Dsmp Dream - Tumblr Posts
DAY 1 — DISC
not sure I'll draw a lot of themes but let's goooooo
Второсортные скетчи ручкой на оторванном тетрадном листе с пары.
И я в первый раз нарисовала Дрима ;–;
Арты немного отличаются, но по задумке они парные. Просто Томми шёл более скетчевый вариант.
Вообще всё это рисовалось только ради брекетов Томми) Их прикольно рисовать
"Твои диски :)"
people keep saying that techno forcing dream to take his armor off and kicking him out of the anarchist commune is hypocritical and its sent me off the rails multiple times.
techno and dream were NEVER FRIENDS. dream never did something to instigate an act of repayment of kindness by techno, everything he ever did for techno he held over his head and demanded a favor off of him with. saving carl and him from the execution? yeah, thats what PROMPTED the entire favor plotline from the beginning. it wasnt an act of kindness because dream wanted a favor out of it too. it was manipulative and coercive, and techno KNEW this.
during doomsday, he only allied with dream because they shared a common goal and dream was someone techno trusted enough IN THE MOMENT 1. because of the favor 2. because it was a common goal 3. because techno and dream had a similar disdain for the same thing by proxy (techno for lmanburg and dream for tommy), they didnt do it because they were very good pals who hate government, they were just temporary allies to achieve a common goal prompted by personal reasons.
in the will, he didnt even really state he cared for dream, he just went to see if hes alright, cuz that could be detrimental to breaking him out. besides, when he was trapped in the prison with dream, he didnt do anything other than calm dream down enough to the point where he could extract info out of him. never at that point were they friends, and techno never pretended it was this way, and neither did dream.
technos plans for breaking dream out were INDEFINITE, it was only instigated when he saw RANBOO being arrested that got him to enact the plans stat. plus, dream wouldve been a valuable ally inside the prison, being one of the strongest men of the smp. its another thing that he didnt know the mutual hatred between ranboo and dream, but the fact that he was more concerned for ranboo shows as well that techno WASNT friends with dream, he was just doing his part of the favor.
techno never PROMISED he was gonna give dream armor and shelter. why would he need to? dream is one of the strongest people in the smp and techno knows this and dream knows techno knows this. why would the strongest man in the smp only have one set of netherite armor that he lost when he was arrested? that wouldnt make him the strongest man. by assuming dream needed the netherite, techno would effectively be babying dream and spoon-feeding someone he didnt want to spoon-feed. dream is strong. he just lacked the gear and escape plan in the moment because he was caught off guard when he was arrested. i guarantee that if dream was better prepared for a happenstance he couldnt have predicted, then the favor would still be over technos head right now. technos plan involved dream having adequate gear to fend off potential danger, it wasnt a wellness gift from techno to dream, it was a requirement for the escape to go as planned. it was necessary, but it wasnt a gift. as far as we and techno is concerned, any sort of gentle approach imploded when dream showed zero care for ranboo. (not saying dream is wrong for this, they both had their reasons in their moment. just saying that it went against what techno wanted for his friend.) ranboo was more of a priority in technos head cuz they were FRIENDS, dream was just a valuable ally and someone who he owed a favor to, a favor he would repay by also breaking him out.
they were never friends between all this, and i highly doubt theyre friends now. theyre just reluctant allies kept together by a shoddy “favor” that they constantly need to repay each other.
its completely in-character for techno to keep this up as well. people take technos words completely literally in the speech. when he said his little monologue about “repaying kindnesss tenfold and repaying injustice a thousand times over”, it is literally a “an eye for an eye” thing. sure, you can take it literally, but taking it SO literally is a mischaracterization. techno repaid a favor, so dream has to do the same now too. dream was never kind, so techno doesnt have to repay the kindness tenfold. he never treated him with injustice, so he doesnt have to repay that injustice a thousand times over. he owed him a favor, so dream has to repay that favor. fairs fair. thats how techno IS. taking it literally works, but thats just now how techno (cc or c) is if you take a closer look. technos character and monologues are rife with literary references and metaphors. out of all his speeches, why would THIS one be literal?
more people have analyzed dreams character better than i have and ever will in this situation, but why would dream wanna befriend techno NOW? sure, its unfortunate he had to lose such convenient tools at such an inconvenient time, but they were never a neccessity for him. it was just inconvenient, not world-shattering. dream understands this. we know he understands it and holds no animosity to techno for it because of how he was in the dream v sapnap exchange that techno was spying on. if they were friends, wouldnt this be some sort of travesty, a grand betrayal?
as phil said, it was just a business relationship. it was never a friendship, and painting it in such a light is a gross mischaracterization of both techno AND dreams characters.
