C!phil - Tumblr Posts
/dsmp /rp I personally think the Syndicate was just a right arc, wrong time. If Techno formed the syndicate during the exile arc with the same people it would've been so much better. Him and Phil would have to be sneaking around Tommy as he was staying with Techno temporarily, Ranboo could join just after Doomsday and instead of Niki just kinda standing at the side her villian arc could of began with her helping doomsday and joining after finding out what the Butcher army did. Dream could've been a temporary member until her got arrested and it would make Tommy's decision to turn on them a little more reasonable as the lie could've been the syndicate.
It would also make Niki deciding to hate Tommy all that much more reasonable. From her perspective it could've been Techno had given Tommy a roof over his head and support when he needed it most and he rejected it and betrayed techno meanwhile Wilbur never did that to her.
Idk I think it would've worked better earlier but the whole thing about the dsmp is that they write it as they go so Techno probably expected a government to be formed by one of the former L'manburg members like Tommy but it never happened lmao.
I'm gonna say it: the Syndicate is the most disappointing arc to come out of season 3.
I will write a whole-ass post on why if y'alls want me to, but I rlly don't think I have to explain.
Knowing that Sam Nook is most likely Awesamdude from Boomers lore is funny cause he had to lie through his whole ass teeth that any friend of Tommy was a friend of his.
Who will still remember the events of S1 (DSMP)? Theory
As we all know, the server got nuked to bits and it is implied that everyone that was on the overworld got their memories nuked. But, we know that their are characters who would be able to remember because of their location at the time of the nukes or because of what we know of their lore, so here's a list of people that would definetly remember and a list of who could remember because of what we know of them;
Those that would definetly remember:
-c!Aimsey (They left to somewhere else) -c!GhostConnor (Left to the end) -c!Connor (In limbo) -DreamXD (Literally a god) -Ghostbur (He is in limbo) -c!Jschlatt (He is in limbo) -c!Kristin (Left to the end and is a literal god) -c!Lazarbeam (He is in Limbo) -Mexican Dream (He is in limbo) -Michael (Living in the nether) -c!Niki (Left to the end) -c!Philza (Left to the end) -c!Ranboo (Living in the nether) -c!Vikkstar (He is in limbo) -c!Wilbur (He is in Utah)
Those that could remember because of lore:
-c!Callahan (God-like) -c!Karl (Could have been in the in-between while everything happened) -c!Slime (Could have returned to the earth because he sensed the great danger) -The egg (God-like)
That's it for now, tell me if you have any other ideas or theories about this.
Imagine villain!emduo where they do some kidnapping along with other villainy things. But Techno and Phil have differing views about how to knock someone out while kidnapping them. Phil's an expert at potion making and prefers to use his potions to render someone unconscious (think like chloroform). Techno prefers to just knock them out the old fashioned way - using his fists. When Phil asks why, the conversation goes like this:
Phil: Using my potions are way easier, why bother with your fists?
Techno: Do you know how harmful those chemicals are to the body?
Phil, in disbelief: So you can bash a man's head in but draw the line at drugging? God forbid the Blood God gives his kidnappees chemical poisoning.
Techno: Bruhhhh
generational joy
oh my god this took forever. THANK U TO THE TWO ASKS U GUYS R LEGENDS
sandduo for the soul (not my soul. i gave it up drawing the details in the lineart)
my discord voted on this bee tee dubz 👉👈👁👁 ill be holding another poll for my next piece soon
C!Niki would be Cottagecore x Grunge or goblincore to put it simply
C!Techno would either dress like a typical white man or like a vampire or dark academia
C!Phil would dress as dark academia too maybe or cyberpunk-y vibes
C!Ranboo would dress like a pathetic guy who doesn’t go out the house (ig simpbyr/Sylver is in my mind 💀)
C!Foolish would dress like he OWNS the place /hj
C!Connor would dress like adam sandler
Y’all, please send me outfits that either give c!Techno, c!Phil, c!Niki, c!Ranboo, c!Connor, or c!Foolish vibes (I wanna draw the Syndicate hanging out and vibing)
Or…
Outfits that give c!Quackity, c!Charlie, c!Fundy, c!Purpled, c!Foolish, c!Sam, or c!Tubbo vibes (for the same reason but with Las Nevadas)
Tagging my DSMP moots cause I wanna do this soon before I lose interest or motivation
@barzfrommarz @myaminecraft @riku234 @m-llohi @dukingadorablez
@rxccoonboo @inktasticmagic @d0mb1l @a-sociopath-do-your-research @hearts4lilith
@kyuummie @anon-h3art @plaguethewaters @rae-unbeloved @marurumai
@cerberussys @justonebitebaby @themusicalsystem @hopalongfairywren @tall-oreo-boi-fan
@little-cravxngs @stormzi13 @board-key @loneycorner @froggiesir
@cupidl0vesy0u @ffaeb @reiisheresart @helpicant-stop @vidrissaponem
@mon-moonfae @bucketsboos @kelperings
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.
Harpy Hare, where have you buried all your children?
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.
Wilbur shook his head, “I’ve never lied to you.”
(...)
Wilbur lifted his mask
“If I truly believed it was the truth, does that make me a liar?”
(...)
“That’s the difference between me and Schlatt. That’s the difference between me and Phil. That’s the difference between me and Quackity.” The sparks had stopped flying so it was impossible to make out Wilbur’s facial expressions as he spoke. “I have never lied to you. I have been wrong but never lied to you, Tommy. I won’t lie to you. Do you trust me, Tommy? ‘Cos right now I feel like you don’t trust me.”
(Excerpt from Hitting on 16 by Wilbur Soot)
So, in this line, Wilbur references Schlatt and Quackity as purposeful liars while saying that in his Pogtopia mindset he wasn't lying because he truly believed what he was saying would come true, thus differentiating them, and it's pretty obvious that he's referring to stuff both of them (Schlatt and Quackity) did and said during the Manburg administration (which he still has a lot of resentment for).
However, he also mentions Phil, and I haven't seen anyone yet say where exactly Phil's lie that Wilbur references is. Well, I think I got it:
VOD: Healthy competition, 25th July, 8:03
Wilbur: Not many people do. I mean, Phil, you don’t seem afraid of me, you’re not afraid of me, are you, Phil?
Phil: No, not at all
Wilbur: Good. Good, ‘cause I’m not afraid of you
I think this is where Wilbur is convinced that Phil lied.
He says that "Good. Good, 'cause I'm not afraid of you" only after a pause, in what I can only describe as a slightly distrustful tone. "Not showing his true colours" with that response one could say:
“I think, I think you might be a bit braver than me, in showing your true colours. I feel like with you, Ranboo, I never have to be guessing your next move, I never have to be guessing your hand, you know? I feel like life dealt us the same cards, and the difference is that you build your trust by showing people your cards, while I keep them close to my chest. And I feel like that might be the big difference.” - (Wilbur’s Healthy Competition: 41:22, 25th July)
And this is also supported by the very explicit way in which later on the same stream he says:
“Can I be real with you, man? I think I scare people.” - (Wilbur’s Healthy Competition: 36:30, 25th July)
He’s convinced that people are afraid of him, that his social limbo is ever-reaching and that everyone looks at him like they did in Pogtopia, that they see him as crazy and scary, thus, he’d see that Phil just lied to him there
“I mean, like I, I, I, I don’t think I, I- I think a lot of people share your idea, but they share your idea in trying to- trying to keep me from hurting them, you know? Like they’ve seen what I can do, and they don’t want me to do it again, so they adopt your emotion in order to do it.” - (Wilbur’s Healthy Competition: 36:46, 25th July)
“I’m living in eternal limbo, again. I’ve been through limbo, I’m out of limbo, and socially, I’m still in this limbo.” - (Wilbur’s Healthy Competition: 38:36, 25th July)
“And, man, Ranboo, hearing you say those words that you said to me. Do you remember what you said? You said, 'I think people can change’, that was number one. And number two, you said you’re scared if people don’t like you.” - (Wilbur’s Healthy Competition: 38:45, 25th July)
“Okay. Tubbo, I’ve literally- I was dead for thirteen years. I know it wasn’t long for you, I know it was only a couple months for you, but, thirteen years, Tubbo. Thirteen years of my life. I aged! Look at me, I’m not the same young man you knew!” - (Wilbur’s A Year Later: 20:52, 3rd Aug)
“I relived that explosion in my head so many times man. And, and, and I- I get that you don’t, you don’t trust me, I do, but like, man, look at me, bro, I’m not gonna do it again. I’m not gonna- I’m not gonna hurt you again.” - (Wilbur’s A Year Later: 21:21, 3rd Aug)
As cc!Wilbur mentioned in that one reddit post (it's in the replies): Quackity makes him feel human, while "everybody's trying to get on his god side out of fear", he remarks Quackity as "Someone who looks at him, not as "insane" not as "evil" or a "freak" but rather just unpredictable. Human. This is exciting for Revivedbur. He feels human again."
Quackity and Ranboo are the two he feels look at him as a person, not as just "that crazy man from Pogtopia", that's why he opens up so completely to Ranboo, it's why he remarks this:
“I feel alive, Ranboo, I feel alive. Someone’s looking at me and talking to me! I’m alive, I’m alive! This is great.” - (Wilbur’s Unhealthy Competition: 27:22, 4th Aug)
Phil however, enters in the larger camp of "looks at me with fear" (as well as the camp to use him as a scapegoat after his death), he's in the larger group of people Wilbur feels the need to appeaase by having more obvious comeuppance:
“Dream is- He’s had his comeuppance, and I have not! My comeuppance was apparently not good enough for this people. They’re just waiting, they’re waiting for the next thing for me to slip up on, and, Ranboo, I’m not gonna fucking slip up, Ranboo. I’m different.” - (Wilbur’s Healthy Competition: 38:07, 25th July)
This also is a lie that Wilbur would care about, because I've seen others mention how Phil lied about Fried having infinite lives, which was in reality a "replace the goldfish" situation and how Phil also lied about not killing him no matter what he did or said in november 16th. However, Wilbur wouldn't care much for either of those instances, as he saw him dying on the 16th as something good and didn't pay much attention to Friend.
But his father apparently lying to him about no being scared of him? About not looking at him like crazy and hopeless just as everyone else when he's especially struggling with feeling like he can't count on anyone on account of his social limbo? Yeah, that one would affect him alright.
The syndicate in the skins techno had commissioned + the shadow of the mysterious 5th member
