Dan & Phil Part 82: now onto the future

Our two favourite full time internet nerds who never go outside!
Locked
User avatar
Ablissa
pastel persona
Posts: 1379
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 5:49 pm
Pronouns: she/her

*clears throat*
I'm double posting so that we can maybe change the subject, and also because I found something cute-ish.

John, Phil's first subscriber, answered some questions last night and talked about Phil a bit. I think it's really sweet that he still watches his videos.

Image
User avatar
kalli
butt chair
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 5:57 am
Location: Canada

I’m putting this under a spoiler since the conversation is moving on but here’s a little food for thought I already typed out if anybody is interested in another perspective:
Homophobia can be broadly described as negative attitudes toward lgbtq+ people, and regardless of the circumstances or intent, the things Dan said in regard to being perceived as gay/bi/queer were less than neutral. Of course more details would go into determining whether or not someone is homophobic as a core belief or moral principle so to speak, and I assume we’re all in agreement that Dan isn’t homophobic in such a sense, but to say his words were homophobic is accurate.
On another note, I know it’s been happening for a couple years now but the Dan and gender discussion from a few days ago made me really take notice of how femininely (in a traditional sense - with clothing, makeup, pink and pastel colours, lots of flowers, dainty poses and such as notable examples) Dan gets portrayed in fan art compared to how he presents himself in real life. If you consider his likes on tumblr as a valid measure of how much he enjoys the art, I’d say he likes it quite a bit. I don’t know that I actually have any substantial takes on this topic, but I am curious as to whether he simply appreciates the art, if he has any desire to present himself in a way that’s similar to how he’s depicted in some of these pieces, and why/how this representation came to be. If he does make a video that touches on the topic of gender, mentioning how “the people” represent him might be an interesting segment to incorporate.

Dan honey pls come back I miss you but take your time but also it’s a great time for that candle haul
User avatar
sonicgreen
woodland creature
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:56 pm

our mental health ambassador doing his best :happytears: promotional ig stories as well
Image
User avatar
fancybum
senpai
Posts: 1783
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:06 am
Location: bork

Ugh I love Dan. That’s it. If he could show some more signs of life, that’d be cool, I guess. I wouldn’t be opposed.

I feel like, at this point, crabstickz might beat him to posting a video first in 2019, and that would be really funny. It’s a race between snails who don’t know they’re in a race and who keep turning around. Where’s the bookie?
Thanks and have a great day! Oil me
User avatar
knq
lava lamp
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:42 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

fancybum wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:42 pm Ugh I love Dan. That’s it. If he could show some more signs of life, that’d be cool, I guess. I wouldn’t be opposed.

I feel like, at this point, crabstickz might beat him to posting a video first in 2019, and that would be really funny. It’s a race between snails who don’t know they’re in a race and who keep turning around. Where’s the bookie?
And much like the snail race in Undertale...

https://youtu.be/io6M-A0MARQ?t=2921

Too much encouragement-pressure makes the snail catch on fire without ever leaving the starting line. That seems like a surprisingly accurate analogy, really.
User avatar
Birdie
blobfish
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:22 pm
Pronouns: they/them

kalli wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:03 pm On another note, I know it’s been happening for a couple years now but the Dan and gender discussion from a few days ago made me really take notice of how femininely (in a traditional sense - with clothing, makeup, pink and pastel colours, lots of flowers, dainty poses and such as notable examples) Dan gets portrayed in fan art compared to how he presents himself in real life. If you consider his likes on tumblr as a valid measure of how much he enjoys the art, I’d say he likes it quite a bit. I don’t know that I actually have any substantial takes on this topic, but I am curious as to whether he simply appreciates the art, if he has any desire to present himself in a way that’s similar to how he’s depicted in some of these pieces, and why/how this representation came to be. If he does make a video that touches on the topic of gender, mentioning how “the people” represent him might be an interesting segment to incorporate.
I think he would like to dress less conventional, yes. He tries sometimes but I think he’s holding himself back a bit. We know he’s pretty self-conscious about stuff like this. Like, when he started wearing ripped jeans he seemed downright nervous even though it was something everyone was wearing at the time and there’s one moment that stood out to me in the “Week in the Life” video, when he wore that black jumpsuit. He asked Phil if it looked okay and just seemed genuinely nervous about it. They started joking about it, calling it a mail romper and as far as we know, Dan never wore it again.

I’m not sure if he’d like to wear more colourful, “feminine” stuff because he seems very into his black and white aesthetic (and it is a good aesthetic) but I think he might like to dress more unconventionally but he’s too self-conscious to actually do it. He’s said time and again that he doesn’t care about gender roles and I can totally see him wearing more nail polish in the future, but I can’t really see him in pastels much, it’s not his aesthetic.

As for the bolded part, I think a lot of fans, especially queer ones, see Dan as some kind of queer idol and they draw him in a way they’d like him to present himself: Defying gender roles etc. I’m not sure what I think about this though. On one hand it’s great that fans can use their art and him as an internet celebrity to express their own gender identity and stuff but on the other hand I’m pretty sure the real Dan will never be this person. He’s not Troye Sivan or Olly Alexander. And I have exactly no idea if he’d like to be like them (confident, defying gender roles, just doing their thing, openly queer etc.) because I don’t know him but I kind of doubt it.

