In-Depth Bants

Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

our two favourite full time internet nerds who never go outside!

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by papierklemmen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:21 am

fancybum wrote:
papierklemmen wrote:
alittledizzy wrote:The sex tape was 2009, but... have you actually seen it? Because it's not like... actually enticing. They spin a chair upside down and Phil pats his face with a sock. I mean, if you have an upside down chair fetish, I guess it's baity as fuck. But otherwise... I don't think either of those are actually examples of 2009/2010 Dan and Phil baiting an audience.


i've seen it, and i personally consider the "sex tape" a perfect example of baiting (when something is promised, but not delivered). it's different from posting nude pics (actual fanservice), but it's still baiting. in fact, if they uploaded an actual sex tape i wouldn't call it baiting (but that would be a whole other story :shock: ). i also wouldn't consider it baiting if it was a surpise joke no one knew about, but they advertised it on twitter so that's a bait.

K I don't think anybody on a non-porn website would actually be expecting a sex tape first of all, but can we just establish that what's being discussed is clickbaiting in this scenario.


well... yes?
User avatar
papierklemmen
blobfish
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:04 am

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by melon lord » Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:26 am

fancybum wrote:K I don't think anybody on a non-porn website would actually be expecting a sex tape first of all, but can we just establish that what's being discussed is clickbaiting in this scenario.


I don't think anyone actually, seriously 100% expected porn/sex, but that doesn't change that they were still using sexiness as a way of getting attention. It's a "loud" video title, even if it's obviously a joke. Even if Phil was making a joke, he still made a very innuendo-laden dailybooth photo with milk dripping out of his mouth. He showed his midriff, was in his underwear more than once, and nobody will ever know what was on pabloislove, either.

I think we all understand it's clickbaiting being discussed, because their antics back in the days was definitely generating traffic. It's okay to say that a lot of what they have now is because they did these things back then, separately and possibly together, depending on how you view their videos.
:lights: :lights:
Image
:lights: :lights:
User avatar
melon lord
morning quiff
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:47 am
Location: post-baking universe
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by alittledizzy » Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:26 am

fancybum wrote:
papierklemmen wrote:
alittledizzy wrote:The sex tape was 2009, but... have you actually seen it? Because it's not like... actually enticing. They spin a chair upside down and Phil pats his face with a sock. I mean, if you have an upside down chair fetish, I guess it's baity as fuck. But otherwise... I don't think either of those are actually examples of 2009/2010 Dan and Phil baiting an audience.


i've seen it, and i personally consider the "sex tape" a perfect example of baiting (when something is promised, but not delivered). it's different from posting nude pics (actual fanservice), but it's still baiting. in fact, if they uploaded an actual sex tape i wouldn't call it baiting (but that would be a whole other story :shock: ). i also wouldn't consider it baiting if it was a surpise joke no one knew about, but they advertised it on twitter so that's a bait.

K I don't think anybody on a non-porn website would actually be expecting a sex tape first of all, but can we just establish that what's being discussed is clickbaiting in this scenario.


The titles do count as clickbaiting, agree. But the original topic was Dan and Phil fabricating phan moments - and specifically in 2009/2010. I think clickbait and fabricated moments (which feels like someone's polite way of saying queerbaiting?) are two separate conversations to be having. Examples of one are not necessarily examples of the other.
User avatar
alittledizzy
actual demon phannie
actual demon phannie
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:09 am
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by melon lord » Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:32 am

alittledizzy wrote:The titles do count as clickbaiting, agree. But the original topic was Dan and Phil fabricating phan moments - and specifically in 2009/2010. I think clickbait and fabricated moments (which feels like someone's polite way of saying queerbaiting?) are two separate conversations to be having. Examples of one are not necessarily examples of the other.


I suppose to have this conversation you would have to travel back to 2009 and ask yourself if people knew the difference between clickbaiting and queerbaiting. Nowadays we use queerbaiting to mean something very specific, and we have a word for it, we have examples of it, and people generally understand what it implies and how it's harmful. But back then maybe the Youtubers of those days who were alternative and edgy and cool didn't understand the concept or the differnce. I mean, you just have to look at old answers of Dan or Phil to see how... insensitively they used to talk online. Terms, expressions, things that now are distasteful and crude were the norm back then. And they were none the wiser for it, and probably didn't think anything of "queerbaiting" if any Youtuber did it (not just Dan and Phil).
:lights: :lights:
Image
:lights: :lights:
User avatar
melon lord
morning quiff
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:47 am
Location: post-baking universe
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by fancybum » Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:33 am

papierklemmen wrote:well... yes?

