Dsmp Analysis - Tumblr Posts
PHILZA CHARACTER ANALYSIS ??
That is correct my friends !!
Before we begin I wanted to clarify
This is how I perceive him as a character and yes this is all in lore
Also wanted to add, many people villainize these characters considering most of them are Morally gray coded characters and pretty much are all unreliable narrator‘s ( I’ll prob talk about this soon )
The character you will side with is dependent mostly on the one you view most !
Let’s formally beguin :)
So I’ve seen a lot of people antagonize Phil, the reason being they feel as though if his sons were really important to Philza he would not have destroyed l’manburg with Techno and Tommy’s “abuser”, Dream, well here’s the important factor it is very consistent that Philza would go against L’manburg.
Some may comment that why would Phil destroy What his son created , built and fought for . Well, simple he perhaps did not see L’manburg as a home that his son and loved ones fought for but a system built upon the principles of war that drove most of them to insanity.
So of course when the influence of Techno comes along and explains his ideals of the corruption of government to philza and he strongly agrees, it’s more than understandable, he's seen the corruption, the war, and the loss firsthand.
Also I cannot stress this enough Philza’s character DOES NOT REVOLVE around Tommy and Wilbur .
Of course they’re very important people to his role but his whole character does not revolve around only them .
Philza is man and a father who has been broken by the war of a country , a mere piece of land .
He had to murder his own son , got scamed and then treated like a prisoner by people he considered close as they made him watch the execution of his best friend Techno
I feel that’s enough on its own to stand against L’manburg.
And we need to understand both Philza and techno believe that what they’ve done and are doing is correct, blowing up L’manburg needed to be done.
If they hurt some of the people they care about in the process of anarchy they will do it because whether they know it or don't they'll have a better life in the end.
This concludes this analysis for now ;)
I hope at least someone enjoys this ✨ :7
And I’ll probs do more hheheh
What can I say I’ve fallen deep in the hole of the dream smp and now I cannot stop analyzing and theorizing.
c!Ranboo, c!Wilbur and c!Tommy
/rp /dsmp People are saying that c!Ranboo is replacing c!Tommy and I don't think that's exactly true, he replacing the role c!Tommy used to fill, the tool c!Wilbur could use to get his way but Tommy isn't that anymore. He doesn't dote on c!Wilbur on everything he does or feel to scared to stand up for himself. and most importantly c!Wilbur actually cares about c!Tommy and sees him in a more respected manner. Though I do think c!Wilbur might get attached tho.
Yes that’s true but also he didn’t need a trial he got caught in 4K by like the whole server in the act and has fully confessed to his crimes multiple times. However with a case like Tommy’s blowing up George’s house there wasn’t much canonical evidence and at first Tommy wasn’t confessing.
What People nor c!Wilbur seem to comprehend is that c!Dream isn't in prison bc he did crimes, he is in the prison cuz he is a tool that cant be Just be wasted. The other option was death, Dream chose being kept in the vault as a tool over death. He isn't a prisoner, he isn't someone, he is a tool. He is something that is pretending to be someone, this arc is exactly about his dehumanization. There was no trial cuz they didn't need one if he is not a person
Researching torture to see if Exile was actually technically torture and seeing a lot of definitions that can fit with what happened in Exile
(And I mean this in a “wow Exile feels like it gets worse every time you think about it” way not like. It Wasn’t That Bad)
C!Dream being treated kindly feels wrong to me. The idea of C!Dream getting a redemption arc feels wrong to me.
It feels wrong to me, and I think some other people feel similarly, and I think I can kinda put into words why?
I think the thing that’s the biggest factor in why possible redemption/sympathy for C!Dream feels Wrong to some people rn has to do with Exile.
To me, I can’t really sympathize with C!Dream, even with his abuse and the prison situation rn, because I still resent him for Exile.
And with every situation as it is rn, I feel like he’s gotten away with it.
Because I think there’s a question that’s important: Who knows the extent of what happened?
•Tommy obviously, as it was done to him
•Dream, because he did the abuse
•Arguably Wilbur, because he has Ghostbur’s memories(?) and Ghostbur witnessed much of Exile, not the entire time as he was sent away but enough to witness abuse
•Possibly Sam, because I believe he mentioned Dream telling him what he did to Tommy to the Eggpire, and seemed disturbed and protective over Tommy, but we don’t technically know what he was told
•Ranboo, along with Techno and maybe Tubbo? know more than most, or have seen some about how it’s affected him. (Ranboo wrote letters with Tommy and saw Tommy’s concerning words, Techno worked with Tommy after his exile and witnessed his behavior and fear of Dream, along with Dream threatening to burn his disc if he didn’t come with him.
Other a few, people don’t really know what happened. Not really anyone other than Tommy himself knows exactly how fucked up it was. Nobody else, besides the victim and abuser, knows the extent of what happened. (Ghostbur didn’t witness everything so neither did Wilbur; Sam, through Dream’s words and getting his knowledge, still wouldn’t know how Tommy felt or acted in personal moments Dream wasn’t there to witness)
Okay. Another important question, worded twice bc I talk too much: What are the consequences of those people knowing? What’s happened because of it?
Well, in terms of people holding Dream accountable specifically for Exile?
Nothing, really. Dream’s essentially gotten away with it.
His actions did lead him to prison, which is definitely a punishment and accountability for his manipulation and crimes throughout the course of the server and all that jazz, but that wasn’t for Exile; that was really rather for the whole Finale situation and everything else. I don’t think that’s Exile accountability because it wasn’t intended to be so. Sam knows about exile because Dream told him, but I don’t think he knew then. He only learned after Dream was in the cell. It didn’t play a factor in locking him away.
Sam defended Tommy from the Eggpire, showing an understanding that he’d been through a lot, and he treated Tommy with kindness during the Hotel era. This can be seen, at least partly because Sam has had a positive relationship with Tommy before, in response to Sam knowing about Exile from Dream. But this reaction only affects Tommy rather than involving or directly referencing Dream.
And what happened with Sam later on? Well, because of his role as the Warden and his attachment to the rules, he ended up locking Tommy in the prison with Dream. So from a character who arguably Knows about the abuse, that’s not an action that holds Dream accountable, and as of now it looks like that’s not really going to happen.
Techno, a character who has Seen A Bit (“come with me or I’ll burn you disc” in front of his eyes, saw Tommy’s behavior after exile, hid Tommy from Dream, who was looking for him) doesn’t Know Enough to have a full understanding and Doesn’t Know what actually happened and ended up teaming up with Dream. He didn’t seem to care when told Tommy was beaten to death by Dream.
Wilbur technically held Dream accountable, in a way, for a moment, though not to his face—he told Tommy that he would have killed Dream for how he treated him. That was a moment where a character other than Tommy said, essentially, That Was Fucked Up. But he then changes his mind and tells Tommy he agrees.*
*I feel like I explicitly remember Wilbur saying he agreed with Exile in a certain point at a stream but I rewatched a bit and didn’t see it when I was expecting to. I still need to rewatch it all but I may be wrong on this wording?? Nonetheless he expresses Dream is right and that he’s in prison because he dared to be a challenge.
So from the non-Tommy people that know Dream hasn’t recieved backlash for Exile, to his face or about him or otherwise.
In general, this is understandable because Tommy has barely processed the extent of the trauma and abuse himself (I don’t think he’s even used the word abuse yet? I think he’s called it manipulation and has used trauma) and not many people know. And as I went through before, the people who do know don’t Know Everything or they still haven’t really done anything to acknowledge Dream as the abuser.
But recently, with the prison plotline and the torture plotline where Dream is suffering, and where he might possibly be broken out and given a healing arc or even redemption, that’s pretty uncomfortable to me.
That creates sympathy for him and puts him in a vilnerable siruation.
That’s fine and natural to sympathize with someone in a situation like him; I kind of feel guilty I don’t. It’s fine for characters to sympathize and it’s fine for viewers, etc.
But it’s uncomfortable, to me, because it’s not Dream in his entirety that’s being treated nicely. It’s a version of Dream who hasn’t done all he did in exile because people don’t know what he did. Their perception of him is without that act of cruelty and in my opinion, torture. The audience knows; characters don’t.
Fine, if the characters learn what happened, they can still break him out, they can still help him recover mentally, if that’s what they want to do. But if they don’t have that knowledge, to the audience watching and knowing what they don’t, it brings about a sense of injustice.
It’s like the fandom is at the risk of moving on from Exile because in the story, it’s really brought up by nothing but Tommy’s trauma responses?
I lied. As I get further I’m getting more aware I’m actually terrible at this putting this all into words. While knowing abuse is abuse and both Dream and Tommy should have help for their trauma:
It just feels cruel for an abuser not to be properly known as an abuser and receive sympathy or empathy from characters who’ve treated the abuse victim without sympathy or empathy, even if they didn’t know.
I worded so much of this badly lmaooo my bad
TLDR: I think it’s off-putting to see Dream being given sympathy as an abuse victim when we haven’t seen him really acknowledged as an abuser.
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.
TRUE. it's like the warrior cats thing, if it goes on forever then it's just gonna get redundant and shit on. the only thing i can see them doing is finishing up whatever they wanna do towards the end when dsmp's popularity starts tapering out, which is gonna be a LONG while from now, but that's the one ending i can see for it. otherwise, i just can see that the moment the big mcyts finish their arcs then the smp continues but it’s like... dead. creators will just be making content for dead ears hoping for a dsmp revival. i dont doubt the current big mcyts will get tired of being on dsmp, or will see that the dsmp isnt serving them a purpose anymore clout-wise, so they’ll just finish up their character’s arcs and move on. but i think that’s only how the dsmp is gonna “end”. it’s never gonna end forever, but it’s gonna taper off once the big ones decide enough is enough.
the lack of organization in dsmp lore saddens me; while I understand improv is a huge part of it, many ccs don’t get to carry out the lore they want because of constantly changing conflicting schedules. I think Dream adding more people was a bad idea and will only make the lore more cluttered
(a bit of unorganized rambling about the continuation of Dream SMP lore. It’s below a cut because I know some people don’t fancy seeing it. I don’t think it’s too long, though.)
TLDR: A story cannot go on forever.
Keep reading
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.
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 didnt wanna be critical this morning but sometimes you just wake up like this
i think the thing that frustrates me about some (not all i know some people wanna see funny pig man blow shit up and i respect that) techno apologists is that they don’t see anything anyone else says with nuance and take everything techno says as the truth. they’ll go into techno’s choices and morals and how he truly cares but is hurt all the time, but they be like “tommy says ‘blade’ tommy bad.” like i saw tommy’s line about “the discs being worth more than you ever were” used as proof that tommy dehumanized everyone and like,, tommy so immediately regretted and didn’t mean that, as evidenced by the fact that the very next thing he did was tell tubbo to give dream the disc. he even said he was becoming someone he wasn’t and didn’t want to be. people jump through hoops to defend every action of technos but literally dont peer into any other characters any deeper.
no other character gets viewed with this certainty of being Absolutely Correct All the Time. when wilbur was lashing out believing that “nobody was on their side” and trying to blow up l’manburg, nobody viewed this as a good thing. when tommy was committing his minor acts of terrorism notably with connor and fundy, these were not good things. when jack manifold and niki are planning to kill tommy, this is not a good thing to do. all of these characters were hurt but, “that doesn’t doesn’t excuse their actions” and they “shouldn’t take the fucked up shit that happened to them on other people.” (these are quotes from when tommy was apologizing to the people he hurt)
techno commits major acts of terrorism, takes multiple canon lives, and declares that “the only universal language is violence” but someone everyone wants to act like he’s justified and the victim?
techno gets to say “you wanted power. you wanted to be the hero” to tommy who just gave up the presidency and shouted that “im not the hero. no ones the hero” and everyone just takes that? he gets to say “i would have fought the world for you” like twenty minutes after going “hell no i won’t fight dream for you”?? he gets to answer tubbo’s accusation of “doesn’t that make you a tyrant yourself?” with “the ends justify the means” like What the Fuck Dude??
techno is hurt and techno is Wrong about how he sees tommy and the other members of l’manburg (ex-members whatever) he is not right when he says that tommy “the horse brothers!” “if there was a hug button, i’d press it” “all i’ve ever wanted was to be called your friend” innit only saw him as “the blade.” he is not right in saying tubbo “i just want everyone to get along” underscore is a tyrant. he can be wrong. that’s okay. other characters are. tommy is so wrong all the time and i wrote this stupid ass essay to go to bat for him. tommy wants to use an evil egg for capitalism purposes. i say “i dont support your actions and i want better for you, but go funky little raccoon boy.” treat techno the same.
I saw post saying "when techno 'im gonna blow up l'manberg' blade says you're going too far, you know it's bad" in reference to c!tommy and hm true
yes, that was the point of the bedrock bros team up arc?
like the point was that when c!tommy was being enabled and encouraged to embrace his anger and be violent, he went too far? when c!tommy came to the realisation, after he’d told c!tubbo the discs were worth more than him, that “he’d become worse than everyone he’d hated” - that was because he was on that path? that by hurting others to get revenge for how he’d been hurt, it made him a worse person?
that’s why it was so important for him to leave c!technoblade while also reasserting that it didn’t make him any less worthy as a person, because he chose to not hurt people. and he began apologising to the people he’d hurt and work to be a better person, seeking out help (therapy), seeking closure and moving on (the reason for the prison visit).
“i was hurt but that doesn’t excuse me hurting others” plus him rejecting c!dream’s narrative that everyone is a hero from their own perspective thus justifying any and all actions they’ve committed - those are lessons learned because he’s seen himself become someone he didn’t ever want to be.
the point of that arc was to show that you can try and break the cycle of violence if you want to.
so yes, c!technoblade saying that c!tommy went too far is important because it underlined how unhealthy it was for c!tommy to be with c!technoblade - he became a worse person, which means what happened afterwards (c!tommy leaving c!technoblade and realising how much hurt he’s caused, and apologising and working to get better) is even more important than that one line.
i still cannot get over the fact that nobody, both in and out of universe, talks about the scene during the green festival right after c!tubbo gives c!dream the disc. to recap, dream goes on an extensive rant calling tubbo an idiot and the worst president l’manberg has ever had. he says ‘i don’t care about you, i’m not your friend’ (remember up until this point dream had been peacefully visiting l’manberg, and tubbo states multiple times before this that he thinks that dream trusts him). he also reinforces the long-running idea that tubbo is a yes-man, and he says, and i quote, “l’manberg is weaker than it’s ever been, and it’s all because of you”. this entire time, techno chimes in saying things like ‘tubbo sucks!’ and ‘tubbo’s a coward!’
that entire tirade was just CRUEL. like, just hard to watch, almost. it was just 5 minutes of tubbo being completely berated, and of course he just sat there and took it.
and it’s had marked effects on tubbo! even during the scene itself, after one of the times dream calls him a horrible president and says he’s ‘ruined everything’, tubbo simply replies “yeah. i know”. and then he keeps repeating this rhetoric later- one specific scene i can think of is right after doomsday where tubbo, in conversation with quackity, said that he thinks he was the worst president l’manberg had ever had and that he was even worse than schlatt (a LITERAL DICTATOR).
we can even bring this into discussions of tubbo being terrified of techno. a lot of people like to bring in that the execution wasn’t really techno’s fault, and even without opening that can of worms, that doesn’t mean that techno has done nothing to tubbo! getting repeatedly called an idiot and a coward and just frankly insulted personally would not make me have a stellar opinion of someone.
i just find it crazy that nobody talks about this scene or its impact on tubbo, because to me it’s one of the saddest tubbo-related scenes there is. i don’t understand how people can defend c!dream and c!techno on this one lol
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 think the most frustrating thing about c!phil isn’t that he’s the only character that’s misinformed, but that he - along with c!techno - is the only character that’s misinformed and doesn’t seek out any knowledge, they just presume.
like with c!eryn and c!michael, they don’t know a lot about the server history, they don’t know a lot about the people, they don’t know what c!dream did which leads to them questioning why his punishment is so harsh. and the thing about these two is that they actively seek out people to ask about. they’re still, mostly, in the dark because the people on the server evade the questions or don’t know how to answer.
c!phil, though, thought he knew everything because of c!wilbur’s letters. he was then informed that the letters were fake, and he spent an hour seeking out the truth and then stopped. but he’s giving advice as if he knows everything, as if he is on a moral high ground others can only dream about.
he’s not frustrating as a character because he’s misinformed; he’s frustrating as a character because he knows he’s misinformed and yet he still believes he knows best.
"You are a walking second place medal."
This line.
This fucking line.
I've seen posts about it before, but it always seems to be overshadowed by Quackity's "I don't think about you at all," which yeah, king shit, but like, I feel like, despite how much it clearly gets under c!Wilbur's skin, I don't think it cuts as deep.
Because yeah, obviously it rings true with things like Qauckity needing Schlatt to win the elections, Only ever being the vice president, Las Nevadas being forever in L'manburg's shadow, but what makes it so cruel is the fact that it demonstrates that he got onto the fucking board.
A second-place medal isn't a sign of failure, it's a sign of inadequacy, the physical embodiment of not-quite. c!Quackity isn't a failure. Hell, looking at his history objectively, he's accomplished almost everything he's ever set out to do. He wanted to beat Wilbur in the elections and then he did. He wanted to build a nation, and he got it done. He wanted power, and he fucking got it. He's more than earned his medal.
But he's never won.
All the victories he's managed to nab along the way have been superficial. Yeah, he managed to beat and exile his main political rival, but then he got stuck in an abusive marriage with a dictator that went against all his views. He managed to build a bright gleaming nation, but it's empty, soulless. He managed to capture c!Techno, but he paid for it with one of his lives.
He's tried to be the charismatic president who promised to revolutionize the server, he's tried to be the no-nonsense vice president who looks after his people by any means necessary, he's even tried to be the cold, detached, calculating villain. But all of these have backfired because as much as he'll try to be like Dream, or Schlatt, or Wilbur, he's only ever going to be Quackity. He's never going to be able to beat them at their own games. He's always gonna end up second best. Good, but not perfect.
It's enough to drive a girblogger mad.
Yall ever see a post that goes like deep down into the dsmp lore and its psychology or whatever that ur just embarrassed that u can never match the loyalty of these dream smp fans to hyper analyze the story because all you care about is just chilling and drawing your preferred dsmp characters being silly and your like am i a fake ass fan
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
personally i disagree with the "silence = admittance" that alot of people are preaching because given the power imbalance it feels like when someone in powers really furious at you and you know they wont believe you even if you say otherwise OR you wanna keep this as short and painless as possible so you keep your mouth shut so i still think the prison wasnt for ctommy
!!!!! literally !!!!! there is such an imbalance in power here and i think it’s unfair for c!dream’s silence to be used against him when no matter what he said would be taken the wrong way anyway. if he agreed?? c!sam could have gotten so angry he would have killed him. if he disagreed?? c!sam would have never believed him, and it could have gotten him killed again.
in a lose-lose situation where the only option you have is to remain silent in fear of death, you’re going to be silent. you’re not going to start explaining yourself: you’re going to shut up and go along with whatever the Person In Power says until you have a chance to get out.
c!dream isn’t going to start opening up and admitting his plans or talking properly with c!sam, who has done thus far an AWFUL job of protecting c!dream and being a Nice Warden. c!dream is honest in the moments he has power or gets cocky, and sometimes not even then — cc!dream’s ONLY description of him was:
“withholding feelings, withholding plans”
and you (not you anon lol) really think he’s gonna start spilling his feelings and plans to someone who has abused him…… You Wish lol