But even if he did want this for himself, I don’t see it happening because he’s so self-conscious about the way he presents himself. Like, I can’t deny I’d love to see him mix his emo aesthetic with some black nail polish and make-up and bolder clothes but in the end it has to feel right for him and even if he should want to present himself like this, and I’m just not sure he does, I don’t think he’s confident enough for it just yet. I'd love to see him dress bolder in general though because he seems to like unconventional fashion.
User avatar
fieldoflovers
living flop
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:12 am
Pronouns: she/her

Reading back the chat has been the exact feeling of the gif from donald glover coming back with pizza to a burning down apartment. My one word contribution, oof.

I love it whenever Dan talks about mental health specifically what he was going through in school. I graduated high school a couple of years ago but I don't think anyone who talked to us about mental health talked about specific illness' in a way that wasn't the patronizing "everyone gets sad sometimes" and "you'll grow out of it". I know the world is seemingly better at talking about mental health and therapy but too often people don't take young people's views on their mental health seriously. I appreciate Dan as an ambassador because he isn't saying that you'll reach a certain age, or level of success where you'll be okay. I think I needed to hear that when I was younger, that'll things will be okay, but mental illness will still be a part of you.

I hope he tells certain ppl in his own family that you can't really "overcome" mental illness. you can cope with it, you can learn how to live with it, but the idea that you'll be fixed is just... leading people to future disappointment.

Dan is seriously a great ambassador and I hope he considers talking about his therapy experiences or mental health when he was young in a video. I'd be okay with any video ofc, i think that's been fairly obvious, but a mental health one would be nice.

Also can I request a weekend liveshow? I need Dan's soothing voice telling me things will be okay.
Image
User avatar
knq
lava lamp
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:42 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

phil? phil make video? phiw? ;_;
User avatar
plinthofmylife
janice from the shop
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:41 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

I will be incredibly happy if in this AP video Dan shows his face on camera. Please dads.
Image
User avatar
glitterintheair
phillluminati
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:56 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Italy
Contact:

knq wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:31 pm phil? phil make video? phiw? ;_;
My mind immediately went to the Recognize People's Faces without Glasses On vid that Jenna made. I know someone suggested the idea to him and he liked the comment, so maybe that could be a possibility?
I'm a winter flower underground, always thirsty for summer rain.
User avatar
liola
rankussy
Posts: 1679
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:09 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Italy

Man, Mr Amazing is really committing into feeding us and as a starving child in need to be fed, I'm grateful for the food that is about to come. I hope it'll be a satisfying meal that will last more than a 10-minutes-course. I'm ready for it, I've set my plate down and I'm waiting for Mr Amazing to give it to us

(I'm at dinner, and I'm hungry)
Will probably never be over the BONCAS and the beauty of Phil Lester.

Official Moving Hill Mayor
User avatar
Stakhanov
haru pillow
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: he / him

@Elemancy The discussion has moved on since and I think few wish to sustain it. But since you specifically mention me and have put thought in your post I think it is only polite I reply. My goal on this forum is always to have a frank but honest discussion, so here is my reply. I however don't intend to revisit the discussion. If you wish to, feel free to reply by PM or perhaps a thread where we can have some respectful in depth bants about these and other issues would be useful.

@Stakhanov.....…so many posters here have tried to explain to you that intent and impact are not the same.

I have never claimed that intent and impact is the same. If you read my posts I explain in length that a comment or joke that can be subjectively hurtful does not mean it reaches the treshold of what is defined as homophobic.
I'm going to bring back my reply where I draw the distinction between something being hurtful, which I recognize Dan's replies are to some and homophobia. I do think intent is an important element in judging the context of any comment when you're trying to determine if it is homophobic. I assume with impact you mean the offense and words his words has caused. If not, you need to clarify what you mean with impact and how it is relevant to intent and homophobia.


I can understand that any joke or word can be hurtful or offensive to others. I wouldn't ever deny an individual can be impacted. Everyone has their own past and lives through their own experiences which can make even the most well intended little joke extremely hurtful. That's one reason that in interpersonal relationships I always try to be kind and polite to people. As I get to know a person better, you get better at navigating what things you can talk about and then funnily enough it is among friends where you often can get refreshingly blunt or sufficiently tactful to bring up issues you wouldn't even talk about with others. But in a public space (such as that blog) you're talking to an abstract audience and you have a right to express yourself as you are, even if that will clash with the sensibilities and sensitivities of others. I Dan's case, he states in the blog himself that he is a "sarcastic, alternative guys that is sometimes inappropriate". So yes, no doubt his replies are hurtful to some but that's fine. Nobody is forced to read his writings and everybody can cause offense (most of the times unwittingly).

Where we fundamentally disagree is in calling a subjectively hurtful or offensive joke homophobic. These are two different matters. Homophobic does mean something, and it's not equal to having caused hurt. it's defined as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (I looked up some definitions, took the Merriam-Webster one here, but they are all fairly similar). Now my question to @waveydnp and you is: what specifically in his replies is homophobic? Are you calling him out because he is homophobic or are you calling him out because he has made a comment or joke you found hurtful? Again I would like to use the terms when applicable to actual homophobes who have this irrational fear, aversion and discriminate on the basis of it. If you label a little joke as homophobic because it's hurtful to you, you are redefining the concept to something it isn't. I started by saying I would never deny your right to feel hurt of offended by a joke or comment, and I would hope you wouldn't try to deny my experience. I personally found some of Dan's jokes entertaining and refreshing. I'm not the only one. To make a comparison with mental health jokes: some people find them 'problematic' and harmful while others see in them a way to cope and help them with life and their mental health. You just can't say that a comment or joke is uniformly impacting everyone the same way. By consequence, you can't even claim a joke is objectively hurtful, let alone homophobic. At best you can argue that most or many people find something hurtful, and bring up context and history to explain why.

I feel this point is badly understood by people who feel hurt or offended by something and then claim the person causing it must be a (vile) aggressor who is homophobic, insensitive to others mental health, ableist, racist or pick your moral evil. These are real problems in our societies, and I would hope when we accuse someone of fitting that label, we draw the line in accordance with what these terms mean, taking into account context and intent, instead of cheapening it to the point where it's original weight and meaning is lost and many can't support what you put under it's umbrella.



If you’re unable to form any kind of sympathetic or empathetic link with the pages on pages of arguments countering your position ...
A bit of a strange assumption. I have always acknowledged people can feel hurt. I don't any find joy in that. Why wouldn't I be able to feel empathy for others. Because I disagree with the conclusion they draw that the blog is homophobic? I am sympathetic to the person who feels hurt by these comments, as well as with Dan's anger and frustration when he is trying to counter the presumption that he's lying about being platonic friends with Phil and I also feel sympathy for the viewers who do not support the ship or believe they are together and were glad Dan was again taking a clear position.

To quote a previous post again where I talk about the different perspectives.

Let me maybe surprise on this day of love but I agree with everything you say above the tag. Reading his posts I see someone who is clearly angry, frustrated about all the growing cohort of fans that believe they are in a romantic relationship, sometimes with a lot of passion and plenty of fanfiction and graphical fanart. You speak about the effect his crude wording and denial has on you as a viewer. That's one perspective, which I don't mean to diminish, but it is true that there are other perspectives too. That of the fan who does not believe they are together but who sees the effect the ship has on the content that's made, on what becomes popular and expected of them, on how it influences and limits what they do. More relevant perhaps is the perspective of Dan and Phil themselves. I feel that's getting overlooked here. Imagine for a moment they aren't together. (I guess this is a less romantic version of typical Phan imagine ;) ). You see how part of your rapidly growing audience rejects your own truth. Some people don't believe you when you say the v-day video as a prank and think they've gotten intimate glance into your love life. You have since 2009 said you are not in a relationship and not gay (you are bisexual) and your genuine friendship gets misinterpreted and sexualized. I can't speak for you, but I would try to correct that perception. I would feel like people act like I'm a liar, don't care about what I think or feel and come to a bunch of wrong conclusions while they can't know the truth of it.

then at least take it from the point of view of conventional implicature, where the tone and structure of the language Dan used back then contributes to a negative, derisive and harmful point of view.

This is an opinion I disagree with, so any conclusion that leans on this assumption I don't share. Just wanted to clarify this at the start as your further reasoning builds upon this and other assumptions and don't share.

Even if the tone he used is understandable from the perspective of defensive posturing, to shield himself against the unwanted, overwhelming public scrutiny of an attraction/relationship/facet of himself he was only beginning to understand, navigate and accept,

That's not why I think he created the blog or gave his answers.

it still left the sour aftertaste of conflating a same sex relationship with something shameful and taboo.

Again not how I interpret his words.

This falls in line with the way that some companies and individuals compare being fat/old/physically or mentally impaired (or anything deemed 'socially unconventional') with something undesirable when paired with language like ‘ugly’ ‘sad,’ ‘unfortunate,’ ‘unwanted’ or by using more abstract, euphemistic language that doesn’t directly state a negative but indirectly connotes it anyway. Dan's intent or words might not have been overtly homophobic according to your own definition, but the impact of the language implied, the resounding negatives behind his chosen mode of expression at the time which overrode all intent, ....

I agree with your on the first part of the paragraph. I'm not saying Dan expressed himself in the most positive way he could and I agree that you can 'connote' his words with a negative, but this is a long way imo from asserting they were meant to for example shame the notion of male-male relationships in general, especially considering all the other opinions we had heard of Dan around the issue of LGBT rights.
I also don't see why this ought to override intent.

... is a large part of what contributes to the aggressive frame of mind which constitutes homophobia in the first place.

This is so vague I'm left guessing what exactly could all fit under that description. If the claim here is that the concrete phrases used constitute homophobia, I disagree. "Contributing" can be interpreted extremely broad. I'm not even sure what "An aggressive frame of mind" ought to mean and how it constitutes homophobia. I've given the dictionary definition of what I understand to be homophobic, and this is a long way off.

When it comes to any bias, theory or belief, there’s always a complex latticework of contributing factors, mostly social cues within one’s community, social network, family, etc, which makes a person lean towards one end of a spectrum versus another. In particular, whether it’s internalized homophobia or a vocalized bristling expression of unequivocal hatred, that type of belief arguably finds its beginnings in the kind of small conversational prompts which associate a given idenitity with something undesirable, framing it in the context of something comedic, shameful, or illogical. In short, it’s a foundation built on direct negative associations or euphemistic shortcuts which over time create a mental and/or physical aversion to the very idea of same sex relationships. Sometimes those types of social cues are the most impactful, the ones that aren't the publically visible bigot with a megaphone shouting slurs, but the comments of friends, family and public figures whose implied tones and actions are more suggestive in influencing what other people find acceptable or questionable

I very much agree with you in this part, but completely disagree with the interpretation you next give of Dan's words.

. In the more specific example of Dan’s old blog and some old liveshow comments, the scope of influence with his replies went beyond his intent to curtail public scrutiny into his private relationships and budding awareness of himself/his identity, etc. and devolved into what came across instead as a shuddering, lip curl of distaste towards the idea of any relationship between himself and another man. Even if the specific context was meant to deflect unwanted attention involving him and Phil or to protect himself from feeling trivialized, the end result of how he chose to phrase his replies was more far reaching and detrimental.

You called for critical reflection in one of your many replies here and we can definitely do so (though many people already have) We can critically reflect on the one side of the issue in which we understand Dan's reactionary posts from the point of view of someone young, confused, and insecure facing perceived pressure both from his audience and his own internal conflict in not having the context of experience, emotional support, comfort or maturity to deal with those pressures and then we can critically reflect on the unintended but nonetheless real, potentially harmful consequences of those off the cuff replies which later (partly? Hopefully?) provoked his own decision to delete the blog along with other videos in which past comments and jokes he made were rendered inappropriate in the context of him finally reaching those markers of maturity, experience and understanding to learn about their negative implications and realizing the large gap between how his past self no longer reflected the mode of self-expression or frame of mind of his present self.

You do reflect from a particular point of view here.. and go quite a far way in speculating about what this all would mean for him. In this whole paragraph I feel you have somewhat poetically articulated how you wish Dan perceives his blog and has 'grown' in his thinking about it. I think the blog served a more pragmatic and focused purpose though. I think it was an attempt to counter the phan narrative, as well as other questions that kept being asked in the fandom.

And this part in particular is what I love best about Dan, this version of himself that is open to understanding; to evolving beyond opinions and beliefs he outgrew with time and better context of experience and education to willingly correct himself and others as evidenced by that lovely liveshow clip of him genuinely laughing at that comment about the wig and then gently correcting the commenter’s statement by talking about the implications of correlating a sexuality with an accessory as if it’s something terrible or ugly, in turn stirring up a balanced conversation about the issues behind using certain negative language when speaking of individuals and groups.

It is a lovely clip I agree, serving another purpose and expressed in a radically different context than the frustration he vents on his blog. What this demonstrates is a lot more speculative in nature...

This demonstrated effort to break free from outdated and flawed conventions of past thinking suggests someone willing to learn from and allow for the introduction of multiple perspectives and contexts of experience different from his own, where statements aren’t dismissed as superfluous or reduced to baseless ad hominems and people aren’t belittled to being nothing but immature contributors to a conversation, but looked at from the more compassionate, educated angle of someone open to a true conversation. And the truth here is that while Dan’s identity and relationships are his own to debate and define

I wholeheartedly agree. He had and trough this blog was expressing his relationship with Phil. A key point that people who think Dan and Phil are a romantic couple tend to forget, as they reject Dan and Phils own statements about the nature of their relationship. I repeat that I think it's Dan and Phil and them alone who should have the authority to define their own relationship. Phans define their relationship on their own speculations and don't believe Dan and Phil when they say they're not a romantic couple, in effect denying them the ability to define their own relationship. I think this explains a lot of the frustration and Dan's choice of words in the blog.

.., it’s also true that some of his past statements- however flippant or understandable for who and where he was at that point in time- left the overall negative impact of carrying prejudiced undertones....

I find this statement incredibly vague. How do you assess what the "overall negative impact" is? How do you determine If and what prejudice phrases like "gays lol" or an added "haha" or a phrase like " being secretly gay for each other" or "bumming your friend" carry? Seems a hell of a lot subjective to me. I see little else than a visceral reaction to the specific idea of him being assumed to be in a romantic relationship with his friend Phil. He is well within his rights to have a strong negative feeling or even feel disgust for that. You tend to use words with a negative connotation to express negative feelings. If the claim is again that somehow, because of the subjective impact and meaning these words can have to some, it is demonstrated true that these are homophobic phrases, I strongly disagree.

The point here is not to hold the past over Dan’s head like a guillotine (or Damocles’ sword to use his favorite metaphor) and again, it’s not to dismiss how age, experience and the emotionally fraught complexities of his situation almost definitely colored the language and tone he used, it’s more so that there’s a working lesson in acknowledging the testimony of those who point out that his choice of words were divisive, hurtful and dismissive in equal measure and how important it is to put effort towards understanding why that is even when you don’t necessarily see it at first. It's part of what helps mindfully educate people against using that same language themselves to perpetuate a harmful mindset they might otherwise be oblivious to contributing to.

I agree that empathy is important and it is wise to put effort into understanding different views or why things can be hurtful, but it does not follow that you must give priority to the testimonies or feelings of hurt to the detriment of the right of an individual (who can also be hurt) to express himself, even in a way that cause hurt or distress to some, on his own blogs which others are free (not) to read or care about.

Digging in your heels on a subject to buoy your own narrow point of view while using reductive reasoning to diminish the importance of all counter arguments and attempts to clarify doesn’t make for an intellectual high ground

This strikes me as a rather suggestive and condescending statement if it's meant to target my opinon. Do you see how I could leverage the exact same phrase and aim it at you? A narrow point of view you defend with reductive reasoning to diminish the importance of arguments? I fail to see how this was relevant to the discussion.

or critical reflection nor does it contribute to the conversation behind how intent is not always equivalent to impact and how certain modes of expression can and does contribute to the stigma and hostility behind all acts of discrimination, whether towards groups, individuals or internalized self-hatred.

You're right that my posts don't contribute to that conversation, because this is the conversation you bring up in this post that isn't related to the arguments i put forth. My position never relied on intent let alone impact and we don't agree on the specifics of the mode of expression that Dan's words supposedly represent.

Lastly, there’s also equal importance in acknowledging that Dan learned from the past and has long since moved on to outgrow those remarks and become someone who appears more critically thoughtful of himself and others, a small detail I’d hope more people would learn from as well.
Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
User avatar
alittledizzy
actual demon phannie
actual demon phannie
Posts: 7100
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:09 pm
Pronouns: she/her

Dan liked Obama's tweet about Opportunity and I'll be over here quietly tearing up for the five millionth time about a robot.
User avatar
thestigdrivesamini
sad dimple
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 2:31 am

liola wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:47 pm Man, Mr Amazing is really committing into feeding us and as a starving child in need to be fed, I'm grateful for the food that is about to come. I hope it'll be a satisfying meal that will last more than a 10-minutes-course. I'm ready for it, I've set my plate down and I'm waiting for Mr Amazing to give it to us

(I'm at dinner, and I'm hungry)
I’m so excited! And in the static sweater and glasses no less :love2:

Don’t worry, I’m sure it’ll be a filling 10:07 meal. Hell...maybe he’ll spoil us and give us an extra 2 minutes! I’m with you. I’m at the table already with my napkin in my shirt banging my cutlery. FEED US
Amiaw
interactive introvert
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 12:55 am

Its been pretty barren this year but I am so grateful for Phil. I do wish his videos did better and I do love a good joke about him using every opportunity to spon but it’s apparent that he really does care about his subscribers and that warms my cold heart. I just hope we don’t have to wait too long for the new video to drop because I’m ready for it now.

Disclaimer to avoid misunderstandings: this post has nothing to do with dan and is not a criticism on him. This is just an appreciation post for Phil
User avatar
Ablissa
pastel persona
Posts: 1379
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 5:49 pm
Pronouns: she/her

Stakhanov wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:52 pm
@Elemancy The discussion has moved on since and I think few wish to sustain it. But since you specifically mention me and have put thought in your post I think it is only polite I reply. My goal on this forum is always to have a frank but honest discussion, so here is my reply. I however don't intend to revisit the discussion. If you wish to, feel free to reply by PM or perhaps a thread where we can have some respectful in depth bants about these and other issues would be useful.

@Stakhanov.....…so many posters here have tried to explain to you that intent and impact are not the same.

I have never claimed that intent and impact is the same. If you read my posts I explain in length that a comment or joke that can be subjectively hurtful does not mean it reaches the treshold of what is defined as homophobic.
I'm going to bring back my reply where I draw the distinction between something being hurtful, which I recognize Dan's replies are to some and homophobia. I do think intent is an important element in judging the context of any comment when you're trying to determine if it is homophobic. I assume with impact you mean the offense and words his words has caused. If not, you need to clarify what you mean with impact and how it is relevant to intent and homophobia.


I can understand that any joke or word can be hurtful or offensive to others. I wouldn't ever deny an individual can be impacted. Everyone has their own past and lives through their own experiences which can make even the most well intended little joke extremely hurtful. That's one reason that in interpersonal relationships I always try to be kind and polite to people. As I get to know a person better, you get better at navigating what things you can talk about and then funnily enough it is among friends where you often can get refreshingly blunt or sufficiently tactful to bring up issues you wouldn't even talk about with others. But in a public space (such as that blog) you're talking to an abstract audience and you have a right to express yourself as you are, even if that will clash with the sensibilities and sensitivities of others. I Dan's case, he states in the blog himself that he is a "sarcastic, alternative guys that is sometimes inappropriate". So yes, no doubt his replies are hurtful to some but that's fine. Nobody is forced to read his writings and everybody can cause offense (most of the times unwittingly).

Where we fundamentally disagree is in calling a subjectively hurtful or offensive joke homophobic. These are two different matters. Homophobic does mean something, and it's not equal to having caused hurt. it's defined as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (I looked up some definitions, took the Merriam-Webster one here, but they are all fairly similar). Now my question to @waveydnp and you is: what specifically in his replies is homophobic? Are you calling him out because he is homophobic or are you calling him out because he has made a comment or joke you found hurtful? Again I would like to use the terms when applicable to actual homophobes who have this irrational fear, aversion and discriminate on the basis of it. If you label a little joke as homophobic because it's hurtful to you, you are redefining the concept to something it isn't. I started by saying I would never deny your right to feel hurt of offended by a joke or comment, and I would hope you wouldn't try to deny my experience. I personally found some of Dan's jokes entertaining and refreshing. I'm not the only one. To make a comparison with mental health jokes: some people find them 'problematic' and harmful while others see in them a way to cope and help them with life and their mental health. You just can't say that a comment or joke is uniformly impacting everyone the same way. By consequence, you can't even claim a joke is objectively hurtful, let alone homophobic. At best you can argue that most or many people find something hurtful, and bring up context and history to explain why.

I feel this point is badly understood by people who feel hurt or offended by something and then claim the person causing it must be a (vile) aggressor who is homophobic, insensitive to others mental health, ableist, racist or pick your moral evil. These are real problems in our societies, and I would hope when we accuse someone of fitting that label, we draw the line in accordance with what these terms mean, taking into account context and intent, instead of cheapening it to the point where it's original weight and meaning is lost and many can't support what you put under it's umbrella.



If you’re unable to form any kind of sympathetic or empathetic link with the pages on pages of arguments countering your position ...
A bit of a strange assumption. I have always acknowledged people can feel hurt. I don't any find joy in that. Why wouldn't I be able to feel empathy for others. Because I disagree with the conclusion they draw that the blog is homophobic? I am sympathetic to the person who feels hurt by these comments, as well as with Dan's anger and frustration when he is trying to counter the presumption that he's lying about being platonic friends with Phil and I also feel sympathy for the viewers who do not support the ship or believe they are together and were glad Dan was again taking a clear position.

To quote a previous post again where I talk about the different perspectives.

Let me maybe surprise on this day of love but I agree with everything you say above the tag. Reading his posts I see someone who is clearly angry, frustrated about all the growing cohort of fans that believe they are in a romantic relationship, sometimes with a lot of passion and plenty of fanfiction and graphical fanart. You speak about the effect his crude wording and denial has on you as a viewer. That's one perspective, which I don't mean to diminish, but it is true that there are other perspectives too. That of the fan who does not believe they are together but who sees the effect the ship has on the content that's made, on what becomes popular and expected of them, on how it influences and limits what they do. More relevant perhaps is the perspective of Dan and Phil themselves. I feel that's getting overlooked here. Imagine for a moment they aren't together. (I guess this is a less romantic version of typical Phan imagine ;) ). You see how part of your rapidly growing audience rejects your own truth. Some people don't believe you when you say the v-day video as a prank and think they've gotten intimate glance into your love life. You have since 2009 said you are not in a relationship and not gay (you are bisexual) and your genuine friendship gets misinterpreted and sexualized. I can't speak for you, but I would try to correct that perception. I would feel like people act like I'm a liar, don't care about what I think or feel and come to a bunch of wrong conclusions while they can't know the truth of it.

then at least take it from the point of view of conventional implicature, where the tone and structure of the language Dan used back then contributes to a negative, derisive and harmful point of view.

This is an opinion I disagree with, so any conclusion that leans on this assumption I don't share. Just wanted to clarify this at the start as your further reasoning builds upon this and other assumptions and don't share.

Even if the tone he used is understandable from the perspective of defensive posturing, to shield himself against the unwanted, overwhelming public scrutiny of an attraction/relationship/facet of himself he was only beginning to understand, navigate and accept,

That's not why I think he created the blog or gave his answers.

it still left the sour aftertaste of conflating a same sex relationship with something shameful and taboo.

Again not how I interpret his words.

This falls in line with the way that some companies and individuals compare being fat/old/physically or mentally impaired (or anything deemed 'socially unconventional') with something undesirable when paired with language like ‘ugly’ ‘sad,’ ‘unfortunate,’ ‘unwanted’ or by using more abstract, euphemistic language that doesn’t directly state a negative but indirectly connotes it anyway. Dan's intent or words might not have been overtly homophobic according to your own definition, but the impact of the language implied, the resounding negatives behind his chosen mode of expression at the time which overrode all intent, ....

I agree with your on the first part of the paragraph. I'm not saying Dan expressed himself in the most positive way he could and I agree that you can 'connote' his words with a negative, but this is a long way imo from asserting they were meant to for example shame the notion of male-male relationships in general, especially considering all the other opinions we had heard of Dan around the issue of LGBT rights.
I also don't see why this ought to override intent.

... is a large part of what contributes to the aggressive frame of mind which constitutes homophobia in the first place.

This is so vague I'm left guessing what exactly could all fit under that description. If the claim here is that the concrete phrases used constitute homophobia, I disagree. "Contributing" can be interpreted extremely broad. I'm not even sure what "An aggressive frame of mind" ought to mean and how it constitutes homophobia. I've given the dictionary definition of what I understand to be homophobic, and this is a long way off.

When it comes to any bias, theory or belief, there’s always a complex latticework of contributing factors, mostly social cues within one’s community, social network, family, etc, which makes a person lean towards one end of a spectrum versus another. In particular, whether it’s internalized homophobia or a vocalized bristling expression of unequivocal hatred, that type of belief arguably finds its beginnings in the kind of small conversational prompts which associate a given idenitity with something undesirable, framing it in the context of something comedic, shameful, or illogical. In short, it’s a foundation built on direct negative associations or euphemistic shortcuts which over time create a mental and/or physical aversion to the very idea of same sex relationships. Sometimes those types of social cues are the most impactful, the ones that aren't the publically visible bigot with a megaphone shouting slurs, but the comments of friends, family and public figures whose implied tones and actions are more suggestive in influencing what other people find acceptable or questionable

I very much agree with you in this part, but completely disagree with the interpretation you next give of Dan's words.

. In the more specific example of Dan’s old blog and some old liveshow comments, the scope of influence with his replies went beyond his intent to curtail public scrutiny into his private relationships and budding awareness of himself/his identity, etc. and devolved into what came across instead as a shuddering, lip curl of distaste towards the idea of any relationship between himself and another man. Even if the specific context was meant to deflect unwanted attention involving him and Phil or to protect himself from feeling trivialized, the end result of how he chose to phrase his replies was more far reaching and detrimental.

You called for critical reflection in one of your many replies here and we can definitely do so (though many people already have) We can critically reflect on the one side of the issue in which we understand Dan's reactionary posts from the point of view of someone young, confused, and insecure facing perceived pressure both from his audience and his own internal conflict in not having the context of experience, emotional support, comfort or maturity to deal with those pressures and then we can critically reflect on the unintended but nonetheless real, potentially harmful consequences of those off the cuff replies which later (partly? Hopefully?) provoked his own decision to delete the blog along with other videos in which past comments and jokes he made were rendered inappropriate in the context of him finally reaching those markers of maturity, experience and understanding to learn about their negative implications and realizing the large gap between how his past self no longer reflected the mode of self-expression or frame of mind of his present self.

You do reflect from a particular point of view here.. and go quite a far way in speculating about what this all would mean for him. In this whole paragraph I feel you have somewhat poetically articulated how you wish Dan perceives his blog and has 'grown' in his thinking about it. I think the blog served a more pragmatic and focused purpose though. I think it was an attempt to counter the phan narrative, as well as other questions that kept being asked in the fandom.

And this part in particular is what I love best about Dan, this version of himself that is open to understanding; to evolving beyond opinions and beliefs he outgrew with time and better context of experience and education to willingly correct himself and others as evidenced by that lovely liveshow clip of him genuinely laughing at that comment about the wig and then gently correcting the commenter’s statement by talking about the implications of correlating a sexuality with an accessory as if it’s something terrible or ugly, in turn stirring up a balanced conversation about the issues behind using certain negative language when speaking of individuals and groups.

It is a lovely clip I agree, serving another purpose and expressed in a radically different context than the frustration he vents on his blog. What this demonstrates is a lot more speculative in nature...

This demonstrated effort to break free from outdated and flawed conventions of past thinking suggests someone willing to learn from and allow for the introduction of multiple perspectives and contexts of experience different from his own, where statements aren’t dismissed as superfluous or reduced to baseless ad hominems and people aren’t belittled to being nothing but immature contributors to a conversation, but looked at from the more compassionate, educated angle of someone open to a true conversation. And the truth here is that while Dan’s identity and relationships are his own to debate and define

I wholeheartedly agree. He had and trough this blog was expressing his relationship with Phil. A key point that people who think Dan and Phil are a romantic couple tend to forget, as they reject Dan and Phils own statements about the nature of their relationship. I repeat that I think it's Dan and Phil and them alone who should have the authority to define their own relationship. Phans define their relationship on their own speculations and don't believe Dan and Phil when they say they're not a romantic couple, in effect denying them the ability to define their own relationship. I think this explains a lot of the frustration and Dan's choice of words in the blog.

.., it’s also true that some of his past statements- however flippant or understandable for who and where he was at that point in time- left the overall negative impact of carrying prejudiced undertones....

I find this statement incredibly vague. How do you assess what the "overall negative impact" is? How do you determine If and what prejudice phrases like "gays lol" or an added "haha" or a phrase like " being secretly gay for each other" or "bumming your friend" carry? Seems a hell of a lot subjective to me. I see little else than a visceral reaction to the specific idea of him being assumed to be in a romantic relationship with his friend Phil. He is well within his rights to have a strong negative feeling or even feel disgust for that. You tend to use words with a negative connotation to express negative feelings. If the claim is again that somehow, because of the subjective impact and meaning these words can have to some, it is demonstrated true that these are homophobic phrases, I strongly disagree.

The point here is not to hold the past over Dan’s head like a guillotine (or Damocles’ sword to use his favorite metaphor) and again, it’s not to dismiss how age, experience and the emotionally fraught complexities of his situation almost definitely colored the language and tone he used, it’s more so that there’s a working lesson in acknowledging the testimony of those who point out that his choice of words were divisive, hurtful and dismissive in equal measure and how important it is to put effort towards understanding why that is even when you don’t necessarily see it at first. It's part of what helps mindfully educate people against using that same language themselves to perpetuate a harmful mindset they might otherwise be oblivious to contributing to.

I agree that empathy is important and it is wise to put effort into understanding different views or why things can be hurtful, but it does not follow that you must give priority to the testimonies or feelings of hurt to the detriment of the right of an individual (who can also be hurt) to express himself, even in a way that cause hurt or distress to some, on his own blogs which others are free (not) to read or care about.

Digging in your heels on a subject to buoy your own narrow point of view while using reductive reasoning to diminish the importance of all counter arguments and attempts to clarify doesn’t make for an intellectual high ground

This strikes me as a rather suggestive and condescending statement if it's meant to target my opinon. Do you see how I could leverage the exact same phrase and aim it at you? A narrow point of view you defend with reductive reasoning to diminish the importance of arguments? I fail to see how this was relevant to the discussion.

or critical reflection nor does it contribute to the conversation behind how intent is not always equivalent to impact and how certain modes of expression can and does contribute to the stigma and hostility behind all acts of discrimination, whether towards groups, individuals or internalized self-hatred.

You're right that my posts don't contribute to that conversation, because this is the conversation you bring up in this post that isn't related to the arguments i put forth. My position never relied on intent let alone impact and we don't agree on the specifics of the mode of expression that Dan's words supposedly represent.

Lastly, there’s also equal importance in acknowledging that Dan learned from the past and has long since moved on to outgrow those remarks and become someone who appears more critically thoughtful of himself and others, a small detail I’d hope more people would learn from as well.
Image
User avatar
liola
rankussy
Posts: 1679
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:09 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Italy

Anyway.

Any idea for Phil's video? I'm liking these instagram stories hints actually, has he asked/written something in the membership thingy? I hope it's the trying to see without glasses video that Jenna did, hopefully with Dan's help. Would love if his face was showcased but even some off camera presence would be appreciated a lot
Will probably never be over the BONCAS and the beauty of Phil Lester.

Official Moving Hill Mayor
User avatar
alittledizzy
actual demon phannie
actual demon phannie
Posts: 7100
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:09 pm
Pronouns: she/her

liola wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:07 pm Anyway.

Any idea for Phil's video? I'm liking these instagram stories hints actually, has he asked/written something in the membership thingy? I hope it's the trying to see without glasses video that Jenna did, hopefully with Dan's help. Would love if his face was showcased but even some off camera presence would be appreciated a lot
I definitely think the glasses video is a good hunch. I'm really hoping he posts tomorrow. I feel like if he volunteered that he's been editing today we can hope for it in the next 1-2 days.
User avatar
Ataraxia25
flower crown
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:31 pm
Pronouns: they/them
Location: france

liola wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:07 pm Anyway.

Any idea for Phil's video? I'm liking these instagram stories hints actually, has he asked/written something in the membership thingy? I hope it's the trying to see without glasses video that Jenna did, hopefully with Dan's help. Would love if his face was showcased but even some off camera presence would be appreciated a lot
This video would make me so happy i'd cry.
:gayaf:
User avatar
plinthofmylife
janice from the shop
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:41 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

We have reached the part of the hiatus where there is outrage on tumblr based on a twitter like from Dan. Please, Phil, feed us so that people won't be angry that Dan implied that he is less beautiful than a former Miss World (by liking something on twitter).

Also I found him liking this tweet really funny, because, mate, have you see how Phil looks at you?
Image
User avatar
CapriciousCrab
sad dimple
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:45 pm
Pronouns: She/her

plinthofmylife wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:06 am We have reached the part of the hiatus where there is outrage on tumblr based on a twitter like from Dan. Please, Phil, feed us so that people won't be angry that Dan implied that he is less beautiful than a former Miss World (by liking something on twitter).

Also I found him liking this tweet really funny, because, mate, have you see how Phil looks at you?
Honestly, the only outrage I've seen on tumblr are from people pissed off that someone didn't care for tweet. No more, no less- just a personal opinion posted on their blog that wasn't accusatory or angry at all. But tumblr's gonna do what it does best and manufacture drama from nothing.

Btw, am I the only one who isnt a fan of Nick Jonas?
User avatar
Ablissa
pastel persona
Posts: 1379
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 5:49 pm
Pronouns: she/her

re: the nick jonas thing
The one person I've seen pointing it out is a friend of mine, and they did it very respectfully, on their own blog. They still got a bunch of shitty anons, but tumblr gotta tumble, or... whatever. Having an opinion on tumblr is enough reason for shitty people to talk to you.
Haven't seen much drama other than people complaining about drama, which is the funniest kind of drama. Maybe I'm following the right people.
I also don't care for Nick Jonas, and dnp have far stronger heart eyes in like every video. Step it up, Priyanka, your husband probably hates you in comparison :lol:

re: my own boring 4 am ramble
So what are the odds of Dan appearing in Phil's video? I'm bracing myself for 0%, but I can't deny I'd be super happy if he did. I hope that even if it's just Phil doing his usual video, it will be well-received and get more views (his latest is at 500k something).

I've been thinking about their hiatus today. Back in December, I kind of thought we'd know more by now, or get more content. Thought Dan would make a video in January, and I thought we'd still get some joint bits of content (ig stories etc). Now I'm cautiously hoping for March or April as the return of their joint content, which feels like a long time. I've kinda gotten used to it though, and stopped hoping for them to do anything atm. Feel free to give me a pleasant surprise, deppy.

I think they're moving right now, which does explain the lack of... nearly everything. But yeah, I can't wait until we finally know more and can adjust our expectations accordingly.

Anyway, if you're all feeling the hiatus like I am, we're hosting our rabbit watch fest this Sunday! 1 PM, 7 PM and 10 PM UTC. We'll watch baking vids!
Amiaw
interactive introvert
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 12:55 am

Ablissa wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:36 am I've been thinking about their hiatus today. Back in December, I kind of thought we'd know more by now, or get more content. Thought Dan would make a video in January, and I thought we'd still get some joint bits of content (ig stories etc). Now I'm cautiously hoping for March or April as the return of their joint content, which feels like a long time. I've kinda gotten used to it though, and stopped hoping for them to do anything atm. Feel free to give me a pleasant surprise, deppy.

I think they're moving right now, which does explain the lack of... nearly everything. But yeah, I can't wait until we finally know more and can adjust our expectations accordingly
My negative thoughts about this hiatus under the cut
I’m starting to really think that dapg is gone and that instead of working up to a new video dan is working up the nerve to tell us he’s over YouTube. I think back to when Dan said he avoids conflict and his recent behavior of living on twitter but not tweeting and just ignoring his fan base by leaving us on read isn’t giving me any assurances.
I still want to believe we’ll get back to a new normal that includes joint content and maybe even a liveshow or two but right now I’d love for dan to be the voice in the background of Phil’s new video or for dan to even tweet something relatable from his drafts to show he’s still engaged.
User avatar
knq
lava lamp
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:42 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

I've noticed with tumblr the 'dan and phil' tag and the 'phan' tag both have an anti-phan blog and a drama blog which post pretty regularly. When there's new content in the phandom they get drowned out, but when there's not much new for people to talk about, scrolling through either tag is just one anti-phan/drama post after another. It's exhausting. I've given up on it for the hiatus and now just have a few individual phandom blogs open in tabs.
I'm trying to put feelers out for other fandoms to hang out in while joint content is on an indefinite hiatus. I'm not much for kpop and that seems to be the major fandom right now. Sometime during my phandom obsession the Marvel fandom became the Tony Stark fandom and there's no Stucky to go back to. Inception died long ago though I still yearn for Arthur/Eames, and the heyday of Sherlock BBC has passed. Voltron was popular like, a year ago, but I never got to watch it, so I might try that out. If anyone has fandom suggestions hit me up.
I wonder what those "like 12" fandoms Dan says he's a part of are. Guild Wars, definitely. Pokemon? Does he like any other fandom related posts on tumblr/instagram? He should send his fans over to a few Dan-approved fandoms during the hiatus, like how presidential candidates send their voters over to the next best politician when they drop out of a race.
argo
crusty sponge
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:27 pm

knq- I've been checking in on the Timothee Chalamet fandom not that there's a ton of daily stuff but he does have a few movies he's working on so that will be fun when promo for those ramp up

Amiaw- unfortunately I've had similar thoughts recently in regards to Dan returning to youtube :?
Locked