let's try this again.
hey all! we are the tesseract system and we are trying to make a system blog again after we made one and then no one used it a while ago
everything you could possibly ever want to know about us (+ more) is on our site (not rlly mobile friendly!!), but here are some basics:
we have been around the alth community since 2023
origins are nunya and we looove endos and willos and everyone 💐
our anxiety is so bad so we never post on social media but. maybe. we will this time
collectively transmasc...or something??
mixed poc (dominican mostly)
adhdtism explosion
we're fine with doubles
lets be moots :))
[data-selected-theme="tesseract system"] {
--acht/moon: he/they;
--vriska/sig: she/he;
--peri: he/it/claw;
--fennel: she/her;
--rice: she/her;
}
our headspace forms!!
userboxes and 'stances' under cut :)
for our own comfort, we will stay away from people who make many posts romanticizing sexual taboos.
fuck trump and free Palestine
if you use 'theyfab' and/or hate/generalize any sect of queer people we will not like you :( + transandrophobia & transmisogyny exist
someone in here wants to draw with anime eyes and someone else wants to do cartoon eyes and someone else wants to do lines for eyes so pur art is very inconsistent
do you ever wonder like. how your system would be if some particular thing didnt happen. a lot of us our fictives so im always like, "what if we werent obsessed with beyblade as a child? what if our english teacher never made us read that book? what if this specific piece of milgram fanart referencing wiege never showed up on our dash, making us decide to watch alnst?" but also like. okay actually everything beyond that is too personal im not telling you. but you get it right. like what would your system be like. do you wonder if youd end up with alters similar to you and doing the things you do but just.. arent you.
Former host speaks on stupid origin discourse bullshit, something that caused real tangible conflict and damage both within our system and in our physical outward life
(Also the iPod thing is only half accurate, that was just our first outwardly noticeable host exchange)
Something I've noticed in online leftist spaces when it comes to disability advocacy, particularly neurodivergent advocacy, extra particularly autistic and ADHD advocacy, is that we've normalized the labels but not the symptoms.
For example, it is relatively normal in leftist spaces now to say you are autistic. People will make fewer unfounded assumptions about you, and they will probably not say anything outright ableist. Most likely, they will take you at your word and not need to see a proof of diagnosis, either. This is all good!
However, as soon as you act autistic (so to speak) in one of these spaces, as soon as you demonstrate autistic symptoms, you will be alienated from the group. If you misunderstand a social cue, you will be ridiculed for it. If you act outwardly strange, such as doing "weird" stims, they'll tell you you're a freak. If you have a meltdown, they'll tell you to grow up.
If you talk about your negative symptoms and how they affect your life? You're suddenly a walking stereotype, giving the autistic community a bad name.
And god forbid your an autistic person with higher support needs, for example if you can't communicate verbally, because those spaces just forget that people like that exist entirely.
I feel like people have noticed that it is somewhat normalized now to talk about having autism, or having ADHD, and they think that means our work on that front is done. I've seen some people go so far as to suggest that autistic people and people with ADHD shouldn't talk on disability rights issues, because our disabilities are "so normalized anyway." I think this is a mistake, because there's hardly anything normalized about either disorder.
Obviously this is just my personal experience and it won't reflect every AuDHD person's experiences, particularly those with other intersecting identities that I don't have, but I did want to get this off my chest.
jack rabbit/rabbit is one of our alters who we struggle to coexist with the most, but trying to see where he’s coming from has helped a lot with getting on the same page. especially since chilla is very into getting to the root of our problems.
Do you think it's possible to fake being plural even to yourself?
One or two genuine questions to you, anon, before I give my usual spiel on "I think I'm somehow faking it unconsciously and I think I should be ashamed because the fact that I can't stop faking it makes me morally bad":
What would it actually mean to fake plurality?
What does it mean to fake anything, in plain language (and ideally without moral weight attached)?
What makes a thing fake?
The usual spiel on secretly faking it:
First, if this is about you: try to turn it off for one week. Or a day, whichever feels better. All of it. I don't mean pretend that it doesn't exist, I mean stop doing it altogether. Just stop. Snap of the fingers, cold turkey, stop.
You are actively doing it, aren't you? Like, intentionally? You know you absolutely do not identify with the plural label or any plural experiences, that none of this has any possible application or interest to you, that plurality is completely and utterly irrelevant to your life... but you're putting in a large amount of intentional effort to appear as though you're plural for reasons that you don't understand whatsoever? Even if you really want to stop sometimes?
Why are you faking that instead of, I don't know, faking your way into a massive celebrity party or something? You must be talented, and this sounds like it would be exhausting to juggle. Compared to seeing the inside of a nuclear reactor or getting into a festival for free, this is pretty boring as far as pretending goes. Why keep it up? What are you gaining for all that work, especially when you'd be socially fucked if someone called it out?
It's not intentional? You keep trying to stop and you can't? It's not going away no matter how hard you try to change it?
You're probably not faking It. Sorry.
"fake", verb:
- tamper, with the purpose of deception (source)
- "counterfeit", to imitate or feign especially with intent to deceive (source, source)
- one does not fake without intent.
If someone is faking something, then by definition, they know. It's an active and intentional effort, something that they have to put energy and work into sustaining, something that's a relief to turn off. They can turn it off, and they know this because they are intentionally choosing to pretend to have an experience they do not actually, "objectively" have.
And here are the two important points:
Faking is an intentional act. If someone is faking something, then they know for absolute certain that they are faking something. Intent is required to fake something.
The concept of "fake" plurality relies on the idea of an objective state of the self/selves: some existential, absolute truth about whether someone is plural or not.
On point two:
We have no metrics to determine an absolute reality of the self for absolute certain. There are some physical characteristics that have been noticed in brain scans comparing DID systems against controls, but regardless of whether you believe in inherent differences in brain structure, most of us can't get a brain scan on a whim, and we don't have much of this kind of data yet for most other plural experiences. (Tulpamancy brain scan study when? Has that come out yet?)
We also have no idea why consciousness exists or where it's located, if anywhere. It's enough of a slippery issue for the concept of the philosophical zombie to exist: how do we know that anyone else is conscious? We don't. How do we know that plurality is an inherent or objective property of a body? We don't.
Do I believe that faking plurality is possible at all?
Sure. I think it could be done and I've seen it confessed to. I don't think that hunting for "fakes" or accusing strangers of faking their experiences is going to help anyone, though.
I do think sometimes that if someone were to fake this in the long run, then they would have to be very careful that none of it took on a life of its own. I've met a few accidental tulpamancers. It happens.
Do I think it's common to fake plurality?
No. It's a lot of effort for fairly little reward given that some people still think Split is basically a documentary.
Do I think that faking plurality can be done without knowing it?
No. A person might later find that another framework or explanation works better for them, but that doesn't mean they were secretly faking plurality. It means that they have an experience, and they found a different explanation for that experience that worked better for them. Good for them.
Shoutout to fictionfolk who are different from their source in ways fandom doesn't tend to like.
Those who have a different orientation. Those who are disabled when their source isn't or vice versa. Those who are a different race or even species. Those who are a different gender, are intersex, are cis, or are trans in noncanon ways. Those who have different moral alignments. Those who barely are canon at all. Those who were in relationships that fandom considers a "bad ship". Those who hate and avoid being like their canon selves while the fandom can't seem to get enough.
You're not wrong for being you, it's not a crime to exist as yourself. You don't need to bend over backwards to please fandom. It's okay.
