Just stumbled across this video randomly this morning, where Phil's mum texts him during a liveshow and tells him to drink water:dontpanic wrote:3:13—Hydration reminder #1. Okay but honestly where did this public service announcement come from, what weird inside joke is this??
We don't know either of their sexualities because they haven't labeled themselves for years. It is more likely that both of them aren't straight if you look at past tweets and all those mentions, but again, all for the views, right? People who try to find excuses like that could be considered heteronormative and in denial. I'm pretty sure nobody in this forum wouldn't like it if they confirmed they were together or would try to find excuses for actual proof. emerald wrote:More importantly, does it really matter? Whether you're a casual fan or a fulltime stalker, I doubt that the relationship status of two people changes much for you.
[offtopic]I'm looking at the twitter replies and everyone seems incredibly confused and it's just a complete mess lmao,,, this is getting real fishy. i'm starting to really question why dan and phil agreed to this? why on earth would amplify not push back the ticket sales if they can't announce the entire lineup - the conclusion i've jumped to is that they want people to leap into buying sales because they can't guarantee that one of the bigger draws is coming. (not saying deppy bc they've already been announced + confirmed it themselves on twitter but... it's weird how unenthusiastic they've been about it tbh)[/offtopic]basictrashfan wrote:[offtopic]Just an update for anyone who might be interested, the whole amplify thing that Dan and Phil are attending are going to release their tickets without actually announcing their whole lineup and this is due to "unforeseen circumstances". And according to another tweet they are still signing contracts with people. This whole event is getting stranger and stranger to me as it goes along.[/offtopic]
It doesn't actually matter since, well... It's kind of none of our business? (But speculating is fun, so...) Also, their "mirroring" is not exactly a proof that they're together, but more of a proof that they do care for each other. I have a questions for antis though: Do you believe that Dan and Phil love each other? Does being an anti include them loving each other or just loving each other in a romantic way?nephilimcat wrote:I don't understand why it constantly has to be "anti" vs. "phannie" or whatever other terms people use. I lean towards them being together, but I also agree that there isn't actually any proof that they are. I consider proof to be something that is solid, like them openly saying they are in a relationship or leaked information. And there is no such thing. Voldy would be the closest thing to proof that we have, but according to Dan and Phil, it was a prank, so it isn't proof either.
People who still claim that Dan is straight, are a whole different spectrum and definitely in denial because he confirmed male attraction several times and even said that he doesn't label himself. But it was in his diss track, so we shouldn't take it seriously, right?
So yeah, basically, why do some people want to stick labels like "anti" on other people when those just provide a different interpretation? I'm neither, I'm just a Deppy fan who wants to enjoy their content and loves their dynamic. I have a lot of reasons to prefer them being in a romantic relationship or some sort of relationship somewhere in between that doesn't have any definition, but:emerald wrote:More importantly, does it really matter? Whether you're a casual fan or a fulltime stalker, I doubt that the relationship status of two people changes much for you.
I agree, there will always be doubt, and their "behaviour" while IS indicative of a close relationship, does not necessarily mean a romantic one (fight me). I don't like making comparisons here, one of my pet peeves is when some random comes in and says (usually female) "me and my friend...." Blah blah blah that doesn't really mean anything. However, if I was going to make a comparison to the sort of unusual, no clear cut nature of their relationship- I would compare Superfruit, whose behaviour seems ridiculously romantic that their "friendship" title doesn't seem right at first. But after a while of watching you realize it's so romantic their behaviour that when they say they're just friends you would believe them, because if they were actually in a relationship then it would be so straight forward. But this doesn't really compare to deppy's background and doesn't hold the same context- my point being that non conventional relationships do exist where behaviour does not seem to equate relationship status.papierklemmen wrote:dans left hand wrote:antis
you can't even say moments you find cute and coupley without them getting overly heteronormative and defensive
Thanks for the timestamps, it was interesting to check them out and compare. His low speaking voice does sound good, but still the singing voice is what really gets me.starlight-still wrote:His deep voice is lovely but gets even lovelier when it's softer. Like in the Sims video, around 5:44-50 when he's talking about the crumbs and again 15:34-37 with Tabitha's pay. Also, listen (just listen) to the part of "A Sleepness Night with Phil" where he's messing around with Google Maps. You're welcomeflarequake wrote: With you on his deep voice. Tbh I'm not sure I noticed in this video, but his deep voice, especially singing, gives me life. I'd be on the floor if he ever recorded an album to show it off, I have a headcanon for him being an oldstyle crooner.
