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

[malday]

Delurking for a moment because I'm actually pretty disappointed with the recent discussion as I expect a bit more from people here. But no one has even bothered to check what Phil actually said about the film. Someone said that Phil called the film boring and that turned into "Phil didn't like the film", "he doesn't care about the issues surrounding it", "he doesn't care about those types of films" all without bothering to check the facts. But what he actually said was (possibly slightly off the bit is around 29:30 in the liveshow)

"I did enjoy it. I got slightly bored, which is unlike me. So it is one of those that you have to think about and it's quite harrowing. But it was objectively a good film."

Thanks for this, i hadn't had the time to see the ls and hear what he actually said.
Bit of an overreaction to him not actually saying anything bad about the movie.

So... no new video this week I guess?

I really don't understand why people idolise these two so much. They're lazy and they're talentless. Much like the other 'professional Youtubers'.

Dan last uploaded two weeks ago. And it was him telling a story we've already heard before. Wow. Much work. So hard.

Pure laziness. And they're making a pretty sum on the back of adsense and flogging merch. They have their pathetic fans (you reading) so conditioned that you serenade them with praise and adoration for uploading once in a blue moon i.e. doing the job they're being paid for.

Again, they're among the laziest Youtubers. Most Youtubers upload weekly -- they can almost justify their extremely easy 'jobs' and lifestyle. But these two don't seem to do anything for weeks on age.

What is the appeal? They look cute? Dan pays libservice to the Tumblr social justice bullshit? Their phony, manufactured 'sexually abiguous' image (oooh, are they in a relationship? let's keep watching to find out!!).

I really hope there's a significant drop off in their average views over the next year! I want to see a dent in their income. Then they'll have to find a proper job (if Dan can possibly cope?).

And shame on you slavering idiots for fawning over these wasters.

[AmazingOCD]

So... no new video this week I guess?

I really don't understand why people idolise these two so much. They're lazy and they're talentless. Much like the other 'professional Youtubers'.

Dan last uploaded two weeks ago. And it was him telling a story we've already heard before. Wow. Much work. So hard.

Pure laziness. And they're making a pretty sum on the back of adsense and flogging merch. [They have their pathetic fans (you reading)/b] so conditioned that you serenade them with praise and adoration for uploading once in a blue moon i.e. doing the job they're being paid for.

Again, they're among the laziest Youtubers. Most Youtubers upload weekly -- they can almost justify their extremely easy 'jobs' and lifestyle. But these two don't seem to do anything for weeks on age.

What is the appeal? They look cute? Dan pays libservice to the Tumblr social justice bullshit? Their phony, manufactured 'sexually abiguous' image (oooh, are they in a relationship? let's keep watching to find out!!).

I really hope there's a significant drop off in their average views over the next year! I want to see a dent in their income. Then they'll have to find a proper job (if Dan can possibly cope?).

And shame on you slavering idiots for fawning over these wasters.

Thanks for your very intelligent post on insulting all of us here.

If you don't like them, why did you make an account on a DnP forum? Was it really THAT satisfying typing that post to make us all feel shitty???

Maybe you think that they are lazy because they don't upload as regularly as normal Youtubers (daily/more-than-once-a-week vloggers) or upload at the rate that they used to. But which is best?: a bad daily video posted just for the sake of it or a funny well thought-out video (imo) which has work put into it?

DnP aren't lazy: they have worked extremely hard to get to where they are now: Phil since 2006, Dan since 2009. Besides Youtube, they have hosted two radio shows and the BRIT awards online stream for three years. And they had a very busy 2015-16 with TATINOF and TABINOF, thats why their uploading schedule went very sparse. They have it back to a vid across their 3 channels once every 3-5 days now.

It's OK to have an opinion about the ship, if you think they're queerbaiting, fine, that's your opinion. At least they don't use clickbait.

Oh and a lot of us like DnP OK?!?! It's perfectly OK to like some Youtubers and not others, but its NOT OK to start making fun of us as a fanbase, and then join a forum with 1000+ DnP fans just to slag DnP and us off.

Good riddance to a TROLL! Mods, I hope you see this waster.

