF COURSE you feel better, it’s called you’re no longer the “problem” because you dissociated the problem away! Like, I’m not trying to fakeclaim here, trust me when I say that; I’m trying to emphasize that this article has done nothing to disprove that this is a DID system or a very imaginative singlet. All it’s done is suggest that plurality is a good framework to help with other disorders – which, I mean, IFS has been there since the 1980’s, people have been using a ‘parts’ framework for 30 years by the time this article came out.

Oh god, Oh fuck, it’s already almost 3k words long and I’ve ONLY JUST gotten to the part labeled as the objective of this article. Jesus christ. Okay. “This study investigates the aforementioned associations: 1) the high frequency of disorders among tulpamancers, and 2) the reports of psychological improvements related to tulpas. The aim is to clarify the existence of these associations and identify their causes.” … I am bashing my skull in, kindly. So, the assertions put forth in the abstract and introduction were complete red herrings; the actual aim of this article is to grow off of the previous study mentioned and to analyze why tulpamancers, on the whole, tend to be autistic, anxious wrecks until they form a tulpa. Why in god’s name is DID even being mentioned in this article???? I don’t fucking care about Tulpas, just let me have a disorder in peace. Also, I’d like to ask why this is included in a source proving endogenic plurality, seeing as this claim proves nothing; it automatically assumes tulpamancers exist, rather than proving they do. 

“While Veissiere showed that there seemed to be a relationship between tulpamancy and mental health, the reasons and nature of it are still a mystery.” Ah, see, the secret is, magical beings from another dimension saw these autistic people’s brains and went, ‘that’s free real estate.’ /j

“The noted associations have a plethora of possible explanations. For example, the high frequency of mental illness among tulpamancers could be rooted in a causal relationship between tulpas and psychopathology. More likely, tulpamancy could merely be more appealing or have more exposure to those with a clinical diagnosis.” W… what? Hold up, let me see if I can translate. “The reason why so many tulpamancers have anxiety or autism could have a lot of explanations. Maybe the large amount of mental illnesses among tulpamancers indicates that there’s a relationship between tulpas and brain issues. More likely though, tulpamancers just are usually more exposed to clinical things and find the tulpa route more appealing than the medical one.” Did I read that right? Cause that’s what I’m getting from this. Like. I think this is suggesting that a lot of tulpamancers are autistic because autistic people like tulpamancy. And they call ME Circular Reasoning. 

WAIT WAIT WAIT HOOOOOLD THE PHONE – “given the current evidence of a single opt-in questionnaire whose statistics are based on as little as 11 respondents” – YOU MEAN TO TELL ME. You are basing this ENTIRE article, the entire purpose of this study, on the self-report of eleven individuals to argue that tulpamancy is the most optimal form of plurality and is healthy??? Ooooh my god I am going to lose my goddamn mind holy fucking shit. Why did you phrase it AS LITTLE AS?! Were there LESS than 11 people? I am so concerned, I should’ve researched that study I guess. This throws everything I said out the window, the other study is a super great baby’s first lego block of tulpamancy studies, but we gotta get a move on with actually studying the effects of tulpamancy on the brain. Otherwise we’ll have ShitDick out here writing about how tulpamancy is soooo fucking great over the self-reports of eleven people. This article had BETTER explain that 11 people is not enough people, and more research needs to be done.

Thankfully, ShitDick does seem to indicate that she understands this would be a batshit claim to make. “Regarding the improvements in mental illness reported by tulpamancers, it would be presumptive (given the current evidence of a single opt-in questionnaire whose statistics are based on as little as 11 respondents) to claim the cause is plurality being therapeutic in itself.” MY ISSUE WITH THIS IS THAT YOU LITERALLY DID THIS ALREADY. Need I remind everyone of the word “optimal” being used? Oh no I don’t, cause I’m STILL FUCKING SALTY ABOUT IT! Like, you already stated in the introduction and the abstract about how tulpamancy ‘appears to be’ a healthy form of plurality – but you’re basing this on whatever you produced in this study, and a study of (maybe) only eleven people who self-reported they felt awesome about a thing they felt awesome enough to try out in the first place. 