Ok wow sorry, everybody was just saying 'baiting' and as the queerbaiting thing comes up all the time and it's a sensitive subject, I just wanted to clarify. Excuse me.
Thanks and have a great day! Oil me
Image
User avatar
fancybum
trash
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:06 pm
Location: bork

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by alittledizzy » Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:56 am

melon lord wrote:
alittledizzy wrote:The titles do count as clickbaiting, agree. But the original topic was Dan and Phil fabricating phan moments - and specifically in 2009/2010. I think clickbait and fabricated moments (which feels like someone's polite way of saying queerbaiting?) are two separate conversations to be having. Examples of one are not necessarily examples of the other.


I suppose to have this conversation you would have to travel back to 2009 and ask yourself if people knew the difference between clickbaiting and queerbaiting. Nowadays we use queerbaiting to mean something very specific, and we have a word for it, we have examples of it, and people generally understand what it implies and how it's harmful. But back then maybe the Youtubers of those days who were alternative and edgy and cool didn't understand the concept or the differnce. I mean, you just have to look at old answers of Dan or Phil to see how... insensitively they used to talk online. Terms, expressions, things that now are distasteful and crude were the norm back then. And they were none the wiser for it, and probably didn't think anything of "queerbaiting" if any Youtuber did it (not just Dan and Phil).


Yes, I think they knew the difference in click and queer baiting. I think the definition of clickbait and queerbait are different and have been widely known as different. Queerbaiting is acting a certain way to imply a sexuality (or in this case, a same sex relationship) where there is none for the sake of manipulating an audience. Clickbait is titling a video in a way that is not representative of what the content of the video is. With clickbaiting, as soon as the video is over, you realize you have been clickbaited. See: sextape. Queerbaiting is definitely more what you're talking about, my response was just pointing out that papierklemmen's examples were not of queerbaiting.
User avatar
alittledizzy
actual demon phannie
actual demon phannie
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:09 am
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by papierklemmen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:04 am

i guess i indeed got off the topic for a bit, i was just replying to melon lord's post and talking generally of their past tactics. i used the word "baiting" without click- or queer-, just generally.
User avatar
papierklemmen
blobfish
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:04 am

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by melon lord » Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:14 am

alittledizzy wrote:
Yes, I think they knew the difference in click and queer baiting. I think the definition of clickbait and queerbait are different and have been widely known as different. Queerbaiting is acting a certain way to imply a sexuality (or in this case, a same sex relationship) where there is none for the sake of manipulating an audience. Clickbait is titling a video in a way that is not representative of what the content of the video is. With clickbaiting, as soon as the video is over, you realize you have been clickbaited. See: sextape. Queerbaiting is definitely more what you're talking about, my response was just pointing out that papierklemmen's examples were not of queerbaiting.


I think we're all a bit confused here :lol: I'm not sure if 2009!Dan and Phil knew the distinction between the two baiting, or at least, had a more deep understanding of it like they would now. I obviously can't know, and they wouldn't ever speak of it even if you asked them. I first heard of queerbaiting because of Supernatural, and from tumblr.

Sex tape was definitely clickbait, whether they were also queerbaiting... I guess that's how the individual sees their interactions. Since we can't know and probably won't ever know the full context and behind the scenes of those old videos, we're kind of doomed to assuming their intentions.
:lights: :lights:
Image
:lights: :lights:
User avatar
melon lord
morning quiff
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:47 am
Location: post-baking universe
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by SquishPhan » Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:25 am

melon lord wrote:
alittledizzy wrote:
Yes, I think they knew the difference in click and queer baiting. I think the definition of clickbait and queerbait are different and have been widely known as different. Queerbaiting is acting a certain way to imply a sexuality (or in this case, a same sex relationship) where there is none for the sake of manipulating an audience. Clickbait is titling a video in a way that is not representative of what the content of the video is. With clickbaiting, as soon as the video is over, you realize you have been clickbaited. See: sextape. Queerbaiting is definitely more what you're talking about, my response was just pointing out that papierklemmen's examples were not of queerbaiting.


I think we're all a bit confused here :lol: I'm not sure if 2009!Dan and Phil knew the distinction between the two baiting, or at least, had a more deep understanding of it like they would now. I obviously can't know, and they wouldn't ever speak of it even if you asked them. I first heard of queerbaiting because of Supernatural, and from tumblr.

Sex tape was definitely clickbait, whether they were also queerbaiting... I guess that's how the individual sees their interactions. Since we can't know and probably won't ever know the full context and behind the scenes of those old videos, we're kind of doomed to assuming their intentions.

Of course we can’t know their intentions, but I’ve chosen to be a phan of these people so I’m also choosing to believe in the best option. Which is clickbaiting yes, queerbaiting no.
User avatar
SquishPhan
full-time internet hobo
 
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 3:18 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by teamug » Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:13 am

The audience of Dan and Phil in 2009 was what it was, and the audience of 2016 is what it is. Dan and Phil made videos for a very different type of audience then than they do now, or did in 2015, or 2014, or 2013, or etc. Unless my memory has forsaken me completely, the 'sex tape' was advertised yes, but as a joke, and were Dan and Phil actually, seriously, passionately shipped in 2009? And would their audience have understood the tone, context and intent of the sex tape video? Now, in 2016, with speculation high on their relationship, a jokey video about a sex tape is seen as offensive, which is fair and I would agree, but, is it fair to judge their video to their then audience on the standards of the 2016 audience. The online community of 2016 is far more conscious of social issues than in 2009 (yay), and I am not saying that a free pass should be given for offences taken, but growth does not happen without missteps that land you flat on your face, so, I take satisfaction in that Dan and Phil do learn from what they did in 2009, and now in 2016, if what you see onscreen is fanservice, clickbait and/or queerbait, I personally do not see it as such, but am always ready to have others' opinions shed light on issues that perhaps I should be more aware of. (To be honest, chances of me agreeing grow slimmer every moment I spend in the company of humans and am left stunned at their stupidity.)(oh! that's not directed at anyone, just an observation)(today is jadednesday)

I also think that baiting, be it clicky or queer were not novel concepts invented on youtube in 2008, and tubers who bait (either sort or both) know/knew exactly what they are doing then and now. The world hasn't changed that much from that dawn of youtubers. Youtube made reality stars of almost anyone, where before they were crafted by tv shows and the forces behind them. Youtubers took the same roads to success as their mainstream counterparts, just with less bling (atleast in the early years). I actually wish I did hold youtubers to higher standards than reality stars, I'd make more intertesting posts on idb.

Last thought, if someone reveals what their next video is going to be, when it is then published, is it clickbait?

ps- in edit, I seem to already partially want to disagree with myself. I don't like baiting, and just because it was 'done by everyone' is not an excuse do so yourself, but I can see 'why' certain artistic choices were made by Dan and Phil in their early years. And they're here now, and I am enjoying their here right now. ok, the end. complete twaddle.
User avatar
teamug
living flop
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:41 am

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by Moony » Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:24 am

Off-Topic :
...kinda

Could be that I am not remembering it correctly, but wasn't the pabloislove channel name "it was fun while it lasted" a while ago?? but now it's simply pabloislove again? could it be that someone (charlie maybe) changed that back? ugh, I swear it was different when I last searched for that channel :shock:
*looks at myself in the mirror* this bitch empty… yeet
User avatar
Moony
glabella
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 11:52 am
Location: the void

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by sentinel » Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:34 am

Moony wrote:
Off-Topic :
...kinda

Could be that I am not remembering it correctly, but wasn't the pabloislove channel name "it was fun while it lasted" a while ago?? but now it's simply pabloislove again? could it be that someone (charlie maybe) changed that back? ugh, I swear it was different when I last searched for that channel :shock:


https://web.archive.org/web/20130204185 ... abloislove
It was indeed plus there have been a lot of privated videos, when I went on it last year it had way more than a single row.
Image
User avatar
sentinel
pumpkin spice pumpkin cookie
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:56 am

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by kiro56 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:37 am

Moony wrote:
Off-Topic :
...kinda

Could be that I am not remembering it correctly, but wasn't the pabloislove channel name "it was fun while it lasted" a while ago?? but now it's simply pabloislove again? could it be that someone (charlie maybe) changed that back? ugh, I swear it was different when I last searched for that channel :shock:

The channel name never changed but the 'heading' on the channel page used to display "it was fun while it lasted". Now it just displays the channel name, because YouTube have been stripping back the ability to customise channels with each new design. It will have been automatically removed.
kiro56
phillion/danosaur <//3
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:20 am

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by Moony » Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:17 pm

kiro56 wrote:
Moony wrote:
Off-Topic :
...kinda

Could be that I am not remembering it correctly, but wasn't the pabloislove channel name "it was fun while it lasted" a while ago?? but now it's simply pabloislove again? could it be that someone (charlie maybe) changed that back? ugh, I swear it was different when I last searched for that channel :shock:

The channel name never changed but the 'heading' on the channel page used to display "it was fun while it lasted". Now it just displays the channel name, because YouTube have been stripping back the ability to customise channels with each new design. It will have been automatically removed.


ah thank you!
*looks at myself in the mirror* this bitch empty… yeet
User avatar
Moony
glabella
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 11:52 am
Location: the void

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by oqua » Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:58 pm

Please vote for the next thread name here! :bros:
“Child.”
-Kathryn Lester
User avatar
oqua
nose pervert
nose pervert
 
Posts: 876
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:05 am
Location: California, USA
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by jesuisunèléve » Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:44 pm

I can't help but think:

I wonder if Phil's selfie was for a Tinder profile/other dating app profile?
User avatar
jesuisunèléve
cheeky #spon
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:34 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by papierklemmen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:46 pm

jesuisunèléve wrote:I can't help but think:

I wonder if Phil's selfie was for a Tinder profile/other dating app profile?


Well then, I am so swiping right.
User avatar
papierklemmen
blobfish
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:04 am

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by Lain » Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:46 pm

jesuisunèléve wrote:I can't help but think:

I wonder if Phil's selfie was for a Tinder profile/other dating app profile?


:rofl:

Would swipe right, though.
User avatar
Lain
hobbit hair
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:58 am
Location: The Wired
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by Amiaw » Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:50 pm

jesuisunèléve wrote:I can't help but think:

I wonder if Phil's selfie was for a Tinder profile/other dating app profile?


Seems a little silly to make a picture public that he wants to use for a dating profile BUT it would be a good one. :stan:
User avatar
Amiaw
sad dimple
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 4:55 pm

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by secretagentphan » Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:55 pm

Okay so it's probably late for me to add to this but I'm going to be annoying and add to the topic anyways!

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the "Phan was originally together then broke up and remained friends" theory. My brother and his ex are still VERY close (they're even roommates still) and they went out for like 3 years, and have been broken up for about 6 and have been living together for like 7 years. They were such a couple that their friends even referred to them as one person. Then they cheated on eachother and ended it. They're now seeing different people but remain roommates. They call eachother hetero-platonic soulmates lol.

Obviously this is an out of the ordinary case so it's not accurate to apply it to deppy, but I'm saying it IS possible. Especially because around the time Dan and Phil were speculated to break up, they just started their time with BBC. Obviously Dan and Phil are also completely different personality types from my brother and his ex so who knows. I personally kind of think they're still dating? But I can't help but kind of believe the "they broke up" theory because of my background lol. If they move out TOGETHER that will confirm phan for me, but I don't want to prematurely celebrate incase they move apart.
Image
User avatar
secretagentphan
cheeky #spon
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:38 pm

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by SquishPhan » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:07 pm

jesuisunèléve wrote:I can't help but think:

I wonder if Phil's selfie was for a Tinder profile/other dating app profile?

Sure, because of course he would then share that with everyone.

secretagentphan wrote:Okay so it's probably late for me to add to this but I'm going to be annoying and add to the topic anyways!

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the "Phan was originally together then broke up and remained friends" theory. My brother and his ex are still VERY close (they're even roommates still) and they went out for like 3 years, and have been broken up for about 6 and have been living together for like 7 years. They were such a couple that their friends even referred to them as one person. Then they cheated on eachother and ended it. They're now seeing different people but remain roommates. They call eachother hetero-platonic soulmates lol.

Obviously this is an out of the ordinary case so it's not accurate to apply it to deppy, but I'm saying it IS possible. Especially because around the time Dan and Phil were speculated to break up, they just started their time with BBC. Obviously Dan and Phil are also completely different personality types from my brother and his ex so who knows. I personally kind of think they're still dating? But I can't help but kind of believe the "they broke up" theory because of my background lol. If they move out TOGETHER that will confirm phan for me, but I don't want to prematurely celebrate incase they move apart.

I'm sure it happens to some people, though to me it doesn't sound very healthy, but I think it is very rare for it to happen and with how I see Dan and Phil it just doesn't sound probable to me. Like they were just moving in together around the time they 'broke up', which I imagine makes things very uncomfortable and I just can’t imagine wanting to live with someone if you just broke up with them. Also I think Dan is a jealous person, so I just don't see how it would work.
User avatar
SquishPhan
full-time internet hobo
 
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 3:18 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by alittledizzy » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:08 pm

secretagentphan wrote:Obviously this is an out of the ordinary case so it's not accurate to apply it to deppy, but I'm saying it IS possible. Especially because around the time Dan and Phil were speculated to break up, they just started their time with BBC. Obviously Dan and Phil are also completely different personality types from my brother and his ex so who knows. I personally kind of think they're still dating? But I can't help but kind of believe the "they broke up" theory because of my background lol. If they move out TOGETHER that will confirm phan for me, but I don't want to prematurely celebrate incase they move apart.


I guess the problem for me with arguments like this is that it seems obtuse to say that the less likely option is probably true because you know one case where that happened. I know a lot more people who started out dating and still live together seven years later because they're still together. You even said there are differences, both in personality types and in your brother and his ex both dating other people; that's evidence completely lacking for Dan and Phil. It makes assuming a break up for them even more nonsensical to me.

But what it really comes down to me to is that personal projection doesn't work because Dan and Phil's situation is so very unique that no one else has been in their shoes. It's the same as "I don't think they're together because I look at my best friend like that." There's no point in comparing Dan and Phil to people who aren't Dan and Phil. You can only compared their behavior with each other to their behavior with other people. And in this case we can't compare how they deal with exes because... go figure... they haven't had any in the past seven years.

because they're together
User avatar
alittledizzy
actual demon phannie
actual demon phannie
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:09 am
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by secretagentphan » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:17 pm

alittledizzy wrote:
secretagentphan wrote:Obviously this is an out of the ordinary case so it's not accurate to apply it to deppy, but I'm saying it IS possible. Especially because around the time Dan and Phil were speculated to break up, they just started their time with BBC. Obviously Dan and Phil are also completely different personality types from my brother and his ex so who knows. I personally kind of think they're still dating? But I can't help but kind of believe the "they broke up" theory because of my background lol. If they move out TOGETHER that will confirm phan for me, but I don't want to prematurely celebrate incase they move apart.


I guess the problem for me with arguments like this is that it seems obtuse to say that the less likely option is probably true because you know one case where that happened. I know a lot more people who started out dating and still live together seven years later because they're still together. You even said there are differences, both in personality types and in your brother and his ex both dating other people; that's evidence completely lacking for Dan and Phil. It makes assuming a break up for them even more nonsensical to me.

But what it really comes down to me to is that personal projection doesn't work because Dan and Phil's situation is so very unique that no one else has been in their shoes. It's the same as "I don't think they're together because I look at my best friend like that." There's no point in comparing Dan and Phil to people who aren't Dan and Phil. You can only compared their behavior with each other to their behavior with other people. And in this case we can't compare how they deal with exes because... go figure... they haven't had any in the past seven years.

because they're together


I totally agree with this more than myself honestly lol. You cannot make statistics only based on things around you if that even makes sense. I guess what I was trying to say is that although it's unlikely and I don't necessarily even believe Dan and Phil broke up at one point, it's not COMPLETELY out of the realm of possibilities.

I don't think Dan and Phil moving together to London after the break up that probably didn't even happen proves anything to me because it is so expensive to live in London. Dan said they could barely afford it together so it could've been so they could live in the city. Now that they have money, if they move out and continue to be "roommates" I'll be 100% sure. Now I'm like 70% sure depending on the day and what I ate for breakfast lol.
Image
User avatar
secretagentphan
cheeky #spon
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:38 pm

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by confusedpanda » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:47 pm

jesuisunèléve wrote:I can't help but think:

I wonder if Phil's selfie was for a Tinder profile/other dating app profile?

I mean, I could argue that for any good selfie Phil post. And Dan too. Specially these two photos of dan.

Those ones truly remind me of photos you'd see on a dating app profile. But eh it's kinda a stretch to assume the only reason to post a good looking selfie of yourself is/was for a dating app profile. Sometimes you just look really good and feel good that you gotta share it with the world. And that photo of Phil looks good and he totally knows it. I hope he has more of those look and feel good moments in 2017! <3
User avatar
confusedpanda
cheeky #spon
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:20 am
Pronouns: Her/she

Re: Dan & Phil Part 34: It's a post-baking universe

PostPosted by 000dia000 » Wed Dec 28, 2016 4:04 pm

tbh the speculation that these photos are for dating apps..is a little far-fetched. However, I am amused by the theory that somebody could test out good selfies for a dating website with their loyal internet fanbase (lol that idea sounds like a wacky fanfiction I would stop reading half-way through).

Also, isn't it customary when someone is using a dating app, to avoid catfishing, they retrace their profile picture back into the Google Image Search engine and find it's source? Even if it was the true Dan/Phil on these dating apps, the person using it would automatically assume they're being duped.

Maybe this is why they've been single for seven years lol :P
Image
User avatar
000dia000
stress mushroom
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 11:17 am
Location: Ireland

PreviousNext

Return to danisnotonfire & AmazingPhil

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest