Bingo Board Bants

Our two favourite full time internet nerds who never go outside!
RiriPandaHeart2
phabergé
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2016 12:54 pm

Though it's a sad topic to think about, I'd actually thought of it a lot. I don't know why but I honestly think if #phandivorced happened they'd just slowly phase each other out of their own lives. The first thing would be moving out, doing less and less collabs and projects together, until there are none. I don't think they'd ever make a public statement about it and would only reference it years after it happened if at all. I have a feeling people will pick up if things are tense around them but I do think they'd do their best to not let it be obvious. They're a "brand" together and they know how much their career rests on each other. It'd be foolish for them to immediately let go of one another. I think they'll handle it the way they handled the alleged falling out with Chris. We don't know what happened and I don't think we ever will. They'd have fewer and fewer collabs, less and less mentions, until poof, we realize that it's been a long time since the last one. :? :cry: :sobs:
Image
P: What are you doing?

D: I'm feeding it to you.

P: Why is it so slow?
annetamiau
lady door
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:52 pm

RiriPandaHeart2 wrote:Though it's a sad topic to think about, I'd actually thought of it a lot. I don't know why but I honestly think if #phandivorced happened they'd just slowly phase each other out of their own lives. The first thing would be moving out, doing less and less collabs and projects together, until there are none. I don't think they'd ever make a public statement about it and would only reference it years after it happened if at all. I have a feeling people will pick up if things are tense around them but I do think they'd do their best to not let it be obvious. They're a "brand" together and they know how much their career rests on each other. It'd be foolish for them to immediately let go of one another. I think they'll handle it the way they handled the alleged falling out with Chris. We don't know what happened and I don't think we ever will. They'd have fewer and fewer collabs, less and less mentions, until poof, we realize that it's been a long time since the last one. :? :cry: :sobs:
I (usually) think they are together, so in my book a subtle distancing wouldn't be an option. If they are a couple and they were to break up, I think they would stop living together immediately and we would realise that they are not in touch any more; I reckon they would take a short break from YT even. They would haru it, no doubt, but I don't think it would be subte enough for us the over invested fans not to realise at all.

I don't believe the theories that say they broke up in 2012, so that may be why I find it really unlikely that they would continue living together or even make the occasional collab just for business or just for the sake of appearances, after sharing such a strong emotional connection and going through a break up.

That's also why I don't think the Chris situation is comparable either. They probably weren't even that close to Chris to begin with, so imo their YT friendship fading away didn't affect their life as much. Dan and Phil are the kings of haruing, they did it with SAP, the radio show, TATINOF Europe and probably many other things that I can't remember right now, but I honestly think haruing a break up (if phan is a thing bla bla) is way beyond their ability.

But anyway, let's be positive
Behind every great person, there is a great cat
anathema
morning quiff
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 10:10 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: hell

PolarFox wrote:
RiriPandaHeart2 wrote:Though it's a sad topic to think about, I'd actually thought of it a lot. I don't know why but I honestly think if #phandivorced happened they'd just slowly phase each other out of their own lives. The first thing would be moving out, doing less and less collabs and projects together, until there are none. I don't think they'd ever make a public statement about it and would only reference it years after it happened if at all. I have a feeling people will pick up if things are tense around them but I do think they'd do their best to not let it be obvious. They're a "brand" together and they know how much their career rests on each other. It'd be foolish for them to immediately let go of one another. I think they'll handle it the way they handled the alleged falling out with Chris. We don't know what happened and I don't think we ever will. They'd have fewer and fewer collabs, less and less mentions, until poof, we realize that it's been a long time since the last one. :? :cry: :sobs:
Me too. I tend to think about very angsty and sad topics. And somehow I feel like the slow drift apart might be better for us than seeing them/each of them make video about it. This train of thoughts was mildly triggered by Colleen and Joshua and idk why, the idea of either of them making a video about their (friend) break up just tears my heart apart :cry: but I do think about it a lot.
Sorry to have made you sad guys, I guess I lowkey want to be ready for anything and hear some angsty predictions. :gg:
I was actually just thinking about the because of Colleen and Josh too. I definitely think if they were to go through a breakup/falling out, they would take a break from YT but not really tell us why. They would be like "hey we have some personally stuff to deal with so we're taking a break from making videos/being online, please don't ask us about it", then when one/both of them comes back they would never mention it again. You know, talk about their new house/living alone but never mention why they moved out, things like that.
"The saltiness reminds me of my tears."
blueapple_x
flower crown
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:57 pm

So I've been curious about this for a long time because everyone seems to have different definitions for certain words and oftentimes use things synonymously. I figured I'd post about it here.

How do you define fanservice and shipbaiting and queerbaiting? What makes these three things different from each other? How do they apply to D+P? How do they NOT apply to D+P? Please give specific examples if possible.

NOTE: To really answer these questions you may have to hypothetically (and calmly) imagine D+P were never together for the sake of conversation. So, if they weren't together, how would you define/apply/not apply these definitions to them? If you want, feel free to give your opinion of the reverse too (if they were always together).

Please take into consideration that their behaviour in 2009/10 is very different to post 2012 and now. How do fanservice, shipbaiting and queerbaiting apply/not apply in each time period?

Just to start it off, here are my personal definitions:
Fanservice:intentionally doing stuff most fans want to see/would enjoy seeing; it’s lighthearted and not meant to be taken too seriously.
Shipbaiting: intentionally pretending/hinting at being a couple; not always obvious that it’s a joke/fake
Queerbaiting: people intentionally pretend to be queer or present homoerotic tension without actually being queer or having homoerotic tension; not always obvious that it’s a joke/fake.
melon lord
morning quiff
Posts: 466
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:47 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: post-baking universe

blueapple_x wrote:So I've been curious about this for a long time because everyone seems to have different definitions for certain words and oftentimes use things synonymously. I figured I'd post about it here.

How do you define fanservice and shipbaiting and queerbaiting? What makes these three things different from each other? How do they apply to D+P? How do they NOT apply to D+P? Please give specific examples if possible.

NOTE: To really answer these questions you may have to hypothetically (and calmly) imagine D+P were never together for the sake of conversation. So, if they weren't together, how would you define/apply/not apply these definitions to them? If you want, feel free to give your opinion of the reverse too (if they were always together).

Please take into consideration that their behaviour in 2009/10 is very different to post 2012 and now. How do fanservice, shipbaiting and queerbaiting apply/not apply in each time period?

Just to start it off, here are my personal definitions:
Fanservice:intentionally doing stuff most fans want to see/would enjoy seeing; it’s lighthearted and not meant to be taken too seriously.
Shipbaiting: intentionally pretending/hinting at being a couple; not always obvious that it’s a joke/fake
Queerbaiting: people intentionally pretend to be queer or present homoerotic tension without actually being queer or having homoerotic tension; not always obvious that it’s a joke/fake.
When it comes to myself, as someone who doesn't "need" phan as an otp/ship in general, my sort of... definition is

fanservice: reading out fics in videos or during TATINOF. It's a nod to the fans and something they clearly want to see. Being cheeky with each other/joking/teasing around, knowing that the fans lap those moments up. Dan's side eye into the camera during innuendo. Generally a "I know you like it" vibe.

Shipbaiting: For me that would be more intentional. They would have to be absolutely terrible at concealing themselves to be shipbaiting in my book :lol: Put it this way, if they made voldy nowadays, that would count as shipbaiting for me. Does it count as shipbaiting then? Well.. yes, but we'll never know the true context of it, so we can't tell.

Queerbaiting: All of Dan's bisexual-leaning jokes. I'm not saying that's why he does them, but that "same" attitude he has with guys would qualify as queerbaiting if he was 100% straight. But he also has a #relatable brand which means that making those jokes gets a response from the straight female population. Like #justbisexualthings.

The thing is that for me none of it matters. I find it funny and/or cute and move on, so I can't say that it affects me emotionally or personally. I'm aware that Phan exists both for their branding and also from the fans. If the fans didn't fuel Phan with art, with conspiracies, with videos, with fics, it wouldn't be the megabeast it is now. So both sides have just as much responsibility. I feel that back in 09/10 they enjoyed the attention it got and found it lighthearted and funny, without potentially realising it would turn into this. Back then teasing about being "gay for your friend" was a joke, it was funny to push the limits and shock people. And it's a phase people go through, some later than others (I had a friend in college who at the time was 19-20 and labelled himself as bicurious but honestly he got such a kick out of shocking his straight classmates with provocative humour and actions that I wonder if the shock factor was the real thrill rather than bisexuality itself, but I digress)

I don't think they would do it in an evil mastermind way. I think they did it back then being young and immature and reckless and now have a label with them forever and are learning how to deal with it maturely and without losing their shit (looking at you, dan, although I can't blame you).

Image
nephilimcat
woodland creature
Posts: 573
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:52 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Germany

blueapple_x wrote:So I've been curious about this for a long time because everyone seems to have different definitions for certain words and oftentimes use things synonymously. I figured I'd post about it here.

How do you define fanservice and shipbaiting and queerbaiting? What makes these three things different from each other? How do they apply to D+P? How do they NOT apply to D+P? Please give specific examples if possible.

NOTE: To really answer these questions you may have to hypothetically (and calmly) imagine D+P were never together for the sake of conversation. So, if they weren't together, how would you define/apply/not apply these definitions to them? If you want, feel free to give your opinion of the reverse too (if they were always together).

Please take into consideration that their behaviour in 2009/10 is very different to post 2012 and now. How do fanservice, shipbaiting and queerbaiting apply/not apply in each time period?

Just to start it off, here are my personal definitions:
Fanservice:intentionally doing stuff most fans want to see/would enjoy seeing; it’s lighthearted and not meant to be taken too seriously.
Shipbaiting: intentionally pretending/hinting at being a couple; not always obvious that it’s a joke/fake
Queerbaiting: people intentionally pretend to be queer or present homoerotic tension without actually being queer or having homoerotic tension; not always obvious that it’s a joke/fake.
Fanservice: exactly what you and melon lord said, I don't need to add anything to that.

Shipbaiting: I'm not entirely sure how to define it, but I'd say it's the immoral and extreme version of fanservice. With immoral, I mean that the only or main intent would be gaining money, fame, or something similar and with extreme, I mean that it would mean a lot of scripted and deliberate Phan action and them focusing on it. I also see ship related titles and thumbnails as shipbaiting.
I don't think it applies to Dan and Phil because I don't think they are ruthless and desperate enough for it. They are genuine and nice human beings. Also they aren't focusing enough on the ship for it to be shipbaiting, it's all just fanservice (or real or both) in my opinion.

Queerbaitng: The same as shipbaiting just instead of using the ship, you use being queer as a way to gain money, fame, or something similar and having your main focus on your supposed queerness.
Dan's male attraction related mentions and jokes, as melon lord mentioned, could be queerbaiting if the only or main intent was the same as in shipbaiting. However, I don't believe that's Dan's intent, therefore I would just call it fanservice as well. I don't think this applies to Dan and Phil either, for the same reasons I mentioned under "Shipbaiting".


Their behaviour before 2012 might qualify as shipbaiting and queerbaiting, even though I wouldn't say it was an extreme form of it. They clearly wanted the attention, but I don't think they saw it as a bad thing or even knew what they were doing. I believe they were mostly experimenting and wanted to be provocative. We also have to remember that their friendship was fresh and new, even if they never were together, they could have been dating or experimenting with each other. The sexual tension in some of the videos was definitely there and I doubt they could fake that. Also, they did make that vday video but decided not to upload it because they didn't think it was fair. If they wanted attention and fame so desperately, they could have published it. But they didn't want it that much, judging by the after it got unprivated by the glitch. They could have used it for their advantage, instead they decided to abandon the ship and that makes me reluctant to even call their pre 2012 behaviour shipbaiting. I'd just call it an experimenting phase that had shipbaity features.
pulvis et umbra sumus
User avatar
coffeepenguin
rainbow nerd
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: France

blueapple_x wrote:So I've been curious about this for a long time because everyone seems to have different definitions for certain words and oftentimes use things synonymously. I figured I'd post about it here.

How do you define fanservice and shipbaiting and queerbaiting? What makes these three things different from each other? How do they apply to D+P? How do they NOT apply to D+P? Please give specific examples if possible.
yay definitions!

I like your definition of fanservice, but with the other two, I feel like it's not relevant if it's a joke or not. Here's my attempt:

Fanservice (in fiction/art/media/etc.) - intentionally including something or depicting something in a way that is known to please fans without it being necessary for the story/the message of the piece. Pretty much the same definition could be applied to youtubers, in Deppy's case, for example, everything PINOF for the last three years at least is fanservice, talking about ships and bands they don't particularly care about is fanservice. The thing with fanservice is people involved are generally open about admitting it is what it is.

Shipbaiting (in fiction and stuff) - intentionally hinting at a possibility of two (or more?) characters starting a relationship while never or only in the very end going through with it. Could be viewed as a form of fanservice, if the fans are ok with it and accept that the ship won't become canon. The way johnlock is treated by Sherlock writers is shipbaiting (what with many different characters consistently assuming they're a couple and them being described as perfect partners for each other). Usually denied by people involved in it. When applied to youtubers, it's kissy thumbnails, boyfriend tags, some jokes could be viewed as this. In Deppy's case, that "Dan and Phil sex tape" is shipbaiting, half of their early online interaction is shipbaiting if they were not together at the time, Dan and Tyler's collabs are somewhat shipbaity, imo, but I guess it's just how Tyler rolls. Voldy is shipbaiting af, if we are to believe the prank excuse (which I don't), because it doesn't contain any reference to it being fake in the video itself or in the description (like, if it was a prank, there would have been another video, or comment, or something for the reveal later, so in any case for some time that video would have been viewed as real without anything to immediately disprove it, that's textbook shipbaiting for me)

Queerbaiting (in fiction and stuff) - intentionally coding a character as not straight with subtext (clothes, hobbies, manner of speaking, plot devices) while never confirming or outright contradicting/denying it in the text or outside of it (for example, in interviews). Started a long time ago as a legitimate way of introducing LGBTQ+ characters that only a part of the audience would recognise as such and the homophobic bosses wouldn't notice, nowadays, as LGBTQ+ characters "earned" their place in the mainstream, is more about not recognising at the beginning that a character could be read as not straight, then realising it's a popular belief with the fans, playing it up for some time until, inevitably, disproving it and facing a well earned backlash. Teen Wolf is a perfect example with the way the possibility of a character being bisexual was handled (I mean, on some point, Stiles's being hit on by a girl he previously saw dating another girl, so he says he thought she liked girls. She replies that you can like both and that she also likes boys. Then she asks if Stiles likes girls, which he confirms, and also if he likes boys - cue his confused face and a cut. WTF). For me, queerbaiting is inherently harmful and can't ever be brushed off as a joke, because it's hard not being straight in our very heterosexist world as it is. With real people it's more complicated, but, for example, female authors of published gay erotica writing under male pseudonyms are queerbaiting. In Deppy's case, what Dan's doing with all his male attraction mentions is either him being bi or queerbaiting, I don't see any other possibility.
Dan wants to be understood. Phil just wants to make the viewer smile and sell some backpacks (c) fancybum
User avatar
coffeepenguin
rainbow nerd
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: France

melon lord wrote:I don't think they would do it in an evil mastermind way. I think they did it back then being young and immature and reckless and now have a label with them forever and are learning how to deal with it maturely and without losing their shit (looking at you, dan, although I can't blame you).
They've had tons of possibilities to address it in a mature way with all the promotion this last year, though, haven't they? There's something I don't understand if they aren't together. Like, they could've said they appreciate the way their own story of finding a good friend through the Internet resonates with people, and sometimes you can find a romantic partner, but sometimes it's just friend, which is still really great. And that they understand a large part of their audience is young and tends to romaticise things, which they also appreciate because it sparks creativity, but not having a romantic partner may be a good thing, too, because you can follow your dream and have enough time for it. They even could've said that they are not happy with the stuff they posted on the Internet when they were younger and weren't as aware of some issues (offtopic: remember Deppy constantly making fun of Kristen Stewart because it was a thing? I would do a lot of questionable things if it would get me Dan's comment on the change in her public image and current relationships with women). Instead, since they stopped talking about their love life in 2013 point blank (except for Dan's imaginary relationship with Evan Peters), we got nothing but speculation. I really don't think there would be much backlash if they handled it correctly, and someday, sooner or later, they'll have to, they can't remain silent forever.

(Sorry, I'm posting a lot today and specifically in reply to you, but you just happen to post comments that I find interesting, so )
Dan wants to be understood. Phil just wants to make the viewer smile and sell some backpacks (c) fancybum
User avatar
alittledizzy
actual demon phannie
actual demon phannie
Posts: 7100
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:09 pm
Pronouns: she/her

coffeepenguin wrote:
blueapple_x wrote:So I've been curious about this for a long time because everyone seems to have different definitions for certain words and oftentimes use things synonymously. I figured I'd post about it here.

How do you define fanservice and shipbaiting and queerbaiting? What makes these three things different from each other? How do they apply to D+P? How do they NOT apply to D+P? Please give specific examples if possible.
yay definitions!

I like your definition of fanservice, but with the other two, I feel like it's not relevant if it's a joke or not. Here's my attempt:

Fanservice (in fiction/art/media/etc.) - intentionally including something or depicting something in a way that is known to please fans without it being necessary for the story/the message of the piece. Pretty much the same definition could be applied to youtubers, in Deppy's case, for example, everything PINOF for the last three years at least is fanservice, talking about ships and bands they don't particularly care about is fanservice. The thing with fanservice is people involved are generally open about admitting it is what it is.

Shipbaiting (in fiction and stuff) - intentionally hinting at a possibility of two (or more?) characters starting a relationship while never or only in the very end going through with it. Could be viewed as a form of fanservice, if the fans are ok with it and accept that the ship won't become canon. The way johnlock is treated by Sherlock writers is shipbaiting (what with many different characters consistently assuming they're a couple and them being described as perfect partners for each other). Usually denied by people involved in it. When applied to youtubers, it's kissy thumbnails, boyfriend tags, some jokes could be viewed as this. In Deppy's case, that "Dan and Phil sex tape" is shipbaiting, half of their early online interaction is shipbaiting if they were not together at the time, Dan and Tyler's collabs are somewhat shipbaity, imo, but I guess it's just how Tyler rolls. Voldy is shipbaiting af, if we are to believe the prank excuse (which I don't), because it doesn't contain any reference to it being fake in the video itself or in the description (like, if it was a prank, there would have been another video, or comment, or something for the reveal later, so in any case for some time that video would have been viewed as real without anything to immediately disprove it, that's textbook shipbaiting for me)

Queerbaiting (in fiction and stuff) - intentionally coding a character as not straight with subtext (clothes, hobbies, manner of speaking, plot devices) while never confirming or outright contradicting/denying it in the text or outside of it (for example, in interviews). Started a long time ago as a legitimate way of introducing LGBTQ+ characters that only a part of the audience would recognise as such and the homophobic bosses wouldn't notice, nowadays, as LGBTQ+ characters "earned" their place in the mainstream, is more about not recognising at the beginning that a character could be read as not straight, then realising it's a popular belief with the fans, playing it up for some time until, inevitably, disproving it and facing a well earned backlash. Teen Wolf is a perfect example with the way the possibility of a character being bisexual was handled (I mean, on some point, Stiles's being hit on by a girl he previously saw dating another girl, so he says he thought she liked girls. She replies that you can like both and that she also likes boys. Then she asks if Stiles likes girls, which he confirms, and also if he likes boys - cue his confused face and a cut. WTF). For me, queerbaiting is inherently harmful and can't ever be brushed off as a joke, because it's hard not being straight in our very heterosexist world as it is. With real people it's more complicated, but, for example, female authors of published gay erotica writing under male pseudonyms are queerbaiting. In Deppy's case, what Dan's doing with all his male attraction mentions is either him being bi or queerbaiting, I don't see any other possibility.
I'm not even gonna answer the question about defining the terms, because this is basically what I would have said. Fantastic post, all very well said, and very reflective of the actual definitions of those terms - complete with intention, which plays a huge part in each of them.
blueapple_x
flower crown
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:57 pm

alittledizzy wrote:
coffeepenguin wrote:
blueapple_x wrote:So I've been curious about this for a long time because everyone seems to have different definitions for certain words and oftentimes use things synonymously. I figured I'd post about it here.

How do you define fanservice and shipbaiting and queerbaiting? What makes these three things different from each other? How do they apply to D+P? How do they NOT apply to D+P? Please give specific examples if possible.
yay definitions!

I like your definition of fanservice, but with the other two, I feel like it's not relevant if it's a joke or not. Here's my attempt:

Fanservice (in fiction/art/media/etc.) - intentionally including something or depicting something in a way that is known to please fans without it being necessary for the story/the message of the piece. Pretty much the same definition could be applied to youtubers, in Deppy's case, for example, everything PINOF for the last three years at least is fanservice, talking about ships and bands they don't particularly care about is fanservice. The thing with fanservice is people involved are generally open about admitting it is what it is.

Shipbaiting (in fiction and stuff) - intentionally hinting at a possibility of two (or more?) characters starting a relationship while never or only in the very end going through with it. Could be viewed as a form of fanservice, if the fans are ok with it and accept that the ship won't become canon. The way johnlock is treated by Sherlock writers is shipbaiting (what with many different characters consistently assuming they're a couple and them being described as perfect partners for each other). Usually denied by people involved in it. When applied to youtubers, it's kissy thumbnails, boyfriend tags, some jokes could be viewed as this. In Deppy's case, that "Dan and Phil sex tape" is shipbaiting, half of their early online interaction is shipbaiting if they were not together at the time, Dan and Tyler's collabs are somewhat shipbaity, imo, but I guess it's just how Tyler rolls. Voldy is shipbaiting af, if we are to believe the prank excuse (which I don't), because it doesn't contain any reference to it being fake in the video itself or in the description (like, if it was a prank, there would have been another video, or comment, or something for the reveal later, so in any case for some time that video would have been viewed as real without anything to immediately disprove it, that's textbook shipbaiting for me)

Queerbaiting (in fiction and stuff) - intentionally coding a character as not straight with subtext (clothes, hobbies, manner of speaking, plot devices) while never confirming or outright contradicting/denying it in the text or outside of it (for example, in interviews). Started a long time ago as a legitimate way of introducing LGBTQ+ characters that only a part of the audience would recognise as such and the homophobic bosses wouldn't notice, nowadays, as LGBTQ+ characters "earned" their place in the mainstream, is more about not recognising at the beginning that a character could be read as not straight, then realising it's a popular belief with the fans, playing it up for some time until, inevitably, disproving it and facing a well earned backlash. Teen Wolf is a perfect example with the way the possibility of a character being bisexual was handled (I mean, on some point, Stiles's being hit on by a girl he previously saw dating another girl, so he says he thought she liked girls. She replies that you can like both and that she also likes boys. Then she asks if Stiles likes girls, which he confirms, and also if he likes boys - cue his confused face and a cut. WTF). For me, queerbaiting is inherently harmful and can't ever be brushed off as a joke, because it's hard not being straight in our very heterosexist world as it is. With real people it's more complicated, but, for example, female authors of published gay erotica writing under male pseudonyms are queerbaiting. In Deppy's case, what Dan's doing with all his male attraction mentions is either him being bi or queerbaiting, I don't see any other possibility.
I'm not even gonna answer the question about defining the terms, because this is basically what I would have said. Fantastic post, all very well said, and very reflective of the actual definitions of those terms - complete with intention, which plays a huge part in each of them.
If we're looking at the grand picture here, so far it seems like everyone is saying essentially the same/similar things for the most part or things I agree with anyway.

coffeepenguin, you went pretty in depth with the definitions and I enjoyed reading it . The ones I gave were meant to be very basic and more directed to youtubers, so I guess I should've clarified that (sorry lol). When I said "it's not always obvious if it's a joke/fake for shipbaiting and queerbaiting, which I'd argue is relevant/applicable, I meant whoever is doing it is more or less trying to bait people into thinking one thing about a situation, that isn't actually true/isn't going to happen (hence my usage of joke/fake).

dizzy, I agree with the intention being a huge part of everything. Nowadays, I think deppy's intentions are fanservice. Whether or not each fan reads it that way is another story.

melon lord and nephilimcat, Thanks for giving specific examples of how you thought the definitions would hypothetically apply/not apply to D+P. You brought up some good points!
User avatar
eevee
emo goose
Posts: 1183
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 6:26 pm
Location: USA

Going off of the baiting question, do you think it's still queer or ship baiting if what they're baiting ends up being canon in the end? For example, Sherlock isn't over yet, yet it's a posterchild for baiting. What if they end up together in the end?
Image
Phil looks like he went to sleep at 6 AM and is dying inside, Dan glows like he spent the night having orgasms - Ticia
blueapple_x
flower crown
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:57 pm

eevee wrote:Going off of the baiting question, do you think it's still queer or ship baiting if what they're baiting ends up being canon in the end? For example, Sherlock isn't over yet, yet it's a posterchild for baiting. What if they end up together in the end?
I think you'd have to look at each moment individually and the intention of the person/people in each moment. I'm going to bring it back to D+P just so everyone's on the same page.

For argument's sake:
If D+P were never together at any point in 2009/2010 and were purposely fabricating things/manipulating the audience to think phan is real, I'd consider that shipbaiting at the time.

If D+P later became a couple long after they had stopped shipbaiting, technically 2009/2010 would still be shipbaiting to me because at the time they were never a couple. For anything after they stopped shipbaiting, I wouldn't consider it shipbaiting if it became canon in the end.

Sorry if I worded that in a confusing way lol
User avatar
alittledizzy
actual demon phannie
actual demon phannie
Posts: 7100
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:09 pm
Pronouns: she/her

eevee wrote:Going off of the baiting question, do you think it's still queer or ship baiting if what they're baiting ends up being canon in the end? For example, Sherlock isn't over yet, yet it's a posterchild for baiting. What if they end up together in the end?
If john and Sherlock get together in the end its not baiting, it was storyline progression. I think real people can't actually be compared to fictional characters in these situations because fictional characters are a story being planned and manipulated by writers, whereas real people are living real lives and can't anticipate the consequences of their actions or what obstacles/plot twists are gonna happen.
nephilimcat
woodland creature
Posts: 573
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:52 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Germany

eevee wrote:Going off of the baiting question, do you think it's still queer or ship baiting if what they're baiting ends up being canon in the end? For example, Sherlock isn't over yet, yet it's a posterchild for baiting. What if they end up together in the end?
When it comes to real people: No. When you are together and hint that, I wouldn't call it shipbaiting. Especially when it comes to queer couples, it would be more of a coming out journey for them.

When it comes to fictional people: Depends on the writers. If they planned to write the characters as a couple or came to the realisation that they would be cute together, I wouldn't clarify it as shipbaiting. But if they just denied even the possibility all the time while simultaneously throwing in references that keep the viewers interested and suddenly the characters realise they love each other after seasons of not making any process, I think it is shipbaiting.
pulvis et umbra sumus
User avatar
spider
ar·tic·u·late
Posts: 423
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:31 am

coffeepenguin wrote:I really don't think there would be much backlash if they handled it correctly, and someday, sooner or later, they'll have to, they can't remain silent forever.
They can remain silent forever if they want to. Hope they will not but it is not impossible.
User avatar
coffeepenguin
rainbow nerd
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: France

spider wrote:
coffeepenguin wrote:I really don't think there would be much backlash if they handled it correctly, and someday, sooner or later, they'll have to, they can't remain silent forever.
They can remain silent forever if they want to. Hope they will not but it is not impossible.
Yeah, I guess, you're right. I've just tried to come up with different scenarios, but in all of them they actually have a possibility to completely haru their past. It was wishful thinking from my part, damn Deppy for being so good at that
Dan wants to be understood. Phil just wants to make the viewer smile and sell some backpacks (c) fancybum
User avatar
eevee
emo goose
Posts: 1183
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 6:26 pm
Location: USA

coffeepenguin wrote:
spider wrote:
coffeepenguin wrote:I really don't think there would be much backlash if they handled it correctly, and someday, sooner or later, they'll have to, they can't remain silent forever.
They can remain silent forever if they want to. Hope they will not but it is not impossible.
Yeah, I guess, you're right. I've just tried to come up with different scenarios, but in all of them they actually have a possibility to completely haru their past. It was wishful thinking from my part, damn Deppy for being so good at that
I agree that they could just stay silent forever. They've gotten it down to a science. They're so used to living that way, it must be second nature to them at this point. Obviously it doesn't bother them that much or they would've come out by now. It's been so long and they still haven't confirmed anything, on the contrary they deny certain things (and we get #busgate). Honestly, when I discovered them in 2011, I never thought in 2016 that I'd be talking about if they shared a bed on a tour bus or not. They really surprised me. But I feel like at this point, they're very set in their ways. I don't see anything changing right away.

It makes me sad, but obviously it doesn't make them sad, so I can't really complain. Yes I do wish we'd get an answer but that's an inherently selfish thing to wish. Maybe in 2023 we'll still be discussing them, just like this. Maybe by then, everything will be different. Honestly we don't know. But I'm not very optimistic to be honest.
Image
Phil looks like he went to sleep at 6 AM and is dying inside, Dan glows like he spent the night having orgasms - Ticia
User avatar
papierklemmen
flower crown
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:04 am

this is kind of on topic and offtopic at the same time, with everyone's definition of queerbaiting and what not (and we know the term is fairly recent) but i've been thinking about the infamous charlieskies and how it might have looked like he he was trying to out dan, but his meltdown aside, i think some stuff he said (including his "phan" jokes), looked like he, along with being a bitter asshole, was sometimes frustrated that they played up the ambiguity.
like this tweet:
Image

on one hand it could be interpreted as him hinting at their sexualties, on the other... idk to me it sounds a lot more like resentment towards queerbaiting.
nephilimcat
woodland creature
Posts: 573
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:52 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Germany

papierklemmen wrote:this is kind of on topic and offtopic at the same time, with everyone's definition of queerbaiting and what not (and we know the term is fairly recent) but i've been thinking about the infamous charlieskies and how it might have looked like he he was trying to out dan, but his meltdown aside, i think some stuff he said (including his "phan" jokes), looked like he, along with being a bitter asshole, was sometimes frustrated that they played up the ambiguity.
like this tweet:
Image

on one hand it could be interpreted as him hinting at their sexualties, on the other... idk to me it sounds a lot more like resentment towards queerbaiting.
Maybe, but some of the tweets are clearly made to tease a queer person in the closet. You can say all you want about Phan, but if Dan is straight, I'll eat a broom. He even addressed his sexuality on several occasions recently, all hinting at male attraction but not labeling himself. Since Dan isn't disrespectful, I highly doubt he'd do that if he was straight.
Charlie probably knew or assumed something, decided to tease him and then Dan got defensive. Why would he? As a non-homophobic straight person, you would laugh it off or something, especially since Dan is known for avoiding drama. So it was clearly something that hit a spot and brought out the "best" in Dan. Ever since Charlie found out how easy he could tease him, he continued. I don't think all of the things he said are true, but there's probably at least some truth in them. I doubt Charlie was trying to hint something, out Dan and Phil or call them out as his main goal, I just think he wanted to mess with Dan and found it funny how easy it was to provoke him.
In my opinion, that's all there is to it: Charlie behaved like an asshole and Dan was too deep in the closet to behave reasonably.
pulvis et umbra sumus
User avatar
DryCereal
koi pond
Posts: 1989
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:59 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: UK

papierklemmen wrote:on one hand it could be interpreted as him hinting at their sexualties, on the other... idk to me it sounds a lot more like resentment towards queerbaiting.
If anyone was doing any baiting, it's Charlie.
IckleMissMayhem's evil fic writing alter ego. :twisted:
User avatar
papierklemmen
flower crown
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:04 am

And here I go, making the same mistake you spent a few pages talking about :facepalm: I of course meant that he was expressing resentment towards shipbaiting, not queerbaiting.

His whole twitter meltdown about "balls" :roll: was definitely addressing Dan's sexuality specifically, be it that he knew/suspected that Dan liked guys, or that he knew some embarrassing moments from Dan's past he could share (experimenting? drunk makeouts with male friends? we've all been there), or that he knew nothing and it was all smoke but he wanted to poke fun at Dan because he knew people would react to it the way they did.

I'm talking about more isolated twitter incidents, like the one I linked or when he teased Phil about Dan and "phan", like some of the stuff here:
Image
he was obviously a bitter asshole and wanted attention, but I just thought that his attitude was a mix of friendship jealousy AND addressing shipbaiting
nephilimcat
woodland creature
Posts: 573
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:52 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Germany

papierklemmen wrote:And here I go, making the same mistake you spent a few pages talking about :facepalm: I of course meant that he was expressing resentment towards shipbaiting, not queerbaiting.

His whole twitter meltdown about "balls" :roll: was definitely addressing Dan's sexuality specifically, be it that he knew/suspected that Dan liked guys, or that he knew some embarrassing moments from Dan's past he could share (experimenting? drunk makeouts with male friends? we've all been there), or that he knew nothing and it was all smoke but he wanted to poke fun at Dan because he knew people would react to it the way they did.

I'm talking about more isolated twitter incidents, like the one I linked or when he teased Phil about Dan and "phan", like some of the stuff here:
Image
he was obviously a bitter asshole and wanted attention, but I just thought that his attitude was a mix of friendship jealousy AND addressing shipbaiting
I don't see him resenting or criticising them for shipbaiting in those tweets at all. He reacted to completely normal, phan unrelated tweets by making them about Phan. The tweet with the MacBook and the power cable, for example, doesn't even have anything to do with Dan or any other human than Phil. As IckleMissMayhem mentioned, he was the one who was shipbaiting - just because you aren't part of a ship, doesn't mean you can't use it for yourself. Making phan related comments was an easy way for him to get attention from Deppy's viewers and of course he could also wind them up while doing so.
If he resented their shipbaiting, he would have chosen phan related tweets or videos and would have called them out on it or made it more obvious that he wasn't a fan but someone who tried to prove a point. Instead he made himself look like a rude fan and phan shipper. I've seen similar tweets from actual fans. If anything, he was trying to call out the Phandom, not shipbaiting, but I also doubt that.
As I said, he was just jealous, bitter and mean and if he knew/suspected something about Phan, he was maybe trying to make them come out.
pulvis et umbra sumus
User avatar
papierklemmen
flower crown
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:04 am

nephilimcat wrote: If he resented their shipbaiting, he would have chosen phan related tweets or videos and would have called them out on it or made it more obvious that he wasn't a fan but someone who tried to prove a point. Instead he made himself look like a rude fan and phan shipper. I've seen similar tweets from actual fans.
ok I agree with everything you said (there are a lot of ways to look at the "evidence"), except the bolded part. he was obviously being sarcastic af, none of this is similar to tweets from actual fans in tone - fans can read sarcasm, can't they? aside from attention seeking, his tweets reek of bitterness, but it's hard to tell if it's just his own issues or he had a problem with the "phan" phenomenon.

sorry i know it's a stretch, i just wanted to reach a bit :lol:
Last edited by papierklemmen on Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DryCereal
koi pond
Posts: 1989
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:59 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: UK

nephilimcat wrote: As IckleMissMayhem mentioned, he was the one who was shipbaiting
No i didn't. I said baiting. (As in the now thankfully illegal sick kind with bears and chains and dogs in a pit.) Often done in public/for an audience. Attack the victim repeatedly until they're forced to lash out themselves, or get ripped to shreds.
IckleMissMayhem's evil fic writing alter ego. :twisted:
User avatar
kusunoki masashige
butt chair
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:57 pm

papierklemmen wrote:
nephilimcat wrote: If he resented their shipbaiting, he would have chosen phan related tweets or videos and would have called them out on it or made it more obvious that he wasn't a fan but someone who tried to prove a point. Instead he made himself look like a rude fan and phan shipper. I've seen similar tweets from actual fans.
ok I agree with everything you said (there are a lot of ways to look at the "evidence"), except the bolded part. he was obviously being sarcastic af, none of this is similar to tweets from actual fans in tone - fans can read sarcasm, can't they? aside from attention seeking, his tweets reek of bitterness, but it's hard to tell if it's just his own issues or he had a problem with the "phan" phenomenon.

sorry i know it's a stretch, i just wanted to reach a bit :lol:
This is a topic I think about a lot, actually. How to interpret the tweets of their youtube-friends/-acquaintances.
Charlies tweets don't make him sound like a phan shipper to me, but they also don't sound necessarily sarcastic or like he's calling them out for shipbaiting or anything like that. It sounds to me like a mixture of teasing deppy, making fun of the shippers maybe, attention-seeking and shit-stirring. He made fun of deppy or the situation because he could, because the fact that shipping them is a thing made it possible for him to make these comments without anyone knowing if he was hinting at a truth or just joking about "phan".

Now the first tweet you mentioned, papierklemmen, reads completely different to me.
papierklemmen wrote: Image

on one hand it could be interpreted as him hinting at their sexualties, on the other... idk to me it sounds a lot more like resentment towards queerbaiting.
He sounds seriously bitter and frustrated with them playing up the ambiguity, you're right, but it was more concerning the "violent denial and reassurance of a heterosexual lifestyle" part of it, I think. Like nephilimcat said, I've never seen him reacting bitter to any phan-related tweets from Dan or Phil (but thinking about it, do these even exist post-2010?) It sounds more like him resenting the no-homoing going on back then to me. But it can all be interpreted in different ways, as always…

What stands out to me, though, is that none of their friends and colleagues from 2009/2010, a lot of them non-straight themselves and some of them probably bitter because deppy started ignoring them, ever called them out for shipbaiting or "milking a non-existent homosexual relationship" or anything (except maybe Charlie, but I still don't read his comments that way). Unless it happened and I just haven't heard of it, which would be completely possible.
Post Reply