Okay, not using a direct quote here, but calling out some syscourse shit right now. The author argues that tulpamancers may see benefits of tulpamancy for multiple reasons, and then goes on to argue that it’s actually just the one reason (the whole tulpa thing). But the other reasons given are… still valid? And actually far more supported by the science at this current time. Meditation, a positive community, or the experience of having tulpas are listed as things that COULD be causing the benefits to mental health. Only, we’ve seen that the goal of this study is to explain why there are benefits… so why are you explaining NOW (before your methods) that “actually we already know these two things likely cause the benefits to the mental health, but we’re going to argue this third thing instead.” It just completely undercuts the argument. The syscourse comes in that my immediate reaction to seeing this was ‘people would accuse that of being fakeclaming.’ Like, imagine if someone went to a tulpamancer who was ranting and raving about how awesome the health benefits of making tulpas is, and they said “have you considered that the benefits may be because you’re meditating a lot?” They would be crucified in today’s tumblr world. But when this dude does it, it’s fine apparently???? Also, this isn’t fakeclaiming – it’s just suggesting various experiences could, y’know… cause different varying reactions. Woah. (Note: the author later tests these statements and comes to the conclusion that tulpamancy is just awesome on its own, but the methods are flawed, so bully for her this is just bullshit.)

“The study addresses all these possibilities in order to hypothesize the cause of phenomena associated with tulpas.” Oh. Nice to know I wasted my time. See, this is included on a list of articles that PROVE endogenic plurality exists. Now we come to realize, the entire point of this study, finally explained, is… to… hypothesize why tulpas seem to help tulpamancers with their other disorders, and why so many people with tulpamancers with disorders have tulpas. That’s it. So… the article goes in with the assumption these people exist as they seem to experience it themselves, based on self-reports (which are often inaccurate in the cases of severe dissociative disorders, or… y’know… just straight up lying) of exactly, maybe?, eleven people… Sigh. Let’s… painfully sift through the “methods.”

The methods, thankfully, are better than the previous article on the list. It describes that 63 (minus one) respondents participated, out of a sample of 365 being sent out to popular tulpa forums (such as r/tulpa and tulpa.io forums). Hon, how bad to you gotta be to only get 62 responses??? Sadly, it is yet more self-reporting from tulpamancers, but thankfully with a much bigger sample size than the previous tulpamancy study. The ‘minus one’ was a participant within the 63 who did not have a tulpa and did not practice tulpamancy, but was present in the 365 sample sent out. Demographics are concerning to me, given that 32 of the 63 (aka, half of the respondents) were from the USA, with other nationalities ranking from 1 to 5 respondents each, and given that 75% of the demographic is white. 88% of the sample was between the ages of 16 and 25, with the average age being 21. This is all raising alarm bells for me. From sources I’ve read before, the average contested age for DID symptoms to start appearing is around age 16, and it’s not been unheard of for those in their 20s to 30s to first become aware of their system then. And knowing what we know now from the DSM-5:

Sudden changes in identity during adolescence may appear to be just adolescent turmoil or the early stages of another mental disorder. Older individuals may present to treatment with what appear to be late-life mood disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, paranoia, psychotic mood disorders, or even cognitive disorders due to dissociative amnesia. In some cases, disruptive affects and memories may increasingly intrude into awareness with advancing age.

All of these things explain why a, I don’t know, 16-25 year old may dismiss their DID symptoms. And given that DID is comorbid with anxiety disorders… Nowhere has this article assured me that these tulpamancers are not experiencing DID. Nowhere has this article proven to me that this is endogenic plurality, which is the goal of this collection. 

“To investigate the effect of meditative practices often performed alongside tulpamancy, the survey asks: “Please select all the techniques that are/ have been used by your system for tulpamancy”, with meditation and hypnosis being among the possible responses.” I will say, DID systems have been listed as being more prone to hypnotic suggestion than the average individual. Not helping the case here… 

“Both questions have similar response options that included, “Friends or companions, “A romantic relationship or significant other,” “Curiosity or experimentation,” “To become a part of a community,” and “Self-Improvement or life/mental health benefits.” … So… you mean to tell me that this self-report questionnaire listed options for people to pick, all of which appear to be positive in nature? Have you ever heard of a bias, or perhaps, self-fulfilling prophecy? Buddy, you had better fucking include a link to this survey later… (Notably, the relationship to community section is a more simple scale)

“Participants were asked to select yes or no to the question: “Have you been diagnosed with a mental or neurodevelopmental disorder?”. If “yes” was selected, the participant would be directed to more questions regarding the relationship between their condition(s) and their experiences with tulpas. If “no” was selected, they would skip those questions and be directed to the next portion of the survey.” … I don’t know about you, but I didn’t get diagnosed with DID until I was 24 (and I was incredibly lucky to have this occur). I didn’t ever get diagnosed with autism, because I simply wouldn’t be helped by a diagnosis. So… This study ignores those who are not diagnosed, despite the supposed prevalence of these medical phenomenon (the thing that the article is trying to discuss), for… I’m not sure what reason. I suppose self-diagnosis isn’t a thing for these folks today! We’re only going to focus on those who had to get a diagnosis for whatever reason for whatever thing seems to be affecting them. 

Results!! Oh dear. “Responses to the question, “For what purpose did you create [your tulpas]?” revealed that tulpas are most frequently created in pursuit of companionship (72%). Results from the question, “What relationships exist between [you and your] tulpa(s)?” shows that this is achieved in most cases, with 78% of respondents stating that their relationship with their tulpa is friendship and 31% describing it as romantic.” I’ve gotta be honest, y’all. If someone asked me why I made a tulpa, and I had secretly made that tulpa for the express purpose of being able to fuck Rainbow Dash… I WOULD NOT BE TELLING ANYONE I MADE A TULPA SO I COULD FUCK RAINBOW DASH. Like, cringe culture is dead and all that, but not on a scientific survey of the community that I am trying to make seem legit. I’m not saying these results are entirely false… but I want people to remember that this is all self-reported… and this is self-reported by white US Americans in online forum spaces who are a little fucked up. 

“The one respondent who did associate tulpa creation and their diagnosis elaborated in their response, saying that tulpamancy helped them identify their DID and PTSD symptoms, which were rooted in events predating their discovery of tulpamancy.” Oh gosh… I’m. Very glad that their tulpamancy led to them discovering they had DID, but I do hope it is also recognized that created alters can and are a thing in DID, and that they are getting the help they need. 

“Two thirds of respondents with a diagnosis (n=32) reported that their decision to begin practicing was either somewhat (33%) or significantly (33%) furthered by their condition.” May I just say… MaDD, purposeful dissociation away from problems, all of those are things… Again, not saying they aren’t experiencing tulpamancy, but this article has yet to prove they are, and these things are easily explained through other means (which the article itself indicates).

“An almost identical ratio of respondents stated that their condition made tulpamancy a more desirable practice, with 37% citing a significant positive influence, 37% claiming a somewhat positive influence, and the remainder noting “no or neutral impact”.” Wait, so where’s the choice for “negative impact”? Did you not include that as a choice, or did like… not a single responder pick it?

Okay, the above bugged me so badly that I went ahead and scrolled through, and nope, can’t find a copy of the survey anywhere. Maybe I’m just dumb, but I can’t see it; all I can see is tables of the data compiled. I can’t see the exact questions asked, meaning I can’t really examine them for bias (and, judging from the above bullet, I have a suspicion this survey was biased as hell). I mean, very next section, “Regarding respondents’ opinion of the tulpa community, 18% reported theirs as very positive, 52% chose positive, and 29% selected “neutral”.” Yeah, that doesn’t sound biased at allllll. Also, plz let me know where that 1% went buddy. Some of the tables are showing that a negative impact option was present, but I can’t see exactly how the questions/answers were phrased, and that’s really irking me. 

We’re getting into more analysis of the results now, and I can’t say I’m happy. “In fact, the association between tulpas and improvements in mental health was reinforced, with 78% of these respondents diagnosed with a psychopathology stating that tulpas had either a significant or somewhat positive impact on their condition or ability to cope with it.” So you mean your somewhat biased questionnaire proved the point you were hoping your questionnaire would prove? Yikes. Buddy, I’m sorry, but I feel like this self-reporting thing isn’t working for you. Like, they reported that they didn’t have ANY impact in social life, but you’re arguing that the stigma of DID is affecting them through the whole intro – I feel like you’re not looking at these facts objectively and you’re trying to skew the survey to show what you want it to show. That’s just… straight up, bad science. 

“There was no evidence that would suggest tulpamancy is harmful.” As far as you’ve shown us, the majority of questions didn’t indicate an option to say it had a negative impact. You went to a group of people who love tulpamancy, and asked “hey, is tulpamancy good?” And the answer was a resounding yes. That’s like sending out a survey to ask “do people answer anonymous surveys instead of throwing them away,” and 99% of responders said yes! You have a bias. 

“These facts should discourage hypotheses that suggest tulpas cause mental illness or are a disorder in and of itself.” Well… I’ll be frank with you, this might not be as common, but I would argue that my plurality is not hurting me, in and of itself. My plurality is a symptom of a larger issue, and genuinely, if asked, I would say my parts have helped me more than hindered. I genuinely enjoy having my parts as a disordered system. That doesn’t mean that the tulpas aren’t, in of themselves, a symptom of a disorder, however – it’s happened before that people calling themselves endogenic systems have discovered they were traumagenic at a later time, thus indicating that their alters were, in fact, a symptom of a disorder. For someone who led into their article arguing that there was too much emphasis in the DID world on the alters (rather than focusing on the fact that it’s disordered alters), you then focus too strongly on the tulpas here. It’s a bit hypocritical…

Oh my god, they did something nice! Awesome! The author actually added to the survey a bit about alternate causations of these positive benefits, and found that “most respondents cited a positive impact regardless of hypnosis and meditation use.” Now, did you define meditation for these people? Because while not all of them sat on the floor with their legs crossed and incense burning, I’m positive some formed their tulpas through forms of meditation without realizing that’s what they were doing. (I’ll be honest, I sort of thought meditation was needed for tulpamancy, but I’m also not the MOST educated on the topic.) Like, you haven’t done a horrific job here – this is one of the sections where you indicate that the answer results did offer negative, and significantly negative, as levels of impact. But given the fact that not a single person ever answered “significantly negative,” I feel like there’s an issue here. You’d think, in a group of anyone, that every answer option would be picked at least once. You mean to say that not a single person found the experience of purposely creating a dissociative identity to have a significantly negative impact on their life? Not even a troll answered the survey?

“It is likely that the high frequency of disorders among tulpamancers is not caused by tulpamancy being pathological in nature, but rather, the practice being especially appealing towards those already diagnosed.” I’ll be honest, if they changed the name, I would be down for tulpamancy to be incorporated into certain types of therapy – but I don’t see how it would be more valuable in the long run than long standing therapy methods. I’d also be concerned about introducing dissociative practices into disorders that already have higher levels of dissociation, like autism. 

“Tulpas not only provided a means to have pleasant, worry-free interactions in the safety of their own mind-for these hosts, tulpas also encouraged and assisted with socialization.” Why is this worry-free? It might just be me having only my disorder under my belt, but… I don’t interact with my parts in only positive ways. Some of the folks in my head hate my guts, or at least used to, and it took a very long time for us to be okay with each other. My own mind isn’t safe – my innerworld is full of dangers and perceived threats, just like my real life is. If these individuals have disorders such as autism and anxiety, I’m glad that the tulpas helped them, but I’m having a hard time parsing how these tulpas are different from imaginary friends. I’ve heard people say that tulpas are their own sentient beings, unlike imaginary friends, but if that’s the case, the interactions wouldn’t be at all worry free in my eyes; unless the tulpas are specifically made to like you. In which case, we get into debates about if tulpas have free will and their own true sentience. Bluh. It makes me feel icky.

I’ve got to say, reading the next section, I actually like this idea a lot, and I do agree with a lot of it. It details people’s actual written responses, and this finally feels like the least biased part of the questionnaire. These people detail ways in which tulpamancy helped them, and I can easily see all of these being the case – such as someone helping manage their schizophrenia by forming a tulpa who was not affected by the hallucinations! Only… Self-reports in schizophrenia are to be doubted as well; who is to say this tulpa is not just… a beneficial hallucination? Or, what about the DID system who formed a tulpa who could communicate without amnesi– wait, that… that just sounds like a gatekeeper to me. Yes, sadly, while I believe creating alters is possible and I agree it can have health benefits, this article does not do what people are claiming it does. It simply says tulpamancy may have health benefits by surveying tulpamancers. That’s it. It doesn’t prove these tulpas actually exist or aren’t another easily explained symptom. Just… says that people with pre-existing disorders found creating tulpas was helpful. Nothing saying that those tulpas weren’t actually hallucinations, imaginary friends, dissociative alters, etc etc etc.

“The intent of this paper is not to provide definitive assertions on the psychology of tulpamancy. Rather, the purpose is to accentuate outstanding associations and suggest further research into them.” GOOD. THANK FUCK. Translation, “this study cannot prove anything, because of the clear flaws in the type of study done; rather, this is just more analysis of things going on, as a call to action for people to research more.” HIGHLY AGREED. This phenomenon absolutely needs to be studied more, and I really want to see studies done that actually observe these people – not just a questionnaire that the author herself indicates has bias. “In-person psychiatric assessments, longitudinal research, and neuroimaging studies are all more than warranted towards building a greater scientific understanding of plurality.” Yesssssssssss. Thank fuck. I’m so relieved – I walked into this thinking it was meant to prove something, due to the nature of the spreadsheet. Instead, it proved nothing, acknowledged it proved nothing, and simply presented correlations. I am now much, much happier with this paper, though I still am raising a brow at the methods and initial ableist commentary about DID.

“The impact of trauma and the resulting function-impairing symptoms are what make DID a disorder, not the plurality.” I really like this comment. It’s fully accurate… only, it fails to recognize that, for many DID systems, the plurality is the function-impairing symptom in question. Wait– “Because of this, psychiatrists have found that the most effective therapies for DID do not require merging different consciousnesses or enforcing oneness. Rather, it is more effective to simply teach the separate identities to communicate, share information, and work with each other in through a therapy dubbed “integrated functioning.”” Wait, didn’t… Didn’t you start off this article by claiming the opposite of this? Weren’t you the one arguing that the medical world could not accept functional multiplicity? “The decision to unify should be an optional one, made by the patient, done because they believe it will improve their life and ability to function. The prevalence of treating plurality as the start and end to dysfunction in DID indicates a fundamental misunderstanding that needs to be corrected.” BUT YOU JUST SAID IT WAS? I’m so confused – I’m really grateful, really, that you suddenly give so much of a shit about DID, but how does this relate to anything you were trying to prove? Honey, please, leave us out of this. 

“Plural experiences are not limited to tulpas and dissociative disorders. In fact, when the diversity of plural experience is considered, multiplicity may seem to be less of an extraordinary achievement and more of a fundamentally human experience.” Uuuugh, not the ‘everyone’s a little plural’ argument. It’s so frustrating being lumped in with this. My mom’s work self is not anything like me. Someone’s tulpa is not anything like me. There can be similarities, but the symptom of my disorder should not be considered a fundamental human experience. 

“Finally, I would like to thank the unsung assistant and co-author of my research, projects, and frankly, my life: my tulpa, Aury.” Oh. Oh fuck no. You are NOT AN OBJECTIVE RESEARCHER. I am so so glad that you agree that other people need to fucking research this. A person with a bias for saying tulpamancy is good reached out to a lot of people who had a bias for saying tulpamancy is good and asked if they thought tulpamancy was good! Shocker of all shockers they said it was good. This is something that I feel should have been mentioned far before the closing statements. You are not objective in the slightest, and all of this really clarifies just how biased your survey was. 

“The author is a practicing tulpamancer and an active member of the tulpa community. He experienced tulpa creation firsthand in April 2013, and has been a contributing member of the online community since July 2014. Along with his tulpa, Aury, Isler is active under the usernames “Ford and Aury” and “fordaplot”, through which they have shared their experiences, theories, and preliminary results with the community. They run a Tumblr blog documenting their tulpa-related work and experiences, and they operate a YouTube channel for plural-related educational videos, interview-based podcasts, and visual tulpamancy guides.” OKAY!!! So not only were you biased toward tulpamancy, people knew you were biased toward it. And you don’t think, just for one second, that sending out a survey to these people, they might have, idk, looked up to you? After all, you were known for operating a youtube channel supporting tulpamancy. Nobody goes up to the person who they idolize and go “you know, maybe what you’re doing is wrong? Maybe what you did hurt me?” THEY LIKE YOU YOU MORON. OBVIOUSLY THEY AREN’T GOING TO TELL YOU THAT YOU’RE WRONG. Oh my god this fucking kills me. Okay.

So, here’s the bonus content for all you curious folks. After reading this part, I dug into the author, seeing if I could find any information on her. I wanted to clarify her role in the community – if she wasn’t very popular, then clearly, the above criticisms wouldn’t hold as much merit.

Uuh. Wow. I found a lot of bullshit!

Sadly, this section is going to be short, particularly because I can’t find any evidence; I’ve reached out to a few individuals who were involved in the controversies, but thus far, I’ve only found one concrete piece of evidence. This evidence being that Jade Isler attempted to threaten and doxx staff of the Tulpa.info discord server and was subsequently reported to the FBI. Screenshots posted below (with one being censored in case of privacy):

This evidence does make it obvious that Jade Isler, at the very least, was harassing individuals and attempting to doxx them.

To summarize the allegations, I want to begin by stating none of these allegations have been proven beyond the existence of NSFW content. The author, Jade Isler, was banned from just about every single tulpa community due to numerous allegations. These allegations appear to involve grooming, sexual harassment, and plans to form a cult, all of which relate to a particular kink of Jade’s – this being obedience hypnosis alongside feminization kinks and a pet play kink. None of these allegations have been proven beyond proof of existence of these kinks. I don’t want to get too controversial about NSFW on this blog, but I will say: kinks are morally neutral unless they actively harm others; so long as both parties are completely consenting and are able to consent to the kink, it is their business and not mine. Furthermore, I am hesitant to believe word of mouth in regards to a trans woman who has a less-than-socially-acceptable kink being called a groomer with no public evidence. I require more proof of that before I can believe it is something non-malicious. 

At this point in time, I have been unable to find any proof of a cult, grooming, or harassment – only the ban messages and statements. The communities involved have erased any and all evidence from public viewing, ostensibly to protect the victims, which is good but ultimately frustrating when trying to prove if these allegations are blown out of proportion or not. I have reached out to numerous parties for further information, and should I receive it, I would be happy to reblog this debunk post with further information, so the full story can be known. 

The reason I include these allegations here is to express further concern about this collection of resources. If these allegations are false, they mean nothing and should be discarded. If, however, they are true, it paints a very negative picture of the tulpamancy community, and raises many concerns for the legitimacy of the article. If Jade is, in fact, a groomer who was maliciously trying to groom members of the tulpamancy community, then the results are even further skewed in favor of what she hoped the results would show. It’s possible she could have been grooming individuals of the community in order to create the results she desired, or even worse, into being tulpamancers in the first place (while ignoring signs of serious disorders). I mention this because grooming and manipulation are commonly cited in online communities, and given that tulpamancy is particularly present in places such as Reddit and 4chan, it raises a lot of potential red flags for genuine harm. 

Again, I refuse to believe these allegations without proof. As it is, the criticisms of the author cannot be determined beyond what is within the article itself at this time – which are, in of themselves, fairly damning. However, please use this as a warning to interact with content about this author with caution if you find any of what’s been described here to be triggering. 

[curseweb-www]

m. mmy craziest hear me out is . c.aptainh.owdie 😞............. LIKE I ALREADY THOUGHT THEY WERE SO FINE WHEN I FIRST GOT INTO R.ANFR.EN BUT I WAS SO SCARWD OF OWNIBG UP TO IT CUZ OF THE SHIT TEHY WERE ACCUSED OF BUT NOW TJAT MORE PEOPLE R ACKNOWLEDGING THAT OTHER DOC DEBUNKING THAT STUFF IM A LIIIITTLE LESS ASHAMED OF IT BJT STILL IM SO EROTOMANIC FOR THEM ITS SO FUCKIN EMBARRASSIN G

👀 I WAS RIGHT UR INSANE BWAHAHAHAHA /J jejdjdkskdm I know zero abt capt. H I just get info from you tbh

[ouiouimochi]

thanks for the tag Hannah @justwinginglife mwaa

rules:

1. make a new post with the names of all the files in your wip folder, regardless of how non-descriptive or ridiculous

2. let people send you an ask with the title that most intrigues them, and then post a little snippet or tell them something about it!

3. tag others to continue the game

I'm telling yall I have a l o t of wips, and most of em don't even have a title + titles present now may change when I post them too. in no particular order:

jin kamurai

special event (secret for now)

tokyo debunker with customized mc

gen narumi and his hair problems

want a swatch? kn8 headcanons

rematch. gen narumi

"damn is that ass real?"

pretty smile, but you lie

easily misunderstood statements

kn8 but you're secretly a social media idol (unsure which way I'm going forward with this since someone made a fic of idol! reader already)

banters with a multilingual reader ft. hoshina

arranged marriage with hoshina

abyss razor x crossdressing f! reader

drunk! reader x soshiro hoshina

kn8 fanfic idea 639994626

vampire hoshina and narumi

hoshina smut (almost forgot I was working on it)

narumi and reader's nephew

mashle scenarios

+ many more i haven't transferred to my docs yet

@ryescapades, @o-sachi , @17020 + i forgot my other moots tumblr handle fuck

[flayote]

A bit confused, in your (very helpful) tanning process doc, you say that using fine regular salt iodized or not is ok? Everywhere i read, table salt is a big no no and it always says to use un-iodized, does iodized salt work just as well?

yup, it works exactly the same! i mentioned that in the doc precisely because it remains a very prevalent myth that you can't use iodized salt in tanning, but it's just that: a total myth. i've heard all sorts of things like it'll cause the fur to slip, or the tan just won't work, or it'll turn the skin blue (?? what). but for nearly all of the several hundred hides i've tanned, i've used iodized salt since it's just the cheapest bulk salt i can get locally, so by now i think it's pretty safe to say that it's fine lol. the myth was already thoroughly debunked like 15 years ago on taxidermy.net by chemists and professionals including the creator of Rittels tanning products, but it stubbornly persists because of course no one's gonna try using iodized salt and see that it's fine if someone told them it'll ruin their hide. they'll just pass along the warning.

technically, iodine does react with some tanning agents, so that's probably where the idea that iodized salt can't be used in tanning came from i guess. however, in practice, the amount that's present in table salt is so miniscule (only 60 grams of iodine are added per TON of salt), it's not going to have any effect on the tanning process at all. it's like someone reading that almonds contain cyanide and then telling everyone that almonds are poisonous and eating one will kill you because cyanide is deadly. while it is true that cyanide is deadly in certain amounts, it's totally harmless in the trace amounts present in almonds.

[dosesofcommonsense]

#BioClandestineTelegram accurately describes the attempt to move attention away from Biden’s latest debacle, and the MSM fact checked the post. That points to additional division inside the Democrat implosion. When’s the last time the MSM ever corrected a story in favor of Trump. They’re disliking Biden enough to help their enemy.

⚠️Eyes On⚠️

MSM fact-checkers have debunked the Left-wing social media disinformation campaign about Trump and Epstein!

“While Trump has been mentioned in previous Epstein-related documents, he has not been accused of wrongdoing.”

Please show these articles to all the libs who have been parading about on social media, claiming that new Epstein docs came out implicating Trump. Looking at you @tedlieu

The Libs were circulating an old story, that they tried in 2016, that has already been debunked, as the accuser admitted she was making up claims to get a settlement.

The Libs also circulated numerous AI-generated photos, wild conspiracy theories, and complete disinformation, all in an attempt to deflect from Biden’s implosion.

[yourturntofnaf]

my thoughts on the talebert files that nobody asked for

ok so... I'm terrified of the effect this will have on the fnaf community. obviously, nothing from this should be used as evidence pieces in theories. we have the official freddy files (along with media such as the encyclopedia) and even the officially released ones have inaccuracies that make them debatable for theorizing. so obviously, nothing from a completely scrapped book should be used for theorizing. and, this is all if it is not just a hoax. at the time of writing this, there's no public comment from Scott, just the alleged emails put in the doc. so keep in mind that this may all be a hoax on top of what I previously mentioned.

for the purpose of this, I'm just dissecting my thoughts on it and what I think it could have meant. I think it's fun to read through and see what the intended canon was at one point and if any of it lines up with the current product or theories. please, do not take any of this as me trying to confirm or debunk a theory.

with that out of the way, ramble under the cut....

the most memorable thing from this has got to be the william speech.

this william characterization is the epitome of "where is your rage?!"

this version of events comes in contact with a few common fan theories and debates: death order, will/puppet stuff, and willcare

in the order of events that this was written off of, the bite victim would be the first victim (note for this section: the cassidy tucker discussed in this seems to be a version of charlie). because "cassidy", aka the charlie we have in our canon, follows the order of events of william losing a child before henry. while this does lead to william targeting henry's child, it doesn't follow the commonly speculated reasoning of revenge.

"...perhaps that tucker girl. she shines too much of a bright smile, she is a container for love that will soon burst. I will repurpose her."

my interpretation of this is an application of this williams understanding of humanity. he sees the existence of a happy, bright being as otherwise useless if not applied by someone with more adept girls. he needs something to give the gift of life. from here, I could see two different visions for this:

he needs something that is a spirit to complete this goal OR he is looking for something with a good heart to pass on this gift. I feel it is far more plausible he simply needs something that has already passed on, and sees this cassidy/charlie girl as being someone complacent who he thinks would do what he needs from her.

interestingly, this creates a new perspective on the topic of who stuffed the children. if the goal of this speech was followed through, it sounds like the puppet would be the one that literally places the children in the suits, but under some sort of direction from william. the specific usage of "giving the gift of life" obviously calls back to the infamous give gifts, give life minigame.

for the idea of willcare (the general opinion that william cared about his family and specifically the death of the crying child), this william wouldn't align with that theory. the crying child's death doesn't seem the affect his emotional effect, and it doesn't spark the rage that's always been there. instead, it leaves him feeling ridiculed. this speaks to this William's egoism and selfishness. he seemed to feel no love for his child, the thing his death brings him is embarrassment and more questioning over life. when looking at what he's left behind, it's from the perspective of how that plays into life, death, and the rules of science. he doesn't seem to see it as the life of a person, but just life for what it is.

if this characterization was canon, I feel it puts an interesting spin on the idea of putting the crying child back together. under this version, it seems like william is far more invested in solving the puzzle of what morality means over any human connection.

as mentioned in the note about cassidy and charlie, the version of henry in this book is a man named emmet tucker, making the tuckers of this book a prototype of the emilys. emmet is a bit different than our henry and seems to be more forceful. the best descriptor of his character is this letter:

this relationship between henry and william is different than the fnaf media we have. in most canon examples, henry and william seem to be business partners, where this reads as emmet/henry being a fazbear employee under william who is being greatly taken advantage of for his talents from the beginning. I would take this as something changed in the game canon, this doesn't sound like an "old friend" as described in the fnaf 6 ending.

this also stuck out to me, a list of suspects for the MCI:

it gives us ages of (almost) all of the listed men as of 1985. we get a few drops of this book's lore here in terms of these major characters. william was apparently diagnosed with schizophrenia because of his sighting of the shadow animatronics. we know these are real, meaning this is a misdiagnosis. this book's phone guy, steve (interesting how his first name made it to the movie), allegedly has a gambling addiction that makes the author question his involvement over the idea he... wanted the insurance payoff from killing these kids so he could gamble it? this book has it OUT for phone guy, let me tell you. the description for mikes suspicion is hidden and he's been cleared as innocent for an unknown reason. he was convicted of manslaughter following the bite, and is confirmed to be the fnaf 1 protag. tucker is listed as the creator of the mediocre melodies who was angry when his line of animatronics wouldn't be used.

throughout this book, steve is an interesting figure. the writer, talebert, seems convinced he is the one responsible for the MCI. perhaps this plays off of the OG theory of phone guy being william?

in what's released, to my understanding as someone who hasn't read the frights books yet, dr talebert is a character throughout the stichwraith plotline. to my understanding, the characterization is very different. notably, talebert is being paid by fazbear entertainment. talebert at multiple points seems to be retroactively changing things as he goes, big or small. he says emmett has anger issues as evidenced by an outburst at afton over the decomition of the MM. in reality, going off the previously posted letter, it moreso seems like his anger resulted from being bossed around by william and not receiving financial compensation. a miscellaneous citation on page 10 of the document shows talebert changing the location of cassidys death from fredbears to freddys, changing the point in time she would have died. there are a lot of interesting quirks to talebert that I can't get into all of them, but I wouldn't consider him a reliable narrator.

there's a lot in these files that I'll probably keep talking about at some point. please, please look at them for yourself. keep in mind this is all scrapped at best, and fabricated at worst. lots of love!

link to read for yourself: