Dan & Phil Part 39: There's no integrity here

[swofro]

This has just made me think about how complex(? or not) Phil's tastes are... or how they can be really reflective of his personality. He's not into scary stuff about how depressing real life is but he loves horror and scaring himself in that regard, maybe for the adrenaline rush, maybe because it's not real. I'm the opposite - I love watching serious political thought-provoking dramas that can be pretty upsetting, but I'm terrible with horror movies because I hate being scared. I tend to need a friend with me.

Also, just from talking about it, the appeal of San Junipero has gone up for me, because there's so much to discuss and pick apart. I love that shit

I thought the exact same thing! It's interesting how there've been a few instances to suggest Phil copes well with hardcore horror (that tweet from Martyn a few months ago about watching horror movies with Phil in Florida comes to mind) yet doesn't cope with/has no interest in political or emotionally intense films (so much so that Dan avoids watching them until Phil is away). And I'm completely with you, while I do have a morbid fascination with horror movies/creepy things, I can't watch them (Buzzfeed Unsolved is my one exception, I'm obsessed) as I don't really cope with being terrified. But I love politics and despite the fact that that sort of thing is generally pretty depressing it's something I'm super passionate about so I usually enjoy political dramas, and I also find sad films therapeutic in a way as they allow me to have a good cry for reasons unrelated to my own issues.

I feel like horror films and political/sad films are both upsetting for different reasons though, and it's understandable to me that not everyone can cope with them. Maybe Phil prefers horror as it's often kind of detached from reality in a way, it's dark and terrifying but ultimately it's often rooted in fantasy and is easier to distance yourself from than movies that reflect the current political climate or realistic emotional scenarios.

Agree with the bolded part. I think this mindset resonates to the channel AmazingPhil where he post bright happy things so people can forget about the horror of the real world for a second and have 5 minutes of happiness to cheer yourself up.

I also find it interesting because I am completely the opposite. I like to torture myself with film that are deep and leave you to think about the reality and real world. And with that thinking, I also agree with everyone who thinks La La Land is basic lol

woop top of the page again. Is this real

[jesuisunèléve]

Moderating

There is nothing to agree or disagree with: it was blatant rudeness to someone who is new and for some reason a learning period is not acceptable? And as for cranking up the rudeness I didn't shame anyone.

Telling people to fuck off is inappropriate, and goes against the first five words of the very first rule on this site. You'll note that I didn't tell you to not have an opinion, but that I told you to not use language like "fuck off" when directed at another poster.

You said it is "fine to disagree", which is what directed my comment in that direction.
As well, I said "Fuck the fuck off". There is a difference.

I know what the rules are as I have more than 16 posts to my username. The foul language on my part is to show that we can be rude as fuck to one another as long as we don't use said foul language. Yet here I am having this discussion with you.

What that person said was simply mean. Shaming someone because they 1. Don't know everything about Dan and Phil and 2. Would rather ask a question than read a FAQ. Did anyone think that new folks do that to strike up a conversation to get to know other users?

[jesp]

Moderating

You said it is "fine to disagree", which is what directed my comment in that direction.
As well, I said "Fuck the fuck off". There is a difference.

I know what the rules are as I have more than 16 posts to my username. The foul language on my part is to show that we can be rude as fuck to one another as long as we don't use said foul language. Yet here I am having this discussion with you.

What that person said was simply mean. Shaming someone because they 1. Don't know everything about Dan and Phil and 2. Would rather ask a question than read a FAQ. Did anyone think that new folks do that to strike up a conversation to get to know other users?

I'm not quite sure what the problem you have here is. You used language that, when directed at another poster, is not acceptable on this forum. I made it clear that you are not to use language like that, while also making it clear that you can still disagree with someone's post using firm language. That's the whole situation.

So that the main thread is not clogged up any further by this, if you have any further comments, you're welcome to start a thread about it in the About this Forum section.

[alittledizzy]

I thought the exact same thing! It's interesting how there've been a few instances to suggest Phil copes well with hardcore horror (that tweet from Martyn a few months ago about watching horror movies with Phil in Florida comes to mind) yet doesn't cope with/has no interest in political or emotionally intense films (so much so that Dan avoids watching them until Phil is away). And I'm completely with you, while I do have a morbid fascination with horror movies/creepy things, I can't watch them (Buzzfeed Unsolved is my one exception, I'm obsessed) as I don't really cope with being terrified. But I love politics and despite the fact that that sort of thing is generally pretty depressing it's something I'm super passionate about so I usually enjoy political dramas, and I also find sad films therapeutic in a way as they allow me to have a good cry for reasons unrelated to my own issues.

I feel like horror films and political/sad films are both upsetting for different reasons though, and it's understandable to me that not everyone can cope with them. Maybe Phil prefers horror as it's often kind of detached from reality in a way, it's dark and terrifying but ultimately it's often rooted in fantasy and is easier to distance yourself from than movies that reflect the current political climate or realistic emotional scenarios.

Agree with the bolded part. I think this mindset resonates to the channel AmazingPhil where he post bright happy things so people can forget about the horror of the real world for a second and have 5 minutes of happiness to cheer yourself up.

I also find it interesting because I am completely the opposite. I like to torture myself with film that are deep and leave you to think about the reality and real world. And with that thinking, I also agree with everyone who thinks La La Land is basic lol

woop top of the page again. Is this real

I made a post similar to what I'm about to say on tumblr, but I think the reason a lot of people got so upset about Phil saying Moonlight was boring is because he prefers to talk only about happy things and forget the horror of the real world - but at the same time in this case gave a basic opinion on something he watched.

That's fine usually except this time he acknowledged having seen something then only gave that barely-existent negative opinion and suddenly the 'my channel is for happy things' looked a little more like just a nice excuse to be able to look the other way at topics that make him uncomfortable to discuss because he's in a position of such privilege that he maybe just doesn't feel moved by them.

I sort of hover in the middle of the argument because I get where Phil's coming from and the whole 'it's just a movie' argument is, yeah, valid. But also I respect people who have strong opinions about social issues being disappointed by someone they admire rejecting/glossing over the importance of something they saw representation in.

[Winston]

This has just made me think about how complex(? or not) Phil's tastes are... or how they can be really reflective of his personality. He's not into scary stuff about how depressing real life is but he loves horror and scaring himself in that regard, maybe for the adrenaline rush, maybe because it's not real. I'm the opposite - I love watching serious political thought-provoking dramas that can be pretty upsetting, but I'm terrible with horror movies because I hate being scared. I tend to need a friend with me.

Also, just from talking about it, the appeal of San Junipero has gone up for me, because there's so much to discuss and pick apart. I love that shit

I thought the exact same thing! It's interesting how there've been a few instances to suggest Phil copes well with hardcore horror (that tweet from Martyn a few months ago about watching horror movies with Phil in Florida comes to mind) yet doesn't cope with/has no interest in political or emotionally intense films (so much so that Dan avoids watching them until Phil is away). And I'm completely with you, while I do have a morbid fascination with horror movies/creepy things, I can't watch them (Buzzfeed Unsolved is my one exception, I'm obsessed) as I don't really cope with being terrified. But I love politics and despite the fact that that sort of thing is generally pretty depressing it's something I'm super passionate about so I usually enjoy political dramas, and I also find sad films therapeutic in a way as they allow me to have a good cry for reasons unrelated to my own issues.

I feel like horror films and political/sad films are both upsetting for different reasons though, and it's understandable to me that not everyone can cope with them. Maybe Phil prefers horror as it's often kind of detached from reality in a way, it's dark and terrifying but ultimately it's often rooted in fantasy and is easier to distance yourself from than movies that reflect the current political climate or realistic emotional scenarios.

Agree with the bolded part. I think this mindset resonates to the channel AmazingPhil where he post bright happy things so people can forget about the horror of the real world for a second and have 5 minutes of happiness to cheer yourself up.

I also find it interesting because I am completely the opposite. I like to torture myself with film that are deep and leave you to think about the reality and real world. And with that thinking, I also agree with everyone who thinks La La Land is basic lol

woop top of the page again. Is this real

I am with the people who can't cope with the intense drama/political type films. For me I will watch them (maybe if I hear about them relentlessly) but others I will avoid. To me movies and things are for an escape. I choose to escape into happy lovely things as opposed to watching things that are just as tragic as real life. Not to mention I find a lot of the ones I do watch pretentious, manipulative, and masturbatory. I could see Phil thinking the same way. He seems to focus of nice things. I am irl interested and follow politics and social justice issues, just choose to keep it out of my entertainment. I have a feeling Phil does too. How could he have Dan next to him in his life and not have any inkling of political thoughts and/or opinions?

[Ticia]

I'm still SHOooK because of "the Golf video" (that's why kids these days say, right? right!?). So, 24 hours later, I have watched it again, with a calmer mind and a handy notebook, and created a list of the sweet, sweet innuendos and mildly sexual things. Warning: +18, NSFW, you might or might not need Jesus afterwards.

02:12 - (Phil) "Oh yeah, that is arousing me". Dan doesn't show any emotion because reasons.
02:42 - (Dan) "Here we are, our two little balls next to each other, psyching each other out". They both giggle.
03:36 - (Phil) "What is your ball doing?" (Dan) "Wow get a room boys".
04:03 - (Dan) "Phil is aiming down for the crack".
04:22 - (Phil) "Straight into the hole for Philly". They giggle again.
04:47 - (Dan) "You have something hanging down Philly, you need to control it".
05:57 - (Dan) "Are you gonna aim for the hole, or the hole is not the goal?" (...) "Phil is not aiming for the hole, people".
06:14 - (Dan) "Ok, time for Danny to put it right in there."
06:46 - (Phil) "That was kind of sexy, wasn't it?"
08:17 - (Dan) "And I'm like 'What the fuck is that, are they gonna make out?' Sure".
08:53 - (Dan) "They call you 'Nearly-but-not-quite-there Phil'" (Am I the only one finding it out erotic?)
09:28 - (Phil) "I've actually blown the ball in a golf club". Dan points at him, with a "I knew it!" face, like he is salty from a past loss in the Orlando artificial golf fields.
09:44 - (Dan) "I'm in it for the whole kink of someone cute carrying out your things (...)". My mind can't read Phil's face here, help a sister out.
09:54 - (Phil) "And you're kinda whacking and see what happens." (Dan) "Yeah, Phil doesn't like to whack it and see what happens, he needs to plan his whacking" (Phil) "I like to plan a whack."
11:03 - (Dan) "That was straight in the hole. Damn, that was 100% chance of pregnancy." (Phil) "What are you talking about?" (Dan) "Good swimmers".
17:11: (Phil) "Why do I keep saying 'spank' whenever I hit the ball?".
17:45: (Dan) "I can't even see my ball". Ordinary comment but with a smirk from Phil.
21:45: (Dan) "Oh no Phil, what a flappy ding-dong".
23:23: (Dan) "Stop stroking my ball".
26:06: (Dan) "Who is your golf dad?"
28:54: (Dan) "Get the board, hoe". (Does this even count? )

[SexyTrashCan]

I can see the golf video being used out of context in NSFW edits in the future.

[swofro]

I'm still SHOooK because of "the Golf video" (that's why kids these days say, right? right!?). So, 24 hours later, I have watched it again, with a calmer mind and a handy notebook, and created a list of the sweet, sweet innuendos and mildly sexual things. Warning: +18, NSFW, you might or might not need Jesus afterwards.

02:12 - (Phil) "Oh yeah, that is arousing me". Dan doesn't show any emotion because reasons.
02:42 - (Dan) "Here we are, our two little balls next to each other, psyching each other out". They both giggle.
03:36 - (Phil) "What is your ball doing?" (Dan) "Wow get a room boys".
04:03 - (Dan) "Phil is aiming down for the crack".
04:22 - (Phil) "Straight into the hole for Philly". They giggle again.
04:47 - (Dan) "You have something hanging down Philly, you need to control it".
05:57 - (Dan) "Are you gonna aim for the hole, or the hole is not the goal?" (...) "Phil is not aiming for the hole, people".
06:14 - (Dan) "Ok, time for Danny to put it right in there."
06:46 - (Phil) "That was kind of sexy, wasn't it?"
08:17 - (Dan) "And I'm like 'What the fuck is that, are they gonna make out?' Sure".
08:53 - (Dan) "They call you 'Nearly-but-not-quite-there Phil'" (Am I the only one finding it out erotic?)
09:28 - (Phil) "I've actually blown the ball in a golf club". Dan points at him, with a "I knew it!" face, like he is salty from a past loss in the Orlando artificial golf fields.
09:44 - (Dan) "I'm in it for the whole kink of someone cute carrying out your things (...)". My mind can't read Phil's face here, help a sister out.
09:54 - (Phil) "And you're kinda whacking and see what happens." (Dan) "Yeah, Phil doesn't like to whack it and see what happens, he needs to plan his whacking" (Phil) "I like to plan a whack."
11:03 - (Dan) "That was straight in the hole. Damn, that was 100% chance of pregnancy." (Phil) "What are you talking about?" (Dan) "Good swimmers".
17:11: (Phil) "Why do I keep saying 'spank' whenever I hit the ball?".
17:45: (Dan) "I can't even see my ball". Ordinary comment but with a smirk from Phil.
21:45: (Dan) "Oh no Phil, what a flappy ding-dong".
23:23: (Dan) "Stop stroking my ball".
26:06: (Dan) "Who is your golf dad?"
28:54: (Dan) "Get the board, hoe". (Does this even count? )

09:44

[SexyTrashCan]

I'm still SHOooK because of "the Golf video" (that's why kids these days say, right? right!?). So, 24 hours later, I have watched it again, with a calmer mind and a handy notebook, and created a list of the sweet, sweet innuendos and mildly sexual things. Warning: +18, NSFW, you might or might not need Jesus afterwards.

02:12 - (Phil) "Oh yeah, that is arousing me". Dan doesn't show any emotion because reasons.
02:42 - (Dan) "Here we are, our two little balls next to each other, psyching each other out". They both giggle.
03:36 - (Phil) "What is your ball doing?" (Dan) "Wow get a room boys".
04:03 - (Dan) "Phil is aiming down for the crack".
04:22 - (Phil) "Straight into the hole for Philly". They giggle again.
04:47 - (Dan) "You have something hanging down Philly, you need to control it".
05:57 - (Dan) "Are you gonna aim for the hole, or the hole is not the goal?" (...) "Phil is not aiming for the hole, people".
06:14 - (Dan) "Ok, time for Danny to put it right in there."
06:46 - (Phil) "That was kind of sexy, wasn't it?"
08:17 - (Dan) "And I'm like 'What the fuck is that, are they gonna make out?' Sure".
08:53 - (Dan) "They call you 'Nearly-but-not-quite-there Phil'" (Am I the only one finding it out erotic?)
09:28 - (Phil) "I've actually blown the ball in a golf club". Dan points at him, with a "I knew it!" face, like he is salty from a past loss in the Orlando artificial golf fields.
09:44 - (Dan) "I'm in it for the whole kink of someone cute carrying out your things (...)". My mind can't read Phil's face here, help a sister out.
09:54 - (Phil) "And you're kinda whacking and see what happens." (Dan) "Yeah, Phil doesn't like to whack it and see what happens, he needs to plan his whacking" (Phil) "I like to plan a whack."
11:03 - (Dan) "That was straight in the hole. Damn, that was 100% chance of pregnancy." (Phil) "What are you talking about?" (Dan) "Good swimmers".
17:11: (Phil) "Why do I keep saying 'spank' whenever I hit the ball?".
17:45: (Dan) "I can't even see my ball". Ordinary comment but with a smirk from Phil.
21:45: (Dan) "Oh no Phil, what a flappy ding-dong".
23:23: (Dan) "Stop stroking my ball".
26:06: (Dan) "Who is your golf dad?"
28:54: (Dan) "Get the board, hoe". (Does this even count? )

09:44

[flarequake]

I'm still SHOooK because of "the Golf video" (that's why kids these days say, right? right!?). So, 24 hours later, I have watched it again, with a calmer mind and a handy notebook, and created a list of the sweet, sweet innuendos and mildly sexual things. Warning: +18, NSFW, you might or might not need Jesus afterwards.

02:12 - (Phil) "Oh yeah, that is arousing me". Dan doesn't show any emotion because reasons.
02:42 - (Dan) "Here we are, our two little balls next to each other, psyching each other out". They both giggle.
03:36 - (Phil) "What is your ball doing?" (Dan) "Wow get a room boys".
04:03 - (Dan) "Phil is aiming down for the crack".
04:22 - (Phil) "Straight into the hole for Philly". They giggle again.
04:47 - (Dan) "You have something hanging down Philly, you need to control it".
05:57 - (Dan) "Are you gonna aim for the hole, or the hole is not the goal?" (...) "Phil is not aiming for the hole, people".
06:14 - (Dan) "Ok, time for Danny to put it right in there."
06:46 - (Phil) "That was kind of sexy, wasn't it?"
08:17 - (Dan) "And I'm like 'What the fuck is that, are they gonna make out?' Sure".
08:53 - (Dan) "They call you 'Nearly-but-not-quite-there Phil'" (Am I the only one finding it out erotic?)
09:28 - (Phil) "I've actually blown the ball in a golf club". Dan points at him, with a "I knew it!" face, like he is salty from a past loss in the Orlando artificial golf fields.
09:44 - (Dan) "I'm in it for the whole kink of someone cute carrying out your things (...)". My mind can't read Phil's face here, help a sister out.
09:54 - (Phil) "And you're kinda whacking and see what happens." (Dan) "Yeah, Phil doesn't like to whack it and see what happens, he needs to plan his whacking" (Phil) "I like to plan a whack."
11:03 - (Dan) "That was straight in the hole. Damn, that was 100% chance of pregnancy." (Phil) "What are you talking about?" (Dan) "Good swimmers".
17:11: (Phil) "Why do I keep saying 'spank' whenever I hit the ball?".
17:45: (Dan) "I can't even see my ball". Ordinary comment but with a smirk from Phil.
21:45: (Dan) "Oh no Phil, what a flappy ding-dong".
23:23: (Dan) "Stop stroking my ball".
26:06: (Dan) "Who is your golf dad?"
28:54: (Dan) "Get the board, hoe". (Does this even count? )

09:44

Dan the diva, Phil the pack horse (pun not intended, oh gods).

[fancybum]

is phil actually american or was that sarcasm

sorry if this is a stupid question

The only stupid thing here is my sense of humour, no worries! I'm always looking for conspiracy theories to amuse myself and this one was at least somewhat based on reality. A Video Exists:



Maybe it was a double bluff and his family isn't just visiting Florida for "holidays" every year, but because that's where they're really from...
I mean Phil being a Florida Man would kind of explain a lot, just saying.

That's fine usually except this time he acknowledged having seen something then only gave that barely-existent negative opinion and suddenly the 'my channel is for happy things' looked a little more like just a nice excuse to be able to look the other way at topics that make him uncomfortable to discuss because he's in a position of such privilege that he maybe just doesn't feel moved by them.

I sort of hover in the middle of the argument because I get where Phil's coming from and the whole 'it's just a movie' argument is, yeah, valid. But also I respect people who have strong opinions about social issues being disappointed by someone they admire rejecting/glossing over the importance of something they saw representation in.

People can obviously be annoyed or disappointed by whatever they want, but like, if the movie didn't do anything for him, what can you do. I think if he said something like 'it was boring to me, but it's a very Important Film so... see it? I guess? even though I didn't think much of it?' Maybe I'm not coming at it correctly, but him tacking that on (the importance or whatever) after a less than stellar review would just feel like meaningless pandering (that would be getting a similar annoyed response). Which kind of just leads back to him never offering an opinion on things because it will never be the correct one and who wants the drama. Like yeah demand 'better' from people whose work/whatever you consume if you want, of course, but what even is the criticism? Don't discuss what others have decided is very important work unless you're prepared to bring your social justice/film critic A game? Saying something for the sake of it is more important than meaning it? Obviously no one is actually saying that, but I'm not seeing options beyond 1. do what he already did + pander 2. lie + pander (ie. have the Correct opinions that are not his own) 3.don't discuss it at all

I'm nitpicking and being weird about this, sorry. The main issue seems to be he didn't promote the wider importance of the film beyond his own (to him, 'meh') enjoyment of it? When he's just talking about media he's consuming lately and in the run up to the Oscars. I mean, ok. Well, maybe it'll sweep and he can update his opinions next week. So that people know an Oscar nominated movie has important themes, if they were previously unaware.

Also I'm grouchy because I haven't been able to watch the golf video yet so if these are all the Incorrect Opinions that's what I'm blaming it on.

[kuensukki]

People can obviously be annoyed or disappointed by whatever they want, but like, if the movie didn't do anything for him, what can you do. I think if he said something like 'it was boring to me, but it's a very Important Film so... see it? I guess? even though I didn't think much of it?' Maybe I'm not coming at it correctly, but him tacking that on (the importance or whatever) after a less than stellar review would just feel like meaningless pandering (that would be getting a similar annoyed response). Which kind of just leads back to him never offering an opinion on things because it will never be the correct one and who wants the drama. Like yeah demand 'better' from people whose work/whatever you consume if you want, of course, but what even is the criticism? Don't discuss what others have decided is very important work unless you're prepared to bring your social justice/film critic A game? Saying something for the sake of it is more important than meaning it? Obviously no one is actually saying that, but I'm not seeing options beyond 1. do what he already did + pander 2. lie + pander (ie. have the Correct opinions that are not his own) 3.don't discuss it at all

I'm nitpicking and being weird about this, sorry. The main issue seems to be he didn't promote the wider importance of the film beyond his own (to him, 'meh') enjoyment of it? When he's just talking about media he's consuming lately and in the run up to the Oscars. I mean, ok. Well, maybe it'll sweep and he can update his opinions next week. So that people know an Oscar nominated movie has important themes, if they were previously unaware.

Also I'm grouchy because I haven't been able to watch the golf video yet so if these are all the Incorrect Opinions that's what I'm blaming it on.

yep this is exactly where I'm at with the issue (why the fuck is it even an issue is beyond me). I was actually happy that he was honest about his views of the movie and not finding it interesting. I understand representation towards the issue, and I understand the significance the movie had, but, if someone asked me if I enjoyed it I would it was draggy. I don't see anything wrong with the statement nor do I see any correlation with that and him being a white man with privilege. I understood the message of the film as I think he must have but he also found the movie objectively a bit boring. That doesn't dismiss the message of the film, just the way it was executed. Overall, it probably wasn't his, (or Dans) taste and unfortunately, he expressed that without being extra careful and this is the result

Anyway also love love loved the golfing video (Ive watched it 3 times already)! The innuendos, tenseness and reactions were priceless. I was on team phil (shocker) but I also loved that Dan was actually really enjoying himself and was stressed and tense. Also, the competitive nature of the game made it all the more fun You can tell by watching them how happy and content they are in their current state. I really hope they continue to do games they enjoy and that are actually this engaging because the result is very enjoyable.

[alittledizzy]

People can obviously be annoyed or disappointed by whatever they want, but like, if the movie didn't do anything for him, what can you do. I think if he said something like 'it was boring to me, but it's a very Important Film so... see it? I guess? even though I didn't think much of it?' Maybe I'm not coming at it correctly, but him tacking that on (the importance or whatever) after a less than stellar review would just feel like meaningless pandering (that would be getting a similar annoyed response). Which kind of just leads back to him never offering an opinion on things because it will never be the correct one and who wants the drama. Like yeah demand 'better' from people whose work/whatever you consume if you want, of course, but what even is the criticism? Don't discuss what others have decided is very important work unless you're prepared to bring your social justice/film critic A game? Saying something for the sake of it is more important than meaning it? Obviously no one is actually saying that, but I'm not seeing options beyond 1. do what he already did + pander 2. lie + pander (ie. have the Correct opinions that are not his own) 3.don't discuss it at all

I'm nitpicking and being weird about this, sorry. The main issue seems to be he didn't promote the wider importance of the film beyond his own (to him, 'meh') enjoyment of it? When he's just talking about media he's consuming lately and in the run up to the Oscars. I mean, ok. Well, maybe it'll sweep and he can update his opinions next week. So that people know an Oscar nominated movie has important themes, if they were previously unaware.

Also I'm grouchy because I haven't been able to watch the golf video yet so if these are all the Incorrect Opinions that's what I'm blaming it on.

yep this is exactly where I'm at with the issue (why the fuck is it even an issue is beyond me). I was actually happy that he was honest about his views of the movie and not finding it interesting. I understand representation towards the issue, and I understand the significance the movie had, but, if someone asked me if I enjoyed it I would it was draggy. I don't see anything wrong with the statement nor do I see any correlation with that and him being a white man with privilege. I understood the message of the film as I think he must have but he also found the movie objectively a bit boring. That doesn't dismiss the message of the film, just the way it was executed. Overall, it probably wasn't his, (or Dans) taste and unfortunately, he expressed that without being extra careful and this is the result

Anyway also love love loved the golfing video (Ive watched it 3 times already)! The innuendos, tenseness and reactions were priceless. I was on team phil (shocker) but I also loved that Dan was actually really enjoying himself and was stressed and tense. Also, the competitive nature of the game made it all the more fun You can tell by watching them how happy and content they are in their current state. I really hope they continue to do games they enjoy and that are actually this engaging because the result is very enjoyable.

My comments weren't meant to indicate that Phil has any obligation to comment more on the movie, just that I do get where people are coming from when they're upset. Because it's not specifically about the movie; the people upset about this are the same people that I think wish they knew more about what Phil supported (or didn't support) in general.

When someone gives you nothing to work with, it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt - and it means a lot to some people to know that the public figures/celebs they admire have a social conscience. Doesn't mean that matters to everyone, or that Phil has to change his behavior in order to cater to people who wish he had more transparency; but the fans that place importance on that still get a right to their opinion and subsequent discussion, too. Dismissing the entire topic as 'it's just a movie' when the conversation spans beyond the movie feels way too limiting to me. We rake Dan over the coals based on opinions he gives or doesn't give (Kanye, anyone?) so I don't see why Phil is automatically excused from that.

[secretagentphan]

I'm still SHOooK because of "the Golf video" (that's why kids these days say, right? right!?). So, 24 hours later, I have watched it again, with a calmer mind and a handy notebook, and created a list of the sweet, sweet innuendos and mildly sexual things. Warning: +18, NSFW, you might or might not need Jesus afterwards.

02:12 - (Phil) "Oh yeah, that is arousing me". Dan doesn't show any emotion because reasons.
02:42 - (Dan) "Here we are, our two little balls next to each other, psyching each other out". They both giggle.
03:36 - (Phil) "What is your ball doing?" (Dan) "Wow get a room boys".
04:03 - (Dan) "Phil is aiming down for the crack".
04:22 - (Phil) "Straight into the hole for Philly". They giggle again.
04:47 - (Dan) "You have something hanging down Philly, you need to control it".
05:57 - (Dan) "Are you gonna aim for the hole, or the hole is not the goal?" (...) "Phil is not aiming for the hole, people".
06:14 - (Dan) "Ok, time for Danny to put it right in there."
06:46 - (Phil) "That was kind of sexy, wasn't it?"
08:17 - (Dan) "And I'm like 'What the fuck is that, are they gonna make out?' Sure".
08:53 - (Dan) "They call you 'Nearly-but-not-quite-there Phil'" (Am I the only one finding it out erotic?)
09:28 - (Phil) "I've actually blown the ball in a golf club". Dan points at him, with a "I knew it!" face, like he is salty from a past loss in the Orlando artificial golf fields.
09:44 - (Dan) "I'm in it for the whole kink of someone cute carrying out your things (...)". My mind can't read Phil's face here, help a sister out.
09:54 - (Phil) "And you're kinda whacking and see what happens." (Dan) "Yeah, Phil doesn't like to whack it and see what happens, he needs to plan his whacking" (Phil) "I like to plan a whack."
11:03 - (Dan) "That was straight in the hole. Damn, that was 100% chance of pregnancy." (Phil) "What are you talking about?" (Dan) "Good swimmers".
17:11: (Phil) "Why do I keep saying 'spank' whenever I hit the ball?".
17:45: (Dan) "I can't even see my ball". Ordinary comment but with a smirk from Phil.
21:45: (Dan) "Oh no Phil, what a flappy ding-dong".
23:23: (Dan) "Stop stroking my ball".
26:06: (Dan) "Who is your golf dad?"
28:54: (Dan) "Get the board, hoe". (Does this even count? )

09:44

Under the spoiler because I am being shallow

i feel creepy saying this but Dan's butt is really nice when he's a little thiccer, I do not at all miss scrawny 2012 Dan

[kuensukki]

My comments weren't meant to indicate that Phil has any obligation to comment more on the movie, just that I do get where people are coming from when they're upset. Because it's not specifically about the movie; the people upset about this are the same people that I think wish they knew more about what Phil supported (or didn't support) in general.

When someone gives you nothing to work with, it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt - and it means a lot to some people to know that the public figures/celebs they admire have a social conscience. Doesn't mean that matters to everyone, or that Phil has to change his behavior in order to cater to people who wish he had more transparency; but the fans that place importance on that still get a right to their opinion and subsequent discussion, too. Dismissing the entire topic as 'it's just a movie' when the conversation spans beyond the movie feels way too limiting to me. We rake Dan over the coals based on opinions he gives or doesn't give (Kanye, anyone?) so I don't see why Phil is automatically excused from that.

Yea, when I first read a couple of posts on idb, I thought we were referring superficially to just the movie Moonlight, and I believe that Phil was entitled to saying that he thought the movie was boring. But after educating myself more on other people's perspectives, I get where they're coming from. It's not only about this movie, it's about phil glossing over things referring to social justice issues to a point where he doesn't mention them at all. I was filling in the blanks for him because I was projecting myself onto him. I understood the significance, but I also commented that the movie was slow. I think the main concern for people was that he didn't acknowledge the underlying deepness of the movie and he doesn't have enough opinions out there to allow us to fill that in for him.

http://nihilist-toothpaste.tumblr.com/p ... is-opinion

That post says it more eloquently than I ever can. The thing is, is that Phil has grown up really sheltered. He's had everything handed to him on a silver platter, has been provided, accepted and loved by his family so he hasn't ever struggled. And it distresses him (as it does me) when he hears about things like that so he just blocks them out. I never saw Phil as social justicey, more as someone who avoids the depressing news because he doesn't want the feeling of helplessness and disgust one feels when they read about those who are disadvantaged in every sense. (again I relate)

But it is important that we acknowledge that he's allowed to block it off because he isn't affected and that's why people are mad. They want representation from phil, or even just statement showing solidarity towards causes. I personally don't expect that from him, Ive been watching him for a long time and understand the way he thinks. He will watch a million cat videos instead of a video about a police shooting a black guy because he reached into his pocket. And that's totally okay. But people wanting Phil (who they love dearly and look up to) to talk about the issues is also okay. It's not them asking him to bend himself backward or become an advocate, but I think he can bring a lot of happiness and joy to his poc follower (especially the American ones) if he sometimes acknowledges issues in whatever "phil way" he can.

He is slowly becoming more aware and I really hope he does eventually open up his tight happy bubble and begin to openly acknowledge the other issues in the world. I know he lives by the slogan of always making us happy in whatever sense he can/and keeping everything positive, but I also hope that he recognizes that people around the world are struggling and that even though he desperately doesn't want to worry, at some point I'd like to see him try.

[flurry]

People can obviously be annoyed or disappointed by whatever they want, but like, if the movie didn't do anything for him, what can you do. I think if he said something like 'it was boring to me, but it's a very Important Film so... see it? I guess? even though I didn't think much of it?' Maybe I'm not coming at it correctly, but him tacking that on (the importance or whatever) after a less than stellar review would just feel like meaningless pandering (that would be getting a similar annoyed response). Which kind of just leads back to him never offering an opinion on things because it will never be the correct one and who wants the drama. Like yeah demand 'better' from people whose work/whatever you consume if you want, of course, but what even is the criticism? Don't discuss what others have decided is very important work unless you're prepared to bring your social justice/film critic A game? Saying something for the sake of it is more important than meaning it? Obviously no one is actually saying that, but I'm not seeing options beyond 1. do what he already did + pander 2. lie + pander (ie. have the Correct opinions that are not his own) 3.don't discuss it at all

I'm nitpicking and being weird about this, sorry. The main issue seems to be he didn't promote the wider importance of the film beyond his own (to him, 'meh') enjoyment of it? When he's just talking about media he's consuming lately and in the run up to the Oscars. I mean, ok. Well, maybe it'll sweep and he can update his opinions next week. So that people know an Oscar nominated movie has important themes, if they were previously unaware.

Also I'm grouchy because I haven't been able to watch the golf video yet so if these are all the Incorrect Opinions that's what I'm blaming it on.

I wholeheartedly agree fancybum! This might be an unpopular opinion of mine but here goes: I really feel that we don't have a right to ask Dan/Phil/any other people we stan to adopt the views that we ourselves do. He gave an opinion - he found a movie boring. Probably he saw it just as any other mode of entertainment whereas some others saw it as a documentation of actual social issues etc. If he had said the movie "sucked" or some other harshly negative opinion, then perhaps it could have really rattled people especially seeing what the movie discusses. But he just said it was "boring" which I feel hasn't warranted the amount of backlash that people have been giving him. He's entitled to his opinion over a film and at the end of the day, regardless of what it discusses, that is what it is.

We might have other views and maybe feel ourselves more enlightened as to issues that he hasn't worried his head about. And that's alright. There are things that Dan and Phil do and say that I don't agree with and sometimes it makes me side eye them, but I still acknowledge that generally they are very unproblematic and I'm fine in continuing to consume their videos. They don't have to share the views I do. Also everyone has different life experiences and backgrounds be it cultural or education etc. so everyone will have varied interests in different things. Phil may not be as aware as some of us feel we are - everyone is on different levels anyway. He isn't a sociology student or an art film student etc. I just don't think his one comment on the film being boring should have unleashed such a reaction. And as fancybum said: what would we have wanted him to do then? pretend to be interested in issues he really might not care about or just say nothing about the movies he likes/dislikes?

Just my thoughts!

[captainspacecoat]

My comments weren't meant to indicate that Phil has any obligation to comment more on the movie, just that I do get where people are coming from when they're upset. Because it's not specifically about the movie; the people upset about this are the same people that I think wish they knew more about what Phil supported (or didn't support) in general.

When someone gives you nothing to work with, it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt - and it means a lot to some people to know that the public figures/celebs they admire have a social conscience. Doesn't mean that matters to everyone, or that Phil has to change his behavior in order to cater to people who wish he had more transparency; but the fans that place importance on that still get a right to their opinion and subsequent discussion, too. Dismissing the entire topic as 'it's just a movie' when the conversation spans beyond the movie feels way too limiting to me. We rake Dan over the coals based on opinions he gives or doesn't give (Kanye, anyone?) so I don't see why Phil is automatically excused from that.

I was one of the people a few pages back expressing that I was a bit disappointed with Phil's comments on Moonlight, so I just wanted to say thank you for this post, you've very much summed up the issue I had. I don't care that Phil found the film boring, that's fine - it wasn't a very exciting film, I get that. I just think it would have been nice if he'd recognised that it's a very important film to a lot of people, it is representation of black gay men (and black masculinity) that is very rarely afforded and very rarely given critical acclaim.