Hmmm...that headcanon, now there's a beautiful thought
I think the opposite, he's been looking distinctly older lately, even a little more rugged. It depends on the photo or video, though, lighting plays a part.emerald wrote: On the subject of Phil, can we comment on how he literally has had the EXACT SAME FACE for the past few years? If you showed me a picture of Dan I could probably tell you what year it was in, but I swear that Phil has stopped aging? Or maybe it's just because Dan changes his haircut more; I don't know.
I assume you mean me, and I didn't say that I believe it, I am pretty sure it wasn't a prank. I say that because they called it a prank themselves, it isn't proof. The thing is, we do not know what really happened back then. It's their relationship, so their words matter. And as long as it's not confirmed by them or through something else that they lied about it, we have to accept that we won't really know the truth.dans left hand wrote:whoever said they believe voldy was a prank because that's what dnp said.....
i just can't believe people still think after 8 years of nobody else in eachothers lives that they are still JUST close friends.
8. years.
i just can't understand your reasoning.
but fair enough, let's drop it now.
they're obviously together and happy and that's all that matters
nephilimcat wrote:I don't understand why it constantly has to be "anti" vs. "phannie" or whatever other terms people use. I lean towards them being together, but I also agree that there isn't actually any proof that they are. I consider proof to be something that is solid, like them openly saying they are in a relationship or leaked information. And there is no such thing. Voldy would be the closest thing to proof that we have, but according to Dan and Phil, it was a prank, so it isn't proof either.
People who still claim that Dan is straight, are a whole different spectrum and definitely in denial because he confirmed male attraction several times and even said that he doesn't label himself. But it was in his diss track, so we shouldn't take it seriously, right?
So yeah, basically, why do some people want to stick labels like "anti" on other people when those just provide a different interpretation? I'm neither, I'm just a Deppy fan who wants to enjoy their content and loves their dynamic. I have a lot of reasons to prefer them being in a romantic relationship or some sort of relationship somewhere in between that doesn't have any definition, but:emerald wrote:More importantly, does it really matter? Whether you're a casual fan or a fulltime stalker, I doubt that the relationship status of two people changes much for you.
dans left hand wrote:whoever said they believe voldy was a prank because that's what dnp said.....
i just can't believe people still think after 8 years of nobody else in eachothers lives that they are still JUST close friends.
8. years.
i just can't understand your reasoning. i mean i never was 100% sure they were more than just friends other than this year and the end of 2016
but fair enough, let's drop it now.
they're obviously together and happy and that's all that matters
nephilimcat wrote:I assume you mean me, and I didn't say that I believe it, I am pretty sure it wasn't a prank. I say that because they called it a prank themselves, it isn't proof. The thing is, we do not know what really happened back then. It's their relationship, so their words matter. And as long as it's not confirmed by them or through something else that they lied about it, we have to accept that we won't really know the truth.dans left hand wrote:
And yeah, I also find it weird that people genuinely don't believe they're together at all, but there's still some doubt in me (and others) sometimes. Mainly because it makes me uncomfortable to claim something is real that is not actually proven to be real. Believing and saying something is true are a whole different thing. So you can believe that they are together and that's fine. But you have to accept that a) not everyone is 100% convinced and b) they are officially best friends and that's the only thing we really know for fact. Just not a believer of anything in general, I want my solid proof for everything. It's just who I am.
i just want to add to this: i wholeheartedly agree that the argument "i have personally never experienced platonic friends do that so they must be in a romantic relationship" is completely neglectable. on the other hand the argument "in my personal experience platonic friends do the thing" accounts for something in that it can be brought forward to put any sort of "proof" being phrased in the style of "they did this thing which can exclusively be interpreted as being romantic" into perspective. even things like buying a house together would only be an indication, but no proof for a romantic relationship -- even if probably a majority of people wouldn't buy a house together with their best friend, it doesn't mean nobody would. i'm often baffled as to how strictly some people draw the lines between friendship and love and what's "acceptable" behaviour for both when it comes to analysing deppy.000dia000 wrote:I agree, there will always be doubt, and their "behaviour" while IS indicative of a close relationship, does not necessarily mean a romantic one (fight me). I don't like making comparisons here, one of my pet peeves is when some random comes in and says (usually female) "me and my friend...." Blah blah blah that doesn't really mean anything.
Umm... the bolded part? I'm a shipper myself, but I do understand where the non-shippers are coming from. I mean, some non-shippers probably already watched Voldy and believed it to be a prank when Deppy stated that it was a prank because, well... they don't found the video to be that heartfelt? They have a reason to see it as a prank, just like how the shippers have a reason to see that it's not a prank? You know where I'm getting? Also, some casual viewers will probably jump to conclusions and some will not.dans left hand wrote:whoever said they believe voldy was a prank because that's what dnp said.....
i just can't believe people still think after 8 years of nobody else in eachothers lives that they are still JUST close friends.
8. years.
i just can't understand your reasoning. i mean i never was 100% sure they were more than just friends other than this year and the end of 2016
but fair enough, let's drop it now.
they're obviously together and happy and that's all that matters
I'm just gonna agree with everything that lurker and 000dia000 has posted. Just because Deppy do things that some romantically-involved people do, that doesn't mean that it can (or can't) be taken as phan proof (or seomthing). I mean, "things that romantically-involved people do" is quite subjective, so it maybe just an indication that they have a close relationship because some platonic friends do that, but some other don't. You know where I'm getting?lurker wrote:i just want to add to this: i wholeheartedly agree that the argument "i have personally never experienced platonic friends do that so they must be in a romantic relationship" is completely neglectable. on the other hand the argument "in my personal experience platonic friends do the thing" accounts for something in that it can be brought forward to put any sort of "proof" being phrased in the style of "they did this thing which can exclusively be interpreted as being romantic" into perspective. even things like buying a house together would only be an indication, but no proof for a romantic relationship -- even if probably a majority of people wouldn't buy a house together with their best friend, it doesn't mean nobody would. i'm often baffled as to how strictly some people draw the lines between friendship and love and what's "acceptable" behaviour for both when it comes to analysing deppy.000dia000 wrote:I agree, there will always be doubt, and their "behaviour" while IS indicative of a close relationship, does not necessarily mean a romantic one (fight me). I don't like making comparisons here, one of my pet peeves is when some random comes in and says (usually female) "me and my friend...." Blah blah blah that doesn't really mean anything.
I agree. I feel like people often apply these strict rules of what romantic relationships are vs. what platonic relationships are to deppy which irks me out a lot because it isn't that simple. Every relationship is different. So "My friends and I do this, so it means deppy are friends" holds as much weight as "Friends usually don't do this, so deppy are together" in my opinion. They're both neglectable. Love and friendship aren't this easy, a certain behaviour between two people is never a certain indicator for what their relationship actually is like. I do get why people use the "My friends and I do this too" argument though when it is used to rebuff claims of "Oh my god, they did this thing, they must be a couple!". But apart from that, nah.lurker wrote:i just want to add to this: i wholeheartedly agree that the argument "i have personally never experienced platonic friends do that so they must be in a romantic relationship" is completely neglectable. on the other hand the argument "in my personal experience platonic friends do the thing" accounts for something in that it can be brought forward to put any sort of "proof" being phrased in the style of "they did this thing which can exclusively be interpreted as being romantic" into perspective. even things like buying a house together would only be an indication, but no proof for a romantic relationship -- even if probably a majority of people wouldn't buy a house together with their best friend, it doesn't mean nobody would. i'm often baffled as to how strictly some people draw the lines between friendship and love and what's "acceptable" behaviour for both when it comes to analysing deppy.000dia000 wrote:I agree, there will always be doubt, and their "behaviour" while IS indicative of a close relationship, does not necessarily mean a romantic one (fight me). I don't like making comparisons here, one of my pet peeves is when some random comes in and says (usually female) "me and my friend...." Blah blah blah that doesn't really mean anything.
The bolded part, basically.(I'm clearly procrastinating. Ahaha. HELP ME.) Even if you place 2017 beside all of the proofs taken back in 2009-2010, it still doesn't mean anything if we actually don't know anything about their personal lives (I'm not encouraging of stalking Deppy, just letting you know). They won't tell us anything, and the strongest proof that we'll ever have is when they actually confirm it (together or not). So, yeah... Deppy's behaviours are very subjective, and doesn't actually confirm jackshit whether they're together or not.Birdie wrote: I agree. I feel like people often apply these strict rules of what romantic relationships are vs. what platonic relationships are to deppy which irks me out a lot because it isn't that simple. Every relationship is different. So "My friends and I do this, so it means deppy are friends" holds as much weight as "Friends usually don't do this, so deppy are together" in my opinion. They're both neglectable. Love and friendship aren't this easy, a certain behaviour between two people is never a certain indicator for what their relationship actually is like. I do get why people use the "My friends and I do this too" argument though when it is used to rebuff claims of "Oh my god, they did this thing, they must be a couple!". But apart from that, nah.
People want them to be together so much they grasp at straws which can be harmless fun like the heart eyes thing but it can also be seriously harmful, especially when lgbtq stereotypes or heteronormative assumptions come into the mix. People like to take apart everything deppy do to find proof or antiproof of whether or not they're together but there's no way we're going to find out unless they decide to tell us. There's just no way of telling from someone's behaviour. In the end, Voldy doesn't mean shit. Them not having had romantic partners for eight years (as far as we know) doesn't mean shit. Everyone is free to form their own opinion based on whatever "evidence" they find convincing of course but no one knows anything for sure and we won't until they tell us. So fighting about who is right or wrong is kind of pointless because nobody but deppy knows who is right and wrong anyway.
Yup I believe they are together in a romantic relationship since 2009, but I can't prove it. Not in a way that would convince everyone at least. So, I don't know the truth™, because they have never told us. Their actions speak something completely different to me, but still, their words matter, all of them.nephilimcat wrote:I assume you mean me, and I didn't say that I believe it, I am pretty sure it wasn't a prank. I say that because they called it a prank themselves, it isn't proof. The thing is, we do not know what really happened back then. It's their relationship, so their words matter. And as long as it's not confirmed by them or through something else that they lied about it, we have to accept that we won't really know the truth.
And yeah, I also find it weird that people genuinely don't believe they're together at all, but there's still some doubt in me (and others) sometimes. Mainly because it makes me uncomfortable to claim something is real that is not actually proven to be real. Believing and saying something is true are a whole different thing. So you can believe that they are together and that's fine. But you have to accept that a) not everyone is 100% convinced and b) they are officially best friends and that's the only thing we really know for fact. Just not a believer of anything in general, I want my solid proof for everything. It's just who I am.
Stay woke, a denial might come at any moment, be ready at all times.000dia000 wrote:I think having even a little doubt and healthy rationale is kind of attacked now more than ever, even when it seems to be getting closer and closer to "midnight" where I think they'll finally "come clean." I say this Tuesday Dan will say or do something before during or after his liveshow and there will be a shitstorm here, I hope to see everybody in attendance.
Don't be so obnoxious. People are entitled to their own opinions. Plus the person who this low jab is directed at is not an anti, and they weren't even being defensive they were making a valid point.dans left hand wrote:antis
you can't even say moments you find cute and coupley without them getting overly heteronormative and defensive
^^^^^^^^^^^^^secretagentphan wrote:Just gonna pop in to say the reason I thought the idea of phan was ridiculous was because of people who were like "if you look at your friend like that ur gay phan is canon omg pause at 2:45!!!" I thought that was the phan proof, I found it annoying and ridiculous that people pulled apart small interactions and made it out like they were gay for each other and it was fact because of a look. Of course when I saw the real proof, I was SHOCKED that there was actual "evidence" to back up thinking they were together. Now that I personally lean towards believing they're partners (not that it matters) it is cute to see changes in behavior and little cute things in videos. IT IS STILL NOT PROOF. I feel like this conversation just got out of hand down the line but jeez. People who don't think they're together have valid opinions. I have days where I'm an "anti" too!
so glad with the constant video uploads - it's helping me to further procrastinate on my dissertation but also providing me with some brain relief
So they're taking this dads thing very seriously, basically.JustMe wrote:Just stumbled across this video randomly this morning, where Phil's mum texts him during a liveshow and tells him to drink water:dontpanic wrote:3:13—Hydration reminder #1. Okay but honestly where did this public service announcement come from, what weird inside joke is this??
(at 1:50)
Maybe they think it's a parent thing to do and they're trying to look after us or something?
Sounds promising.dannonfill wrote: ....... interesting.
was about to post this then you beat me to it just as i pressed post haha. interesting how dan doesn't question that they'd film porn or do the sideways tango, so to speak, but rather assures that he isn't filming that in particular at that moment i mean whatdannonfill wrote: ....... interesting.
