Dsmp Philza - Tumblr Posts
playign around w design
something something human potion something something
i’m not apologizing for this one
hey
Firestarter Angelduo au
How to Keep Your Shitty Grandson Away From Your Lawn
A Dismantling of c!Phil's "Advice" to c!Tommy (And Why It's Worse Than You Think)
Since Tommyinnit's last lore stream, I've seen a lot of discussion surrounding the (admittedly) short segment at the start between c!Phil and c!Tommy. The general consensus seems to be that the advice was... questionable, at best.
And while this is true for the most part, there are a few specific moments that are deeply concerning in their implications; especially for someone like c!Tommy to internalize.
I'll be explaining why, starting with the more minor, less destructive aspects of their interaction first before moving on.
(Note: All names mentioned will refer to the characters unless stated otherwise. I'll also be approaching this with a level of care for Phil's character. It's completely understandable why he believes certain things he does and I will be highlighting this later on in the post.)
Scolding and Judgement
Philza's first response to disagreement, "unfavorable" perspectives, or mistakes is usually to lecture the individual. It's a big part of his characterization. Chastising individuals for their actions can be reasonable, especially if he is also somewhat responsible for them (ie. the person scolded is his son, housemate, or subordinate.)
However, what is less reasonable is scolding someone for what they think, and not the actions they take.
This becomes especially troubling when the thoughts that Phil demeans come from an individual looking for reassurance. That's not to say that one isn't allowed to be criticized for their thoughts, but Tommy's specific scenario isn't regarding a flawed personal ideology or set of morals.
Tommy went to Phil and confided in him. He confessed to something he thought (and never acted on) and explained that he felt guilty for it; that he thought he was a bad friend. Not even for doing something wrong, but for hesitating, when made to act in an extremely stressful situation.
It's also important to note that Tommy is an unreliable narrator in this scene. The hesitation he mentions during the Final Disc Confrontation was caused by Tubbo explicitly telling Tommy to take the discs and run, something which Tommy considered briefly and almost immediately went against. Phil doesn't know this, thus, his perspective is skewed against Tommy, only working off his word.
Even still, Phil knows that Tommy was made to choose between the discs and Tubbo under a threat of death. This hesitation is extremely natural, but instead of showing compassion for why Tommy would react as he did, he immediately jumped to scolding him and insinuating that he was indeed a bad friend to Tubbo, just for expressing a single thought; a hesitation that he never acted on.
When an individual comes to someone with thoughts they've had that bring them shame or guilt, what they need is reassurance. They need to be told that it will always be their actions that define who they are, not what they consider and turn away from. They need to be told they were correct for making the right choice, especially if these thoughts were tempting or hard to refuse.
Tommy doesn't need to be told that these thoughts are wrong and that choosing the discs over Tubbo is bad. He knows this. That's why he feels guilty.
This guilt should never be validated, especially when it's not constructive or helpful. It's something Tommy's already aware of and has already fought against.
Thoughts are suggestions, not cementations of moral character. And many struggle with thoughts they cannot control or influence. They should never be made to feel guilty for the ideas that appear, which they refuse to entertain.
Repeated Lessons
After Phil learns of Tommy's hesitation, he insists that Tommy needs to learn his lesson; that the individual will always come before material possessions. Mind you, this entire lesson is based on a single moment of hesitation, after which Tommy put Tubbo first in the end.
This is not something Tommy needs to learn. He's already shown that he will always put individuals before possessions.
In fact, this is all Tommy has ever done. It was a big component to his first arc, as far back as early Season One, where he gave up his discs for L'Manburg's freedom. (Whoops, my hand slipped. Anyway, here's an entire compilation of Tommy giving up the things he cares about for the people he loves.)
Unfortunately, Tommy is an unreliable narrator yet again, as he insists he needs to finally learn to "not care as much about possessions." This guilt at keeping his possessions goes a bit deeper than just his relationship with Tubbo. He's been told repeatedly since the start of Season Two that he's selfish for loving things and wanting to keep them.
Finding a way to detach himself from his material items is also a strategy to keep Dream from using his attachments against him again. Now that he's been freed from prison, this fear is at an all-time high. He knows it's only a matter of time before the things he's been free to love are taken away. He's trying to find a way to keep himself safe, emotionally speaking.
Now, it's not exactly Phil's fault for not noticing this. He doesn't know the extent of exile and he doesn't know what Tommy's motives are for seeking this detachment. However, what is an issue is assuming that Tommy doesn't understand or that he still hasn't learned (even though he knows Tommy gave up his discs for Tubbo.)
Tommy also went into this conversation clearly expressing an understanding of the lesson before Phil even tries to teach it to him. It's frustrating not only from Tommy's perspective but from an audience perspective in turn. We as an audience know that Tommy has learned this lesson again and again and again, repeatedly.
We know he understands it and we as the audience understand the message just as much, if not more. So when Tommy is talked down to, we are talked down to as well.
That's not even mentioning Phil's repeated problem with "teaching" someone something and then, when asked about it, he almost outright refuses to say what that message is and how what he did reinforces that. With L'Manburg, he tells Ghostbur he'll "understand someday." With his lesson to Tommy at the furnace, he only says, "It'll come to you eventually."
Lecturing becomes hollow if the lecturer refuses to be understood and uses his teaching as an excuse to exert punishment, rather than to be constructive.
"Putting Up"
When Phil suggests taking down the walls he helped set up, Tommy explains that they keep him safe, remind him of L'Manburg, and bring him comfort.
To which Phil curtly replies and tells Tommy he was just pretending to go along with it and help because he thought it would make him happy. That he really thought the walls were useless and wouldn't do shit to stop Dream. That he was just "putting up with it" for Tommy. On the surface, this seems well-intentioned.
Phil did something to make Tommy happy and put his own thoughts to the side for him. However, by telling Tommy his true thoughts and revealing he was "putting up" with the situation, it has the opposite effect. This reveals to Tommy that Phil will actively lie to him to spare his feelings and isn't being his genuine self around him.
It tells Tommy that he doesn't value him enough to be truthful with him and can make him hesitant to speak with Phil about anything. He'll be stuck wondering what Phil really thinks about any situation, any thought, any plan. It also treats him as if he's not capable of handling rejection, disagreement, or negative feedback.
Not only that, but by telling Tommy what he originally thought anyway, he still revealed the very thing he expected to hurt Tommy. Of course, Phil had good intentions, but it's important to remember that just because someone claims to have done something out of goodness or to protect someone else, doesn't negate their hurtful words or actions.
Projective Presumption and Toxic Positivity
Tommy tells Phil that he misses L'Manburg. It's an off-hand comment he makes as he's doing the stone task Phil laid out for him. Phil then cuts in and says, "You know what you really miss about L'Manburg?" He then explains what he thinks Tommy is actually feeling and thinking, but frames it as if it's an obvious reality, not one based on his own flawed presumptions.
This practice is generally damaging, as it not only shuts Tommy out of the discussion of his own thoughts and feelings but leaves it up to Phil to explain to Tommy something about himself that may not even be true. It also assumes that Tommy isn't competent or self-aware enough to come to his own conclusions about his internal self. It also robs Tommy the opportunity to come to these conclusions himself, as Phil could've just asked Tommy what it was about L'Manburg that he missed.
It's important to mention that this too is also done out of good intentions. Phil is trying to make a connection with Tommy and figure out how he feels. It just isn't the greatest way to go about it.
Another damaging practice Phil employs is toxic positivity. However, this issue is more rooted in a flawed personal mindset, rather than a communication fault. He recommends Tommy take down his walls, take off his armor, and stop worrying so much; to focus more on bettering himself and growing as a person. He also says he knows Tommy is strong and more than capable of handling Dream in a fight.
This, unfortunately, is some of the worst advice Tommy could receive. Dream is dangerous and hyper-competent. Not only that, but he is currently hunting Tommy down in order to hurt him. He's actively trying to make Tommy think he's losing his mind.
Ignoring that the ability to grow or feel safe in this environment is impossible, Tommy following this advice not only endangers himself but it works to actively brush Tommy's concerns out the door. It's also worth mentioning that Phil most likely perceives Dream as a non-threat due to a lack of knowledge about exile, as well as not knowing about Punz's armor gift. He also comments about how he'd be able to take on Dream in a fight.
Even with this unknowing underestimation, Phil unintentionally sets Tommy up for failure. We as the audience know that Tommy is not capable of physically standing up to Dream. We know that if Tommy ever heeds this advice, he will try to fight Dream and lose.
It also, unfortunately, frames all of Tommy's previous failures to his abuser as Tommy simply... not being strong enough to withstand it.
At the end of the day, this advice is still non-constructive, disregarding its emotional and physical repercussions. Tommy is still in active danger, regardless of what he chooses to do. It doesn't matter what others recommend doing, Tommy is in a truly powerless situation that he has no way of changing.
The only thing he can do now is stick close to people he trusts and do everything he can to protect himself. Removing his walls and putting his guard down is the last thing he should be doing. Then there's the book Phil gave Tommy, in the hopes it would lift his spirits.
Its contents, while well-written and well-intentioned, are the hollow equivalent to a tacky 'Live, Laugh, Love' shelf accessory. Tommy appreciates it, of course, because the message is nice and Tommy desperately needs affirmation. However, it, like the above advice, is not constructive.
Offering positivity or recommending positive thinking, while stemming from goodness, often have the complete opposite effect on those who are struggling. It can lead the individual to feel guilty or confused about their negative emotions. It creates a disconnect between them and the people they're seeking comfort or validation from.
It can cause the individual to feel shameful when they fail to keep in line with positive thinking. It also encourages denial, stuffing, or bottling up emotions in favor of forcing positive thinking. Negative emotions need to be felt and worked through before actual positivity can be achieved.
Pushing them aside doesn't diminish or remove them; it hides them.
Minimization and Familiar Destruction
There's something very concerning about the ease it takes for Phil to destroy something of Tommy's. From his perspective, it makes sense. Phil has lived an immortal's life, watching civilizations and structures rise and fall throughout history.
The existence of something so meager is insignificant to him. He's trying to get Tommy to see the lesson he's teaching from his perspective and feel its insignificance with him. Unfortunately, Phil refuses to see how and why this hurts Tommy.
The item was given to Phil with confidence because Tommy felt safe enough to hand over something valuable. A safety that is instantly crushed once Phil destroys it. This destruction is almost entirely framed as a punishment (for Tommy's hesitation) and is used as an example for the coming lesson.
Destruction of property as punishments or 'teaching' examples is one of the most prominent and long-enduring patterns of abuse Tommy has experienced, especially during the Exile Arc. It was used as a method to control him, so seeing such a clear mirror of this behavior in Phil deeply affects him.
Regardless of Phil knowing nothing of exile, it is still a terrible thing to destroy the property of another person (even if the individual has no trauma associated with the destruction of property.) Especially something as significant as a gift from a deceased friend. Something that is also extremely useful, which could've been used to save his life.
Although to be fair to Phil again, he didn't know the significance of it. (But even if he did, I doubt it would change his willingness to destroy it. He did say it was "just an item" after all.)
After Philza destroys the object and Tommy understandably gets upset, he mocks him, "Oh no. You're okay. It's an item." He later also says, "Do you even care that the apple's gone now? . . . Do you even care? It's gone. Who cares. It's gone."
This tactic is called Minimization. As the name implies, the person using this will attempt to minimize their actions or another person's concerns in order to absolve themselves of responsibility or discomfort. Another popular example is telling someone, "Other people have it worse" when they bring up something they struggle with.
It's a worthless sentiment, usually derived when an individual either doesn't see the situation as important or doesn't want to deal with the fallout of a person's emotional response. It makes the person targeted with these responses feel like their issues are unimportant, their emotions are a burden to other people, or as if they're overreacting. None of these are true.
The best way to combat something like this is to either write down or state exactly what happened in the situation and exactly what's significant about it. The person minimizing doesn't need to know any of these details. Do not confront them; they are likely to minimize again.
The individual affected just needs to hold onto the reality they're experiencing or tell someone they trust. Sometimes it's extremely sobering to have your experiences or feelings corroborated by someone who refuses to distort reality.
The Attachment-Cutting Technique
(This specific moment was so shocking to me that it became the entire reason I wrote this essay. It is the most concerning aspect of Phil's advice and I needed to explain publicly why this bothers me so much.)
In order to 'help' Tommy overcome his attachment problem, Phil sets up an exercise where Tommy would break a slab of stone, turn it into cobblestone, heat it in a furnace until it returns to its base state, then repeat this process. Over and over and over, until it "becomes clear to him."
Whether intentional or not, Phil employs the same tactic Dream used in exile against Tommy, just on a much smaller scale and with a slightly different motive.
The technique is called Attachment-Cutting; where a third party makes an individual do a repeated task (either emotionally or laboriously taxing), in order to destroy that progress at the end of each session and repeat the task over again, without end. Its purpose is to force the target into a state of perpetual exhaustion. It removes emotional value from personal possessions and causes the individual to gradually view their efforts and creations as fundamentally worthless.
It destroys the person's individuality and robs them of a motivation to express themselves through their work. It's meant to make the affected individual reliant on the third party to tell them how and when to express themselves; to tell them where they should use their efforts (usually this third party's motive is to use these efforts selfishly, for their own causes.) It's a control tactic at its most basic level.
Dream wasn't forcing Tommy to create new tools, armor, and other important items just to destroy them (and force him to do it all again) for no reason. Its purpose was calculated, following the Attachment-Cutting abuse technique to a T.
Phil, on the other hand, isn't doing this maliciously, and certainly not at the same level Dream was. Tommy isn't being forced to do this. He can stop at any time. It was merely a suggestion after Tommy asked to become detached.
The actual issue with this is that Phil is unintentionally suggesting Tommy take up a self-destructive practice in order to learn his "lesson." (This lesson being... correcting Tommy's attachment to possessions because he hesitated. Which unfortunately insinuates that Phil... doesn't want him to hesitate. Even though an expectation like that isn't human. People hesitate, even when they've already made up their minds.)
Tommy is unknowingly echoing a practice his abuser forced him to do every single day in exile, with Phil's help. Needless to say, this tactic is not helpful and it certainly isn't healthy. I've seen it mentioned a few times before that Tommy needs to let go of his attachments in order to heal (as Phil was also suggesting.)
This is extremely wrong on many, many levels. It is in human nature to grow emotionally attached to physical possessions (especially if it's something you made. Even more so if it's creative or expressive.) Tommy is a naturally emotional and caring person.
His love for people, pets, items, and places is so deeply ingrained in his person that it is nothing short of cruel to expect him to uproot this part of himself. He is not selfish for wanting to keep something he made, something he earned, or something he's grown to love. This becomes even more important when you consider his position as a victim of abuse.
Keeping material items and possessions that make you happy is not only a completely harmless coping mechanism, it is also essential for healing. Victims of abuse who tend to have their possessions targeted with destruction will never heal from this specific trauma if they refuse to keep the things they care for.
In fact, forcing themselves to remove care for attachments is an example of an unhealthy coping mechanism (which Phil is unfortunately enabling in Tommy.) When an individual becomes a victim of abuse, it's common to find themselves bending to the will of their abuser. They will be forced to hide or give away the items they treasure because their abuser doesn't like them.
They will be unable to express themselves with the way they dress, the way they decorate their house, the way they create art. All of it will be disassembled or re-shaped to fit the whims of their abuser. It is essential, that after leaving this harmful environment, they reclaim this mode of expression.
That they dress how they want to, decorate how they want to, express themselves how they want to. They heal when they can reflect their inner-self outwardly; where the fear of having their expression destroyed becomes a distant memory.
Where the only person considered selfish is not the one who holds onto what they love, but the one who seeks to destroy it.
A Dismantling of c!Phil's "Advice" to c!Tommy (And Why It's Worse Than You Think)
Since Tommyinnit's last lore stream, I've seen a lot of discussion surrounding the (admittedly) short segment at the start between c!Phil and c!Tommy. The general consensus seems to be that the advice was... questionable, at best.
And while this is true for the most part, there are a few specific moments that are deeply concerning in their implications; especially for someone like c!Tommy to internalize.
I'll be explaining why, starting with the more minor, less destructive aspects of their interaction first before moving on.
(Note: All names mentioned will refer to the characters unless stated otherwise. I'll also be approaching this with a level of care for Phil's character. It's completely understandable why he believes certain things he does and I will be highlighting this later on in the post.)
Scolding and Judgement
Philza's first response to disagreement, "unfavorable" perspectives, or mistakes is usually to lecture the individual. It's a big part of his characterization. Chastising individuals for their actions can be reasonable, especially if he is also somewhat responsible for them (ie. the person scolded is his son, housemate, or subordinate.)
However, what is less reasonable is scolding someone for what they think, and not the actions they take.
This becomes especially troubling when the thoughts that Phil demeans come from an individual looking for reassurance. That's not to say that one isn't allowed to be criticized for their thoughts, but Tommy's specific scenario isn't regarding a flawed personal ideology or set of morals.
Tommy went to Phil and confided in him. He confessed to something he thought (and never acted on) and explained that he felt guilty for it; that he thought he was a bad friend. Not even for doing something wrong, but for hesitating, when made to act in an extremely stressful situation.
It's also important to note that Tommy is an unreliable narrator in this scene. The hesitation he mentions during the Final Disc Confrontation was caused by Tubbo explicitly telling Tommy to take the discs and run, something which Tommy considered briefly and almost immediately went against. Phil doesn't know this, thus, his perspective is skewed against Tommy, only working off his word.
Even still, Phil knows that Tommy was made to choose between the discs and Tubbo under a threat of death. This hesitation is extremely natural, but instead of showing compassion for why Tommy would react as he did, he immediately jumped to scolding him and insinuating that he was indeed a bad friend to Tubbo, just for expressing a single thought; a hesitation that he never acted on.
When an individual comes to someone with thoughts they've had that bring them shame or guilt, what they need is reassurance. They need to be told that it will always be their actions that define who they are, not what they consider and turn away from. They need to be told they were correct for making the right choice, especially if these thoughts were tempting or hard to refuse.
Tommy doesn't need to be told that these thoughts are wrong and that choosing the discs over Tubbo is bad. He knows this. That's why he feels guilty.
This guilt should never be validated, especially when it's not constructive or helpful. It's something Tommy's already aware of and has already fought against.
Thoughts are suggestions, not cementations of moral character. And many struggle with thoughts they cannot control or influence. They should never be made to feel guilty for the ideas that appear, which they refuse to entertain.
Repeated Lessons
After Phil learns of Tommy's hesitation, he insists that Tommy needs to learn his lesson; that the individual will always come before material possessions. Mind you, this entire lesson is based on a single moment of hesitation, after which Tommy put Tubbo first in the end.
This is not something Tommy needs to learn. He's already shown that he will always put individuals before possessions.
In fact, this is all Tommy has ever done. It was a big component to his first arc, as far back as early Season One, where he gave up his discs for L'Manburg's freedom. (Whoops, my hand slipped. Anyway, here's an entire compilation of Tommy giving up the things he cares about for the people he loves.)
Unfortunately, Tommy is an unreliable narrator yet again, as he insists he needs to finally learn to "not care as much about possessions." This guilt at keeping his possessions goes a bit deeper than just his relationship with Tubbo. He's been told repeatedly since the start of Season Two that he's selfish for loving things and wanting to keep them.
Finding a way to detach himself from his material items is also a strategy to keep Dream from using his attachments against him again. Now that he's been freed from prison, this fear is at an all-time high. He knows it's only a matter of time before the things he's been free to love are taken away. He's trying to find a way to keep himself safe, emotionally speaking.
Now, it's not exactly Phil's fault for not noticing this. He doesn't know the extent of exile and he doesn't know what Tommy's motives are for seeking this detachment. However, what is an issue is assuming that Tommy doesn't understand or that he still hasn't learned (even though he knows Tommy gave up his discs for Tubbo.)
Tommy also went into this conversation clearly expressing an understanding of the lesson before Phil even tries to teach it to him. It's frustrating not only from Tommy's perspective but from an audience perspective in turn. We as an audience know that Tommy has learned this lesson again and again and again, repeatedly.
We know he understands it and we as the audience understand the message just as much, if not more. So when Tommy is talked down to, we are talked down to as well.
That's not even mentioning Phil's repeated problem with "teaching" someone something and then, when asked about it, he almost outright refuses to say what that message is and how what he did reinforces that. With L'Manburg, he tells Ghostbur he'll "understand someday." With his lesson to Tommy at the furnace, he only says, "It'll come to you eventually."
Lecturing becomes hollow if the lecturer refuses to be understood and uses his teaching as an excuse to exert punishment, rather than to be constructive.
"Putting Up"
When Phil suggests taking down the walls he helped set up, Tommy explains that they keep him safe, remind him of L'Manburg, and bring him comfort.
To which Phil curtly replies and tells Tommy he was just pretending to go along with it and help because he thought it would make him happy. That he really thought the walls were useless and wouldn't do shit to stop Dream. That he was just "putting up with it" for Tommy. On the surface, this seems well-intentioned.
Phil did something to make Tommy happy and put his own thoughts to the side for him. However, by telling Tommy his true thoughts and revealing he was "putting up" with the situation, it has the opposite effect. This reveals to Tommy that Phil will actively lie to him to spare his feelings and isn't being his genuine self around him.
It tells Tommy that he doesn't value him enough to be truthful with him and can make him hesitant to speak with Phil about anything. He'll be stuck wondering what Phil really thinks about any situation, any thought, any plan. It also treats him as if he's not capable of handling rejection, disagreement, or negative feedback.
Not only that, but by telling Tommy what he originally thought anyway, he still revealed the very thing he expected to hurt Tommy. Of course, Phil had good intentions, but it's important to remember that just because someone claims to have done something out of goodness or to protect someone else, doesn't negate their hurtful words or actions.
Projective Presumption and Toxic Positivity
Tommy tells Phil that he misses L'Manburg. It's an off-hand comment he makes as he's doing the stone task Phil laid out for him. Phil then cuts in and says, "You know what you really miss about L'Manburg?" He then explains what he thinks Tommy is actually feeling and thinking, but frames it as if it's an obvious reality, not one based on his own flawed presumptions.
This practice is generally damaging, as it not only shuts Tommy out of the discussion of his own thoughts and feelings but leaves it up to Phil to explain to Tommy something about himself that may not even be true. It also assumes that Tommy isn't competent or self-aware enough to come to his own conclusions about his internal self. It also robs Tommy the opportunity to come to these conclusions himself, as Phil could've just asked Tommy what it was about L'Manburg that he missed.
It's important to mention that this too is also done out of good intentions. Phil is trying to make a connection with Tommy and figure out how he feels. It just isn't the greatest way to go about it.
Another damaging practice Phil employs is toxic positivity. However, this issue is more rooted in a flawed personal mindset, rather than a communication fault. He recommends Tommy take down his walls, take off his armor, and stop worrying so much; to focus more on bettering himself and growing as a person. He also says he knows Tommy is strong and more than capable of handling Dream in a fight.
This, unfortunately, is some of the worst advice Tommy could receive. Dream is dangerous and hyper-competent. Not only that, but he is currently hunting Tommy down in order to hurt him. He's actively trying to make Tommy think he's losing his mind.
Ignoring that the ability to grow or feel safe in this environment is impossible, Tommy following this advice not only endangers himself but it works to actively brush Tommy's concerns out the door. It's also worth mentioning that Phil most likely perceives Dream as a non-threat due to a lack of knowledge about exile, as well as not knowing about Punz's armor gift. He also comments about how he'd be able to take on Dream in a fight.
Even with this unknowing underestimation, Phil unintentionally sets Tommy up for failure. We as the audience know that Tommy is not capable of physically standing up to Dream. We know that if Tommy ever heeds this advice, he will try to fight Dream and lose.
It also, unfortunately, frames all of Tommy's previous failures to his abuser as Tommy simply... not being strong enough to withstand it.
At the end of the day, this advice is still non-constructive, disregarding its emotional and physical repercussions. Tommy is still in active danger, regardless of what he chooses to do. It doesn't matter what others recommend doing, Tommy is in a truly powerless situation that he has no way of changing.
The only thing he can do now is stick close to people he trusts and do everything he can to protect himself. Removing his walls and putting his guard down is the last thing he should be doing. Then there's the book Phil gave Tommy, in the hopes it would lift his spirits.
Its contents, while well-written and well-intentioned, are the hollow equivalent to a tacky 'Live, Laugh, Love' shelf accessory. Tommy appreciates it, of course, because the message is nice and Tommy desperately needs affirmation. However, it, like the above advice, is not constructive.
Offering positivity or recommending positive thinking, while stemming from goodness, often have the complete opposite effect on those who are struggling. It can lead the individual to feel guilty or confused about their negative emotions. It creates a disconnect between them and the people they're seeking comfort or validation from.
It can cause the individual to feel shameful when they fail to keep in line with positive thinking. It also encourages denial, stuffing, or bottling up emotions in favor of forcing positive thinking. Negative emotions need to be felt and worked through before actual positivity can be achieved.
Pushing them aside doesn't diminish or remove them; it hides them.
Minimization and Familiar Destruction
There's something very concerning about the ease it takes for Phil to destroy something of Tommy's. From his perspective, it makes sense. Phil has lived an immortal's life, watching civilizations and structures rise and fall throughout history.
The existence of something so meager is insignificant to him. He's trying to get Tommy to see the lesson he's teaching from his perspective and feel its insignificance with him. Unfortunately, Phil refuses to see how and why this hurts Tommy.
The item was given to Phil with confidence because Tommy felt safe enough to hand over something valuable. A safety that is instantly crushed once Phil destroys it. This destruction is almost entirely framed as a punishment (for Tommy's hesitation) and is used as an example for the coming lesson.
Destruction of property as punishments or 'teaching' examples is one of the most prominent and long-enduring patterns of abuse Tommy has experienced, especially during the Exile Arc. It was used as a method to control him, so seeing such a clear mirror of this behavior in Phil deeply affects him.
Regardless of Phil knowing nothing of exile, it is still a terrible thing to destroy the property of another person (even if the individual has no trauma associated with the destruction of property.) Especially something as significant as a gift from a deceased friend. Something that is also extremely useful, which could've been used to save his life.
Although to be fair to Phil again, he didn't know the significance of it. (But even if he did, I doubt it would change his willingness to destroy it. He did say it was "just an item" after all.)
After Philza destroys the object and Tommy understandably gets upset, he mocks him, "Oh no. You're okay. It's an item." He later also says, "Do you even care that the apple's gone now? . . . Do you even care? It's gone. Who cares. It's gone."
This tactic is called Minimization. As the name implies, the person using this will attempt to minimize their actions or another person's concerns in order to absolve themselves of responsibility or discomfort. Another popular example is telling someone, "Other people have it worse" when they bring up something they struggle with.
It's a worthless sentiment, usually derived when an individual either doesn't see the situation as important or doesn't want to deal with the fallout of a person's emotional response. It makes the person targeted with these responses feel like their issues are unimportant, their emotions are a burden to other people, or as if they're overreacting. None of these are true.
The best way to combat something like this is to either write down or state exactly what happened in the situation and exactly what's significant about it. The person minimizing doesn't need to know any of these details. Do not confront them; they are likely to minimize again.
The individual affected just needs to hold onto the reality they're experiencing or tell someone they trust. Sometimes it's extremely sobering to have your experiences or feelings corroborated by someone who refuses to distort reality.
The Attachment-Cutting Technique
(This specific moment was so shocking to me that it became the entire reason I wrote this essay. It is the most concerning aspect of Phil's advice and I needed to explain publicly why this bothers me so much.)
In order to 'help' Tommy overcome his attachment problem, Phil sets up an exercise where Tommy would break a slab of stone, turn it into cobblestone, heat it in a furnace until it returns to its base state, then repeat this process. Over and over and over, until it "becomes clear to him."
Whether intentional or not, Phil employs the same tactic Dream used in exile against Tommy, just on a much smaller scale and with a slightly different motive.
The technique is called Attachment-Cutting; where a third party makes an individual do a repeated task (either emotionally or laboriously taxing), in order to destroy that progress at the end of each session and repeat the task over again, without end. Its purpose is to force the target into a state of perpetual exhaustion. It removes emotional value from personal possessions and causes the individual to gradually view their efforts and creations as fundamentally worthless.
It destroys the person's individuality and robs them of a motivation to express themselves through their work. It's meant to make the affected individual reliant on the third party to tell them how and when to express themselves; to tell them where they should use their efforts (usually this third party's motive is to use these efforts selfishly, for their own causes.) It's a control tactic at its most basic level.
Dream wasn't forcing Tommy to create new tools, armor, and other important items just to destroy them (and force him to do it all again) for no reason. Its purpose was calculated, following the Attachment-Cutting abuse technique to a T.
Phil, on the other hand, isn't doing this maliciously, and certainly not at the same level Dream was. Tommy isn't being forced to do this. He can stop at any time. It was merely a suggestion after Tommy asked to become detached.
The actual issue with this is that Phil is unintentionally suggesting Tommy take up a self-destructive practice in order to learn his "lesson." (This lesson being... correcting Tommy's attachment to possessions because he hesitated. Which unfortunately insinuates that Phil... doesn't want him to hesitate. Even though an expectation like that isn't human. People hesitate, even when they've already made up their minds.)
Tommy is unknowingly echoing a practice his abuser forced him to do every single day in exile, with Phil's help. Needless to say, this tactic is not helpful and it certainly isn't healthy. I've seen it mentioned a few times before that Tommy needs to let go of his attachments in order to heal (as Phil was also suggesting.)
This is extremely wrong on many, many levels. It is in human nature to grow emotionally attached to physical possessions (especially if it's something you made. Even more so if it's creative or expressive.) Tommy is a naturally emotional and caring person.
His love for people, pets, items, and places is so deeply ingrained in his person that it is nothing short of cruel to expect him to uproot this part of himself. He is not selfish for wanting to keep something he made, something he earned, or something he's grown to love. This becomes even more important when you consider his position as a victim of abuse.
Keeping material items and possessions that make you happy is not only a completely harmless coping mechanism, it is also essential for healing. Victims of abuse who tend to have their possessions targeted with destruction will never heal from this specific trauma if they refuse to keep the things they care for.
In fact, forcing themselves to remove care for attachments is an example of an unhealthy coping mechanism (which Phil is unfortunately enabling in Tommy.) When an individual becomes a victim of abuse, it's common to find themselves bending to the will of their abuser. They will be forced to hide or give away the items they treasure because their abuser doesn't like them.
They will be unable to express themselves with the way they dress, the way they decorate their house, the way they create art. All of it will be disassembled or re-shaped to fit the whims of their abuser. It is essential, that after leaving this harmful environment, they reclaim this mode of expression.
That they dress how they want to, decorate how they want to, express themselves how they want to. They heal when they can reflect their inner-self outwardly; where the fear of having their expression destroyed becomes a distant memory.
Where the only person considered selfish is not the one who holds onto what they love, but the one who seeks to destroy it.
...Phil said, in a Hardcore stream, (after/during the Death of Tommy) that they are in no way related. These two act like strangers because they are. Tommy is basically the Neighbor’s kid that took a liking to Wilbur, stayed with him- So, to Phil, he knows more OF him, then actual conversations. (Even with them living together- Tommy would talk to Techno more than acknowledge Philza’s existence.)
You can have your found family dynamics but in actual canon, they know almost nothing. The most they have? Techno and Wilbur, their stories of the other, their povs.
Before he confirmed it, I thought it. I mean, if your father was exploding your country (Doomsday) you’d think that you would want to talk to him, even more than actual main guy. But, no. Tommy clinged more towards his caretaker, Techno who was like his brother.
They rarely ever canonically talked, why wouldn’t you talk to your dad? No matter what, you’ll talk to him. No matter what you did to him.
Well, luckily nothing happened on the syndicate stream to completely make your Philza vid irrelevant. It even played into what you said, Phil's relationship with Tommy being utterly ignored, unless you want to count him being in denial for something. That is, until the next vague comment someone makes on the family dynamic that makes the fandom go wild again.
Honestly, at this point, I just want any dynamic.
Like, the crux of it all isn’t “Are they blood-related” or not. I think we just focus on it because of our intertextual readings and because it was (at one point) canon. But honestly, they could be found family, they could distant acquaintances (though, I personally would find that option lame, to be honest).
I just want Tommy and Phil’s relationship to be addressed and explored in some form within the text, not only in the paratext!
An Unwanted (but likely) Theory:
Techno is going to die, and by the hands of Ranboo.
I was typing a reply to a random comment when I found out how Techno is going to die.
“Techno is going to die.
He has made jokes of death, his code name is famous for dying first. And the fact that Ranboo has made jokes of being a god killer” and I didn’t even finish typing when it came to me.
What did Techy call the nukes? “God killers” (During the “Syndicate” stream)
And during the Cake baking video, Ranboo was planning to kill god. (Don’t judge, he said that he would and have been dropping hints in ANYTHING that he is in.)
And what does that got to do with the other? As of March 26th, Tubbo did a short lore stream, stating that one of his nukes have gone missing. Ranboo most likely forgot- But I am starting to think his subconscious has a whole different memory storage.
And it just so happens that the new family is having a house built.
Yes, this theory is likely but highly unwanted. I mean, I am a Techno, Ranboo, and a Phil apologist. I want people to still apologize for.
Phil: ...Doesn’t it hurt him when he cries?
Tubbo, desperate: PLEASE MAKE HIM STOP!
philza: so, how's fatherhood treating you?
tubbo: good. i didn't expect this much crying though, to be honest.
philza: don't worry, it's normal for toddlers to cry.
tubbo: what? no, michael's fine, i was talking about ranboo.
ranboo, crying while watching michael run across his bedroom: I LOVE YOU SO MUCH.
…c!Techno has only one life, instead of the assumed 3.
He came from a “time where everyone only had one life” and it is confirmed that Technoblade does NOT know how old he is! In the part where Quackity was making small talk, he asked the pig how old he is, he didn’t know. This proves that he is AS old as Phil, his “old friend”
As we know, Will made it that Phil only has one life because of Phil’s hardcore series. (Which he called “playing with his trains” back when he lived in L’Manburg) Phil is canonically a couple centuries old at least and mentioned that if Tales of the Dream SMP was not in majorly American time, he would make his character a cameo. (Most likely in the past set ones as Phil informed us of his ghost skin-)
And another piece of evidence is his name. Not “Techno,” his Syndicate name; Protesilaus. A great warrior who was the first to die. “First to die” wouldn’t really matter if he had three lives. Technically Ranboo was the first to die- Sorry
And I further hope that my earlier theory about Ranboo killing Technoblade is false. It truly seems that way, as killing does not fit Ranboo’s character at all. (Real Ranboo maybe.) And Techno is obviously going to try to get Dream to revive Ranboo, which is confirmed in multiple streams after the death stream.
Hewowo!! Hope everyone’s doing well and if not,just know it will get better. Anyways decided to post about my first character and this character was lowkey inspired by the one and only,technoblade and before you say techno kinnie lol she has abit of Philza inspired traits as well so don’t come at me..lol.
My first character is named Nevra and she is a winged woman who is the last of her kind due to the purging of her race which were known as the winged folk. She is an ageless being with black and violet wings that helps her soar through the sky and throughout her life she has done an incredible amount of traveling and exploring and now resides in a cabin in the tundra region far from any kingdom or town(I can already here it;not a techno kinnie). One night, unfortunately for her, a strange woman drops off a box with a small baby inside and she is forced to take care of it due to no one wanting the infant. And no this isn’t your stereotypical “oh this character has a soft side” no,she could careless but gradually progresses into a “paternal” role.
There you have it,my first character. More will be released soon and that was just a general and brief summary about her. I’ll leave it here for now. Good whatever time your reading this :)
Hello again! Just wanted to make a quick announcement ig even tho idk if I can lol:
Since we are reaching the conclusion of the ranmug, i won’t be able to do other projects like the mug
However I can buy store bought clay and make dsmp related figures that would be cool to make if I get inspiration lol
Also I want to start posting about my story again. While the dsmp posts are more favorable, I want to make something that is my own idea and that’s original and that other people will genuinely enjoy
Some ideas and concepts will have dsmp inspiration such as one of my characters Nevra which is inspired by technoblade and philza and another character who has attributes similar to ghostbur
Although I might only get like 2-3 notes or none at all lol, I still want to give it a try and really go through with it
Anyways, sorry it’s abit long lol. I’ll leave this here for now good whatever time your reading this
Anyone else an avid Tubson enjoyer or am I in the trenches alone?
thinking about c!phil. c!phil & techno & how they are soldiers who breathe violence -- how that impacts phil's parenting.
thinking about how they canonically fought together as the antarctic empire. thinking about phil & techno as fellow soldiers, both emotionally stunted, & how they found solace in knowing the other is absolutely loyal. an bloodforged unspoken trust deeper than any verbal oath they could've made. thinking about how often they might have pushed through pain & left it festering & unaddressed bc it was all they knew: don't talk about it. carry on & deal with trauma only when it crops up. it's probably the way both of them deal with it best, but that's not... mentally sustainable.
thinking about how c!phil consistently resorts to violence to solve the big problems (wilbur, l'manberg). thinking about how he can't address ~emotions~ for squat. thinking about how c!techno does the same things.
thinking about the probable lessons they learned from war. the ends justify the means. violence is the only language that people respect. pay an insult back a hundredfold to establish your strength; people will back off. trauma is weakness & people will take advantage of it. keep your true feelings & loyalties close to your chest & continually reevaluate the situation. alliances could fall apart any moment, any situation could be a trap, so paranoia is survival. if you need to, make the hard choice & live with it. blunt the emotional pain by bottling up/dulling your emotions--whatever works. (I'm not super familiar with SMP Earth, so please add some examples if you are!)
thinking about how all of this really doesn't translate well to parenting.
but if that's all c!phil knows, we can't expect him to do it differently.
tw // blood
There is a quiet, fleeting, moment, when the blade sinks itself into his ribcage and just below his heart, where the world whites out at the edges. He feels his lungs rattle in his chest, feels the metallic taste of blood well up from the back of his throat. He feels Phil’s shaking hands, tremors running down the metal and into his spine and his throat and the lips he so lightly twists into a smile.
“Hey, Phil.” Wilbur says, feeling his father slip further down, head bowed in grief. “It’s cold.”
Phil keens low and quiet into his chest, singed wings draping over Wilbur, trying their best to block out the cold he knows comes from somewhere within him. He appreciates the gesture nonetheless.
He hears fireworks in the distance, and sees blue and red through the feathers. L’manburg colors. He silently thanks his brother for the last reminder of his symphony, his unfinished verse. He wonders if his death will be a finishing bar, or perhaps a catalyst for a new measure. He wonders if Tommy knows that the mantle has been passed, and that he’s sorry for the weight that ties a noose around his younger brother’s neck. It wasn’t supposed to be like this, he wants to plead, you’re not supposed to carry the weight of my failures on your shoulders. He hopes Tommy runs away, that he leaves this unfinished song and go write for himself a new one, a happier one.
“Are you proud of me?” Wilbur finds himself whispering, half hoping Phil doesn’t hear, and finding himself feeling too tired to care. He supposes death did that to a person. Leaves them tired and cold and strangely light. Phil’s hands don’t stop shaking, and red paints his palms and fingers and the hem of his cloak. Wilbur huffs a laugh at his father’s silence.
“You don’t have to answer that, I think I know what you’re gonna say anyway.” Wilbur says, swallowing back a lungful of blood and air, bringing a hand up to card through the man’s blond hair. Phil shudders. “I wouldn’t be proud of me either.”
Phil lets out a broken sound at this, and somewhere in Wil’s bleeding chest, he feels a twinge of shame.
“Forget about me, Phil.” Wilbur says into the air, feeling sweat and blood and tears drip down his chin. It stains the tips of Phil’s hair. “It’ll be easier that way, I think.”
Phil brings a hand up to clutch at Wilbur’s arm, head still burrowed in his fast reddening shirt, and Wilbur stifles a gasp at where the movement jars his wound. The elder’s breathing is shallow, he opens and closes his mouth, words caught in his throat, like he’s choking on them.
“Don’t cry, Phil.” Wilbur hums, voice thready and thin in the ash filled air, “I don’t want that to be the last thing I hear.”
Phil sobs, and his back shakes with the weight of his grief and his loss. It must be agonizing, Wilbur thinks, to mourn your son while he still speaks. Then again, that won’t last for much longer.
Wilbur strokes his father’s head, though his fading strength only allows him to curl his fingers, helpless as it falls wayside to the ground.
“You’ll be fine, dad.” Wilbur whispers, “You did the right thing. You got rid of the big bad, like the hero in the stories you used to tell.”
Phil wails harder, and Wilbur thinks that maybe being a hero isn’t as appealing when it causes good men to cry.
“I’m tired.” He sighs, feeling his eyes slip shut, “I’ve been awake too long.”
Phil reaches out with trembling fingers, bloodstained palms cradling his cheek.
“I l-love yo u.” He chokes, the words broken and jilted, like a song through a broken speaker.
Wilbur feels his smile slip a bit, and bites back a strangled laugh, because Phil doesn’t deserve this, doesn’t deserve to have to paint the floor red with his own son’s blood. Another tally on his faults, he thinks, another red name for his ledger of wrongdoings. Even on his dying breath, he hurts the people he loves.
“I love you too.” He says, instead, because he refuses to leave without letting his father know that he loves him. That whatever happens, whatever consequences he’s left blazing at his wake, Wilbur soot does not hate his father. That this isn’t some sort of cruel punishment or last hurrah. He thinks that maybe he just wants to be held, and that sleep comes so much easier when he’s safe in the arms of his childhood hero and protector. “I love you so much.”
The static in his head grow louder, and he feels his heart give a shudder, and a beat, and the dark encroaches quickly, and through the gauze he hears a broken scream. Then, nothing.
Do you think soldiers of L'manburg still remember Tommy as this war hero and meet at a bar and go:
"Yo I saw the general and I heard he came back to life and also killed that Green Guy two times and is good friends with the riches people of the server and the Angel of Death"
"I saw him being under the protection of a machine the warden created"
"Holy shit I heard he has a pet spider!"
"A big one?"
"MASSIVE DUDE!"
Tommy "i am so traumatised my therapist has trauma" innit but all the Slodiers only see their General that won L'manburg its freedom and are in awe of everything he does
"I heard he committed to peace now. Refusing to use the most dangerous weapons and only using low quality ones"
"And he STILL kills mobs easily!"
"I heard he is childhood friends with a powerful demon..."
"Isn't the murderous fairy of the woods also fond of him?"
"Damn."
"I saw the Angel of Death promising his aid to him..."
"You mean the guy that blew our nation up?" "Yeah"
"Mf our General is a madman! (Affectionately)"
They end up exchanging stories about how kind and badass Tommy is
Soldier 1: "He offered me some carrots when I passed by"
Soldier 2: "I heard he isn't that well of rn tho..."
Solider 1, starts crying: "He shared despite not having much himself??!!"
catharsis
Will is a little nervous, coming in this room. Again. It’s always a different mix of emotions, but some key ingredients are the same: thrill, anticipation, sadness. This time the cocktail is a true masterpiece: thrill, anticipation, conviction, confidence, only a drop of sadness. The only really new ingredient in all of this is fear, and it kind of ties it all together, adds the needed spice to the mix. Will lingers for a bit, analyzing the taste of the imaginary cocktail. There’s something else. Just… a dash of uncertainty. It’s not about the act, but it’s in the air, ruining his experience. What a shame.
“Will. What are you doing?”
Phil’s voice sounds so, so familiar. Maybe decades ago he said this exact phrase in this exact tone, when Will was stealing something from the kitchen. Weird how some things don’t change.
Will is glad to hear his voice. It means that it all goes according to plan. It means that he won’t leave this room. The uncertainty is gone.
Will is deafened by the sound of the explosion, his breath is heavy and uneven, partially because of excitement, partially because the air is filled with dust, but right there, right then, he has a moment of absolute clarity. It all makes sense to him, all of his questions have answers, he comes up with a name for his cocktail — “catharsis”. It has a wonderful sweet aftertaste of satisfaction.
There’s only one more thing to do. Will has done it a thousand times before, especially when Phil would catch him doing something he “shouldn’t be doing”. Ask nicely. Phil is surprisingly bad at saying “no”.
Weird how some things don’t change.