He's entitled to find it boring in terms of pacing/storyline, that's completely fine and I can even understand why he feels that way, but to some people it can feel like a dismissal of a film that they saw some part of themselves in, or at least of a film that deals with a marginalised identity that rarely gets a platform to take its time telling its story in the slow, gentle way of Moonlight.

In Dan's liveshow, he talked about the film's importance, said it was clearly the deserving winner out of the nominated films he'd seen and urged his audience to watch it. As someone who feels the same way, I naturally felt that he handled the topic better than Phil did. No one's obliged to enjoy the film, but I do think that people are entitled to question Phil's apolitical tendencies, especially people who had a personal connection to the film. It's part of being a fan of someone - people shouldn't be expected to blindly follow someone or sacrifice their own morals for any reason.

[annetamiau]

As for Phil finding the film boring, I don't think that's an issue at all. I'm trying to understand what you guys mean but I still feel it's a stretch to say he is dismissive of POC who are LGBT just because he thought a film was slow. I actually appreciate that he was honest, celebrities who are super SJW and complain about world hunger while sitting in their throne of money rub me the wrong way.

In addition, I find that attitude of Phil's to kinda ignore hardcore dramas and political films very human, I do this and I'm sure many people do too. I also zone out when Dan goes on political rants on Younow. It's not what I'm here for, I just want to escape reality for a while, if I want to hear about politics I turn the TV on. But I can understand that some people think differently, that's just my view on it.

I've written a lot more (please don't judge me on this two paragraphs alone) but it's all based on personal experience so:

Regarding the need for representation, there is something that has been bugging me for a while so here I go. I'm white and from Europe and I come from a middle class family. I'm from Catalonia, which is a region of Spain with its own culture and language. The Catalan government is pro-independence and wants to hold a referendum like Scotland did a few years ago but Spain doesn't even want to talk about it and has been trying to shut it down using threats and trials (part of the Catalan government who allowed a voting with no actual repercussion is being tried). As for society, about 50% feels only Catalan and wants independence and 50% feels Spanish and wants to remain with Spain.

This is a very important topic to me, but LOTS of people from Europe and the rest of the world don't even know that this is happening, and that's OK. This is my personal take on it, but while I do think the situation needs exposure, I don't expect representation. Not that celebrities tweet about it, but if they did I wouldn't care at all. It wouldn't make me happy, it wouldn't resonate with me because they are not experiencing it. I guess that's why I don't understand why famous people talking about something that isn't even close to them is so important for you.

That's a bit of a tangent, but I also feel like the internet is extremely USA-centered. When same sex marriage was legalised in the States, everyone around the world was expected to tweet about how it was such an important day. And it really was, and I was happy for the people that would be able to marry from then on, but it didn't change anything for millions of others. Where I live, same sex marriage had been a thing for about ten years, and in other countries it continued to be illegal.

Same with Trump. While I do agree that Trump is bad for the whole world and not just the USA, it kinda rubbed me the wrong way that everyone was expected to go to an anti-Trump march. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not important, but a lot of people were disappointed that Phil didn't sign the document Dan did, and Phil isn't even from the States! I'm just rambling, I guess bottom line is that, at times, I feel people from the USA expect people from other countries (who are going through completely different political struggles) to really empathise with their issues while making no effort to know what's going on in the world. I'm not directing this at anyone from this forum, so please don't get offended, it's just a thought that's been in the back of my mind for years and it has to do with the internet in general, not the phandom.

[bantstrash]

As for Phil finding the film boring, I don't think that's an issue at all. I'm trying to understand what you guys mean but I still feel it's a stretch to say he is dismissive of POC who are LGBT just because he thought a film was slow. I actually appreciate that he was honest, celebrities who are super SJW and complain about world hunger while sitting in their throne of money rub me the wrong way.

In addition, I find that attitude of Phil's to kinda ignore hardcore dramas and political films very human, I do this and I'm sure many people do too. I also zone out when Dan goes on political rants on Younow. It's not what I'm here for, I just want to escape reality for a while, if I want to hear about politics I turn the TV on. But I can understand that some people think differently, that's just my view on it.

I've written a lot more (please don't judge me on this two paragraphs alone) but it's all based on personal experience so:

Regarding the need for representation, there is something that has been bugging me for a while so here I go. I'm white and from Europe and I come from a middle class family. I'm from Catalonia, which is a region of Spain with its own culture and language. The Catalan government is pro-independence and wants to hold a referendum like Scotland did a few years ago but Spain doesn't even want to talk about it and has been trying to shut it down using threats and trials (part of the Catalan government who allowed a voting with no actual repercussion is being tried). As for society, about 50% feels only Catalan and wants independence and 50% feels Spanish and wants to remain with Spain.

This is a very important topic to me, but LOTS of people from Europe and the rest of the world don't even know that this is happening, and that's OK. This is my personal take on it, but while I do think the situation needs exposure, I don't expect representation. Not that celebrities tweet about it, but if they did I wouldn't care at all. It wouldn't make me happy, it wouldn't resonate with me because they are not experiencing it. I guess that's why I don't understand why famous people talking about something that isn't even close to them is so important for you.

That's a bit of a tangent, but I also feel like the internet is extremely USA-centered. When same sex marriage was legalised in the States, everyone around the world was expected to tweet about how it was such an important day. And it really was, and I was happy for the people that would be able to marry from then on, but it didn't change anything for millions of others. Where I live, same sex marriage had been a thing for about ten years, and in other countries it continued to be illegal.

Same with Trump. While I do agree that Trump is bad for the whole world and not just the USA, it kinda rubbed me the wrong way that everyone was expected to go to an anti-Trump march. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not important, but a lot of people were disappointed that Phil didn't sign the document Dan did, and Phil isn't even from the States! I'm just rambling, I guess bottom line is that, at times, I feel people from the USA expect people from other countries (who are going through completely different political struggles) to really empathise with their issues while making no effort to know what's going on in the world. I'm not directing this at anyone from this forum, so please don't get offended, it's just a thought that's been in the back of my mind for years and it has to do with the internet in general, not the phandom.

I agree with your post so much, including the part under the spoiler. You're not alone.

[nephilimcat]

Didn't Phil also say that "Moonlight" was objectively a good film? Or am I imagining things? Of course, that's not the same as explaining the importance of the film but I think it shows that he is aware how important it is to a lot of people (and in general). He might not feel comfortable talking about the whole topic, especially live when he can't edit and educate himself before saying something. So instead he just said his opinion and people got a little upset.

I know where everyone's coming from, don't get me wrong, but I find it a bit much to expect someone to explain the importance of a film in a liveshow. I know a lot of people do that all the time, but Phil tends to be more careful with what he says, so I get why he didn't say anything about it.

And the fact that he found it boring doesn't mean anything because many people find political dramas and emotional intense films boring, yet care a lot about the issues that are portrayed in them. I'm one of those people. And I mean, if you take a diverse cast and make a shit movie, I should not be expected to like it just because it has diversity Not saying that "Moonlight" is shit, I haven't seen it and probably never will. It's great that it exists though!

I didn't have the time to read all of your responses in depth, so I hope this wasn't repetitive!

[thephandommenace]

My comments weren't meant to indicate that Phil has any obligation to comment more on the movie, just that I do get where people are coming from when they're upset. Because it's not specifically about the movie; the people upset about this are the same people that I think wish they knew more about what Phil supported (or didn't support) in general.

When someone gives you nothing to work with, it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt - and it means a lot to some people to know that the public figures/celebs they admire have a social conscience. Doesn't mean that matters to everyone, or that Phil has to change his behavior in order to cater to people who wish he had more transparency; but the fans that place importance on that still get a right to their opinion and subsequent discussion, too. Dismissing the entire topic as 'it's just a movie' when the conversation spans beyond the movie feels way too limiting to me. We rake Dan over the coals based on opinions he gives or doesn't give (Kanye, anyone?) so I don't see why Phil is automatically excused from that.

Yea, when I first read a couple of posts on idb, I thought we were referring superficially to just the movie Moonlight, and I believe that Phil was entitled to saying that he thought the movie was boring. But after educating myself more on other people's perspectives, I get where they're coming from. It's not only about this movie, it's about phil glossing over things referring to social justice issues to a point where he doesn't mention them at all. I was filling in the blanks for him because I was projecting myself onto him. I understood the significance, but I also commented that the movie was slow. I think the main concern for people was that he didn't acknowledge the underlying deepness of the movie and he doesn't have enough opinions out there to allow us to fill that in for him.

http://nihilist-toothpaste.tumblr.com/p ... is-opinion

That post says it more eloquently than I ever can. The thing is, is that Phil has grown up really sheltered. He's had everything handed to him on a silver platter, has been provided, accepted and loved by his family so he hasn't ever struggled. And it distresses him (as it does me) when he hears about things like that so he just blocks them out. I never saw Phil as social justicey, more as someone who avoids the depressing news because he doesn't want the feeling of helplessness and disgust one feels when they read about those who are disadvantaged in every sense. (again I relate)

But it is important that we acknowledge that he's allowed to block it off because he isn't affected and that's why people are mad. They want representation from phil, or even just statement showing solidarity towards causes. I personally don't expect that from him, Ive been watching him for a long time and understand the way he thinks. He will watch a million cat videos instead of a video about a police shooting a black guy because he reached into his pocket. And that's totally okay. But people wanting Phil (who they love dearly and look up to) to talk about the issues is also okay. It's not them asking him to bend himself backward or become an advocate, but I think he can bring a lot of happiness and joy to his poc follower (especially the American ones) if he sometimes acknowledges issues in whatever "phil way" he can.

He is slowly becoming more aware and I really hope he does eventually open up his tight happy bubble and begin to openly acknowledge the other issues in the world. I know he lives by the slogan of always making us happy in whatever sense he can/and keeping everything positive, but I also hope that he recognizes that people around the world are struggling and that even though he desperately doesn't want to worry, at some point I'd like to see him try.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, kuensukki.

annetamiau I feel the same way. To some extent I think the UK must be like that too. It's hard to be sure as I live in the UK and I'm not sure how its news/politics is perceived abroad. Despite Spain and Catalonia being so close I still didn't hear about your situation. I hope it all works out I'm all for Scottish independence, personally, especially since Brexit. I mean, that would be disastrous for the "United Kingdom", especially England, where I'm from, but I accept England has been a bit of a dick to Scotland over the course of their entire 'marriage' and that Scotland deserves to take back control of its own life. Sorry, I've massively oversimplified it

I don't expect Phil to change his views to match the views of his audience, of course not, we all have different tastes and that's okay. As for the 'boring' comment, he says it in a split second and then immediately corrects himself to say something more diplomatic, like he realised he could have phrased his opinion better. Dan said 'the right thing', and I suspect he thought about what to say very carefully before starting his ls. I'm sure Phil didn't mean he found the issues boring, it was probably the pacing and the long thoughtful silences, but hearing the word 'boring' with no other context struck the wrong chord. I suppose I do wish Phil was a little less apolitical. The AmazingPhil channel is stuck in a permanently happy little bubble. Maybe he doesn't feel qualified/confident enough to speak about these things and people don't go to his channel to hear him talk about these things. That doesnt mean we don't want him to try, though. He's a human, with opinions, who I look up to, and he's usually so guarded that I can't help but latch on to what he does express because I want to know him better.

[Birdie]

I think it’s really important here that Phil does indeed come from a place of extreme privilege so it might be hard for him to process how some things that are easy for him are hard for other people who don’t enjoy the same privilege. I do of course think he should try and educate himself on these issues, try and understand more and I think he is. I don’t think you can live with Dan, who loves to talk about politics and social justice lately, and not start questioning one thing or the other. But I also think we shouldn’t be this hung up about Phil’s silence when it comes to these issues.

I’d rather have him say nothing than the wrong thing. His voice isn’t the most important one here and I feel like people forget that. There are loads of black and LGBTQ Youtubers and Bloggers out there who do share their opinions on “Moonlight”. I feel like instead of waiting for Phil, a white man, to speak about the importance of the film, we should rather make sure the voices of the people this film actually concerns are heard more. Of course it would be cool if Phil decided to use his fame and reach to promote social justice but we can’t demand it of him. Or anyone for that matter. I feel like people tend to forget that the voices of white celebs aren’t the most important voices when it comes to issues like this. I hope this makes sense, I’m having trouble expressing what I mean.

Like, a big part of intersectional activism is about stepping aside and not talking over the people a film like “Moonlight” or any other issue actually is about. Of course it would be neat if Phil decided to educate himself and share some opinions and support too but at the same time we shouldn’t be too hung up over him deciding not to. I'd rather have him stay silent than say something that would upset or even harm people. And in the end it’s still everyone’s personal decision whether to participate in discourse or not. Like, I’m glad Dan decided to share more opinions on social justice and political issues but sometimes I wish he would stay quiet longer and educate himself more before speaking because sometimes he says some questionable stuff. It's okay, he's still learning.

But I prefer silence to harmful opinions, no matter if well intentioned. If someone has enough insight to realise they don’t know enough about a topic to speak on it, that’s great. If someone decides they want to put out happy content that lets people get away from the ugliness of the world now and then (like Phil has) that’s cool too. In fact I think that’s worth a lot. Sometimes you just need to be able to leave it all behind and I feel like you can always do that watching Phil’s videos and live shows.

I really like annetamiau’s post, especially the part under the spoiler. It’s true. Of course it’s important to care about what happens in America because it affects all of us in one way or another but sometimes you can’t care about what’s happening far away because your home country is going through its own shit and nobody else cares about that either. There’s a lot of xenophobia directed against Eastern Europeans in the UK for example. A lot of Americans don’t take this seriously and I’ve seen people on tumblr go off at Eastern Europeans living in the UK for “equating their situation to racism” which scares me a lot.

There’s no empathy there, no attempt to understand that a situation might be different in a different country. Of course this isn’t true for everyone but I see it a lot. I’m supposed to care about the situation of black people in America, about the situation of Native Americans etc. and of course I care. But I sometimes feel overwhelmed. I have to care about what happens in America and I have to care about what happens at home and in Europe in general since the outcome of the elections in France, Germany etc. and the consequences of Brexit will absolutely affect Europe as a whole. Then there's the whole mess surrounding Russia and Crimea and so on.

And sometimes I just want to zone out. And of course it’s my privilege as a white passing European that I can zone out and allow myself to not think about racism in America for a day or two to recharge. But let’s be real: Most everyone has some sort of privilege, be it that you’re white, straight, cis, able bodied etc., most everyone takes their time to zone out like this now and then. Nobody can care about all these issues at the same time 24/7. And that’s okay. But I wish people, especially Americans, would take some time to think about when it was that they last cared about non-American issues before going "You don't care about what happens in America? How ignorant." (This last part has nothing to do with Phil or "Moonlight", sorry for rambling.)

[SquishPhan]

I feel that people shouldn’t confuse Phil not saying anything about certain issues with thinking that he isn’t educated about them. Maybe he isn’t as educated about them as some people would like, but I’m pretty sure he is aware. He has stated that he is a feminist and made subtly digs and both Brexit and Trump. I just think that Phil doesn’t like to talk about those things with us and that is his right.

Totally agreed with your post annetamiau.

[captainspacecoat]

I think it’s really important here that Phil does indeed come from a place of extreme privilege so it might be hard for him to process how some things that are easy for him are hard for other people who don’t enjoy the same privilege. I do of course think he should try and educate himself on these issues, try and understand more and I think he is. I don’t think you can live with Dan, who loves to talk about politics and social justice lately, and not start questioning one thing or the other. But I also think we shouldn’t be this hung up about Phil’s silence when it comes to these issues.

I’d rather have him say nothing than the wrong thing. His voice isn’t the most important one here and I feel like people forget that. There are loads of black and LGBTQ Youtubers and Bloggers out there who do share their opinions on “Moonlight”. I feel like instead of waiting for Phil, a white man, to speak about the importance of the film, we should rather make sure the voices of the people this film actually concerns are heard more. Of course it would be cool if Phil decided to use his fame and reach to promote social justice but we can’t demand it of him. Or anyone for that matter. I feel like people tend to forget that the voices of white celebs aren’t the most important voices when it comes to issues like this. I hope this makes sense, I’m having trouble expressing what I mean.

Like, a big part of intersectional activism is about stepping aside and not talking over the people a film like “Moonlight” or any other issue actually is about. Of course it would be neat if Phil decided to educate himself and share some opinions and support too but at the same time we shouldn’t be too hung up over him deciding not to. I'd rather have him stay silent than say something that would upset or even harm people. And in the end it’s still everyone’s personal decision whether to participate in discourse or not. Like, I’m glad Dan decided to share more opinions on social justice and political issues but sometimes I wish he would stay quiet longer and educate himself more before speaking because sometimes he says some questionable stuff. It's okay, he's still learning.

But I prefer silence to harmful opinions, no matter if well intentioned. If someone has enough insight to realise they don’t know enough about a topic to speak on it, that’s great. If someone decides they want to put out happy content that lets people get away from the ugliness of the world now and then (like Phil has) that’s cool too. In fact I think that’s worth a lot. Sometimes you just need to be able to leave it all behind and I feel like you can always do that watching Phil’s videos and live shows.

I really like annetamiau’s post, especially the part under the spoiler. It’s true. Of course it’s important to care about what happens in America because it affects all of us in one way or another but sometimes you can’t care about what’s happening far away because your home country is going through its own shit and nobody else cares about that either. There’s a lot of xenophobia directed against Eastern Europeans in the UK for example. A lot of Americans don’t take this seriously and I’ve seen people on tumblr go off at Eastern Europeans living in the UK for “equating their situation to racism” which scares me a lot.

There’s no empathy there, no attempt to understand that a situation might be different in a different country. Of course this isn’t true for everyone but I see it a lot. I’m supposed to care about the situation of black people in America, about the situation of Native Americans etc. and of course I care. But I sometimes feel overwhelmed. I have to care about what happens in America and I have to care about what happens at home and in Europe in general since the outcome of the elections in France, Germany etc. and the consequences of Brexit will absolutely affect Europe as a whole. Then there's the whole mess surrounding Russia and Crimea and so on.

And sometimes I just want to zone out. And of course it’s my privilege as a white passing European that I can zone out and allow myself to not think about racism in America for a day or two to recharge. But let’s be real: Most everyone has some sort of privilege, be it that you’re white, straight, cis, able bodied etc., most everyone takes their time to zone out like this now and then. Nobody can care about all these issues at the same time 24/7. And that’s okay. But I wish people, especially Americans, would take some time to think about when it was that they last cared about non-American issues before going "You don't care about what happens in America? How ignorant." (This last part has nothing to do with Phil or "Moonlight", sorry for rambling.)

This was a really fascinating post, with some really important points! annematiau I also really liked what you had to say about US-centrism. I'm not American and I also find it frustrating sometimes when Americans project US norms to the rest of the world. I remember a month or so ago people got mad at Dan for saying 'f*g' in reference to cigarettes in case Americans took it the wrong way, which frustrated me as in the UK and other places its perfectly acceptable to use that word in that context without it being interpreted as a slur. It is also upsetting that as non-Americans we are bombarded daily with American news (understandably, as the US is the most powerful/influential country in the world) while many Americans have no idea about what's going on in our countries.

However, I'm not sure if this whole Moonlight debacle (I feel weird calling it a debacle, as it's something that's not really a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, rather just an interesting and important discussion I think) fits into US-centrism, as black gay men exist outside of the US so I'm not really sure how relevant that is? I do think you raise a very important point though that Phil's voice is ultimately not that important on this issue, and that instead we should be centralising black, LGBT+ voices. You're completely correct, although I do think white people still have a role to play in amplifying their voices and standing in solidarity.

I know it's unrealistic of me to expect dnp to do that in their live shows, and I don't really expect them to, I guess I'm just saying people do have a reason to be disappointed by the Moonlight comments and I don't think it's unreasonable for people to take criticism of a film like Moonlight to heart. I also want to reiterate that I don't think Phil's a bad person, or racist or anything because of this, I just think they were clumsily worded remarks that could suggest he may have missed some of the crucial elements of the film, that's all. I also think Phil's probably not as apolitical as he comes across, I think it would be difficult to live with and share your life with Dan (who seems to have a genuine interest in politics) without absorbing some of what he talks about.

(Also this is probably the last post I'm gonna make on this topic, I feel like I keep dragging it on haha)

[momoroki]

Finally a place where people acknowledge how uncomfortably America-centric internet discourse seems to be?? Holy shit, never thought I'd see the day.

There are loads of black and LGBTQ Youtubers and Bloggers out there who do share their opinions on “Moonlight”. I feel like instead of waiting for Phil, a white man, to speak about the importance of the film, we should rather make sure the voices of the people this film actually concerns are heard more.

This sums up my thoughts on the topic entirely! Thank you for articulating this so well omg, my views were a jumbled mess. Obviously we on this forum are quite invested in DnP's opinions, we hold a lot of emotional stock in what they think on any particular subject. However I also think it's important to take a step back and gain a little bit of perspective.

I'm honestly glad he didn't try to pretend like he completely understood the film and its full effects on the black + LGBT community when he ....didn't. Simple as that. He expressed his honest opinion, acknowledged it was good, and moved on. I get that people were disappointed that we got another display of how apolitical AmazingPhil is, but idk. In the context of the liveshow, it's an innocuous, non-offensive, if clumsily worded response - which is why people are upset LMAO this response is going around in circles because I can't fully express myself smh better stop now while I'm ahead