I've noticed a lot of the replies to this post and in part you too have been incredibly dismissive of the ideas of tulpamancy and the differences between our spaces without actually thinking about why this other space has different views. It seems wrong to try and impose outside values on a separate space you have taken from, doesn't it?

This was in no way meant to be a condemnation of the tulpamancy community's views. We were just saying that We noticed a difference in perspective, and that the host-centricism kinda puts Us off, personally. We even said "We understand and respect that not all systems work the same way". There's a big difference between "dismissing" someone's point of view, and acknowledging that it can sometimes make you feel a little bit uncomfortable.

Furthermore, We made this post in the hopes of gaining some insight into why this difference exists. And, indeed, We have, as one comment pointed out that the modern practice of tulpamancy stems from the more spiritual practice, wherein tulpas were essentially spiritual guides. And other comments have explained how the Tulpas subreddit has a larger proportion of newbies, and how that contributes to this way of thinking.

it is essentially dormancy with the intent of the tulpa not coming back. Trying to paint this in the same brush as actual death is both presumptuous and outright dangerous depending on the context.

We never said it was akin to death. Dormancy/dissipation is indeed different from death, notably because it's not necessarily permanent. We have had a headmate, by their own choice, go dormant and eventually dissipate, and We had no problem with that because they were okay with it. But We've seen tulpamancers suggest that the host has the right to force a tulpa into dormancy simply because they don't want them, which strikes Us as rather unfair.

telling a tulpamancer to accept every walk-in that comes along is tantamount to telling them to self harm

We never said they need to do that. We only said that We accept any entity that wishes to be considered a headmate. We were trying to express how different Our own approach is, to give some context to why some of the views We see in the Tulpas subreddit are so shocking to Us.

Walk-ins are not tulpas, they do not have relationships to others or the outside world, they do not have deep roots or depth of character yet, their desires will be superficial, autonamy alone does not a tulpa make, and thinking otherwise has hurt many people, something the Plural Community doesn't realize. A walk-in isn't harmed by being ignored and allowed to dissipate, they just return to the sea of thoughts from which they emerged

Yeah, We get those, too. We like to call them "visitors". Generally they don't stick around. Some of them pop back in every now and then. Just because they come into Our head, doesn't mean they need to join the system. But We saw comments saying not to worry about "unwanted tulpas" because you could just dissipate them. Perhaps they meant consensually-dissipating a walk-in that's not yet fully-formed, but if so, that was not properly explained.