im all for that good rivalsduo content, but not like this, man. it also baffles me that its mostly the techno apologists that decide to blame techno for THIS. like, cmon, an apologist is supposed to know the cc they apologize for through and through. this negates every argument of theirs, and just shows they dont really know the cc. excuse doomsday and all the other war crimes, sure, but hold techno accountable because “rivalsduo are friends”? mann.
one more thing: if techno and dream were friends, why wouldnt techno check up on dream when he was in the prison? he didnt make an effort to visit the prison at all, even try to spy the outside, he just had it in the back of his mind until quackity showed up on his birthday. he doesnt value a friendship with dream because there is none, techno just had a business deal with dream that he assumed was on indefinite hold until dream could sort things out. if anything, i think this kinda pushes the narrative that, despite upholding his morals and all, techno didnt really wanna do the favor. or, if anything, it just wasnt his priority. his priority was the syndicate, not the favor. the moment you hold something over something else, it proves that that second thing is just less meaningful to you - in this case, the syndicate over dream. dream isnt as important as the syndicate because, unlike the syndicate, dreams favor isnt long-term and he doesnt actively want to protect dream.
people keep saying that techno forcing dream to take his armor off and kicking him out of the anarchist commune is hypocritical and its sent me off the rails multiple times.
techno and dream were NEVER FRIENDS. dream never did something to instigate an act of repayment of kindness by techno, everything he ever did for techno he held over his head and demanded a favor off of him with. saving carl and him from the execution? yeah, thats what PROMPTED the entire favor plotline from the beginning. it wasnt an act of kindness because dream wanted a favor out of it too. it was manipulative and coercive, and techno KNEW this.
during doomsday, he only allied with dream because they shared a common goal and dream was someone techno trusted enough IN THE MOMENT 1. because of the favor 2. because it was a common goal 3. because techno and dream had a similar disdain for the same thing by proxy (techno for lmanburg and dream for tommy), they didnt do it because they were very good pals who hate government, they were just temporary allies to achieve a common goal prompted by personal reasons.
in the will, he didnt even really state he cared for dream, he just went to see if hes alright, cuz that could be detrimental to breaking him out. besides, when he was trapped in the prison with dream, he didnt do anything other than calm dream down enough to the point where he could extract info out of him. never at that point were they friends, and techno never pretended it was this way, and neither did dream.
technos plans for breaking dream out were INDEFINITE, it was only instigated when he saw RANBOO being arrested that got him to enact the plans stat. plus, dream wouldve been a valuable ally inside the prison, being one of the strongest men of the smp. its another thing that he didnt know the mutual hatred between ranboo and dream, but the fact that he was more concerned for ranboo shows as well that techno WASNT friends with dream, he was just doing his part of the favor.
techno never PROMISED he was gonna give dream armor and shelter. why would he need to? dream is one of the strongest people in the smp and techno knows this and dream knows techno knows this. why would the strongest man in the smp only have one set of netherite armor that he lost when he was arrested? that wouldnt make him the strongest man. by assuming dream needed the netherite, techno would effectively be babying dream and spoon-feeding someone he didnt want to spoon-feed. dream is strong. he just lacked the gear and escape plan in the moment because he was caught off guard when he was arrested. i guarantee that if dream was better prepared for a happenstance he couldnt have predicted, then the favor would still be over technos head right now. technos plan involved dream having adequate gear to fend off potential danger, it wasnt a wellness gift from techno to dream, it was a requirement for the escape to go as planned. it was necessary, but it wasnt a gift. as far as we and techno is concerned, any sort of gentle approach imploded when dream showed zero care for ranboo. (not saying dream is wrong for this, they both had their reasons in their moment. just saying that it went against what techno wanted for his friend.) ranboo was more of a priority in technos head cuz they were FRIENDS, dream was just a valuable ally and someone who he owed a favor to, a favor he would repay by also breaking him out.
they were never friends between all this, and i highly doubt theyre friends now. theyre just reluctant allies kept together by a shoddy “favor” that they constantly need to repay each other.
its completely in-character for techno to keep this up as well. people take technos words completely literally in the speech. when he said his little monologue about “repaying kindnesss tenfold and repaying injustice a thousand times over”, it is literally a “an eye for an eye” thing. sure, you can take it literally, but taking it SO literally is a mischaracterization. techno repaid a favor, so dream has to do the same now too. dream was never kind, so techno doesnt have to repay the kindness tenfold. he never treated him with injustice, so he doesnt have to repay that injustice a thousand times over. he owed him a favor, so dream has to repay that favor. fairs fair. thats how techno IS. taking it literally works, but thats just now how techno (cc or c) is if you take a closer look. technos character and monologues are rife with literary references and metaphors. out of all his speeches, why would THIS one be literal?
more people have analyzed dreams character better than i have and ever will in this situation, but why would dream wanna befriend techno NOW? sure, its unfortunate he had to lose such convenient tools at such an inconvenient time, but they were never a neccessity for him. it was just inconvenient, not world-shattering. dream understands this. we know he understands it and holds no animosity to techno for it because of how he was in the dream v sapnap exchange that techno was spying on. if they were friends, wouldnt this be some sort of travesty, a grand betrayal?
as phil said, it was just a business relationship. it was never a friendship, and painting it in such a light is a gross mischaracterization of both techno AND dreams characters.
im all for that good rivalsduo content, but not like this, man. it also baffles me that its mostly the techno apologists that decide to blame techno for THIS. like, cmon, an apologist is supposed to know the cc they apologize for through and through. this negates every argument of theirs, and just shows they dont really know the cc. excuse doomsday and all the other war crimes, sure, but hold techno accountable because “rivalsduo are friends”? mann.
Here's some dream fanart 🖤💚🖤
It's truely a bit sad that I'm not able to watch the end of the DSMP but I guess I'll watch the vods :(
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.
I truly and honestly know nothing about hermitcraft so I’ve sort of mentally catagorized it as like, The Meteora Valley to The Dream SMP’s Minecraft Diaries. Which I know isn’t true (probably) but now my brain won’t stop drawing connections and I’m like, this 🤏🏾 close to writing some wish fufillment crossover fic so,,, Here’s some parallels.
REMINDER THAT THIS IS NOT ME SAYING THE DREAM SMP AUTHORS ARE COPYING ANYTHING, JUST THAT THERE ARE SOME COOL SIMILARITIES, PLEASE DONT ATTACK ME.
First I need you to drop every romantic plotline in Minecraft Diaries. Yes, all of them. Even Aarmau. Yes, Even Travlyn, i dont care that it made you fall in love with the enemies to lovers trope before you realized it wasn’t healthy. i don’t have time for your middle school angst. I can’t make these connections all the way because every single protagonist in MCD is in love with Aphmau and that is too much for me.
1. In Between = Irene Dimension
Physically very similar, so there’s that.
connection to Time? One of the first things I remember about the Irene Dimension lore is that a minute there is a year in the overworld
2. Sapnap = Garroth
VERY SURE ABOUT THIS ONE BOYS
It’s just,,, correct
very much himbo
very much guard
very much “Im gonna be a grumpy serious man only when the lore demands it”
I love them and it’s correct.
WAIT OH GOD
3. Zane = Dream
MADE THIS CONNECTION AS I WAS WRITING THE SAPNAP ONE
The Dream Team is the Ro’Meave’s Pog???
Extremely Manipulative
far too many people forgive them (both in fandom and canon)
short temper
Zane really likes killing people as a character, Dream is really good at PVP
4. Vlyad = George
To complete the trio
also,,, just refuses to take part in the story at any given point unless forced???
Loyalties are anyone’s guess for like, a long time
Really smart???
Nobody like,,, ever listens when they say something is a bad idea (which they should because it normally is)
Okay, so the big one, I don’t think there is an Aphmau in the Dream SMP, but if there is
5. Aphmau = Wilbur Soot
HERE ME OUT HERE AIGHT
Least perfect match but you gotta gimme a little credit
Wil is sort of a Main Protagonist for a bit there
Played by the writer (at least when Wil was alive)
Refuses to die
Parent of a Blond boy and a brunet boy (I dont think Levin and Malachi are Tommy and Tubbo, however)
Very much “You reap what you sow” storylines
President = Lord
6. Laurence = Tommy
First connection I made.
Didn’t think much of it at the time. Just like, haha funny white man go brrr
But like, “Cassanova” Laurence and “I have many wives” Tommyinnit is peak comedy to me.
Short temper
very brash
was close with main villain at one point (Exile arc for Tommy, Shadow Knights for Laurence)
Impatient
Loyal (to a fault)
Stubborn
ripped straight from Laurence’s Wiki page “can make things awkward at times by flirting” How To Sex, anyone???
We love him, but he’s not very smart.
7. Cadenza = Tubbo
LISTEN.
Tubbo and Tommy had to have a sibling dynamic somehow.
Less capable at the start of the series, but definitely grows into themselves
More mature than their counterpart (Laurence/Tommy)
From Cadenza’s Wiki “isn't very aggressive but can defend herself very well” TELL ME THATS NOT TUBBO
Lord = President parallel again
idk I really wanted Cadenza to be more involved in the lore as a child.
May rb this post later for more Connections as a come across them.
class of 2013 by mitski but from the perspective of tommy, dream, and fundy
its almost an insult to wilbur and dreams writing how some people in the fandom potray their characters lmao if i was them i’d be so frustrated
human: i learned from you, and now your hunger lives in me.
based on the new dreamxd lore
And they were roommates