EDIT: I agree with everything dia says about you and at your post

[alittledizzy]

Delurking for a moment because I'm actually pretty disappointed with the recent discussion as I expect a bit more from people here. But no one has even bothered to check what Phil actually said about the film. Someone said that Phil called the film boring and that turned into "Phil didn't like the film", "he doesn't care about the issues surrounding it", "he doesn't care about those types of films" all without bothering to check the facts. But what he actually said was (possibly slightly off the bit is around 29:30 in the liveshow)

"I did enjoy it. I got slightly bored, which is unlike me. So it is one of those that you have to think about and it's quite harrowing. But it was objectively a good film."

Thanks for this, i hadn't had the time to see the ls and hear what he actually said.
Bit of an overreaction to him not actually saying anything bad about the movie.

Did people think he'd said something bad about the movie? I'd seen the full quote referenced in the posts discussing this, though perhaps not on IDB so that makes sense why some responses were defensive about the movie opinion rather than having a conversation about Phil and social awareness in general. Either way, I'm glad the full quote was included here.

I've said this a couple times already, but the point for most people as far as I can tell isn't his reaction to the movie specifically - and absolutely not people making decisions on what he thinks based on just that reaction alone. The bigger conversation involves the movie as just another factor in pre-existing frustration that stems from Phil not discussing social issues.

But I'm absolutely loving everyone sharing their opinions on why Phil doesn't discuss things like that, and I agree with most if not all of it.

[SquishPhan]

Sorry, but I'm neither on tumblr nor on twitter…are people actually disappointed in Phil over this? Or is this just a discussion going on on here?
Is there actually backlash although all he said was that it was a good movie he enjoyed but got slightly bored?

If yes…don't know about Phil but if I were him I wouldn't state any opinion on anything ever again.

Yeah people on Tumblr and Twitter were talking about this and from what I gathered there was some backlash.

Things like this do make me understand why Phil doesn't always like to share his opinions on things.

[nephilimcat]

I loved the Dan and Phil horror movie trailer, it's so interesting how you can just edit random videos together and create something totally different It must have been a lot of work, so I'm glad Phil tweeted about it.

I'm having a pretty bad day but seeing there's someone wasting their time by making a troll account makes me feel a bit better

I would thank them but someone who has "danisahomo" as their username is just disgusting

Edit: Oh, and this whole discussion makes me understand why Phil doesn't share his opinions, like others have already mentioned. I mean, nobody was attacking him (at least not here) but in my opinion some people did overreact a bit, especially because he did describe the movie as good after all Nothing new to add though.

[jesp]

Moderating

We're looking into the possible troll post/account.

In the meantime, it's fine to discuss the contents of the post relating to Dan and Phil, but don't rise to the bait and don't feed the troll.

[SexyTrashCan]

Looks like a troll account arrived with a barrel of salt and a truly original, amazing, well thought outusername

[jesp]

Moderating

So... no new video this week I guess?

I really don't understand why people idolise these two so much. They're lazy and they're talentless. Much like the other 'professional Youtubers'.

Dan last uploaded two weeks ago. And it was him telling a story we've already heard before. Wow. Much work. So hard.

Pure laziness. And they're making a pretty sum on the back of adsense and flogging merch. They have their pathetic fans (you reading) so conditioned that you serenade them with praise and adoration for uploading once in a blue moon i.e. doing the job they're being paid for.

Again, they're among the laziest Youtubers. Most Youtubers upload weekly -- they can almost justify their extremely easy 'jobs' and lifestyle. But these two don't seem to do anything for weeks on age.

What is the appeal? They look cute? Dan pays libservice to the Tumblr social justice bullshit? Their phony, manufactured 'sexually abiguous' image (oooh, are they in a relationship? let's keep watching to find out!!).

I really hope there's a significant drop off in their average views over the next year! I want to see a dent in their income. Then they'll have to find a proper job (if Dan can possibly cope?).

And shame on you slavering idiots for fawning over these wasters.

I'm not sure that we are the slavering idiots, danisahomo.

You are, of course, welcome to share your opinions on Dan and Phil here. You are not welcome to share your homophobic {see: your username} or otherwise purely insulting thoughts about Dan or Phil, nor are you allowed to insult the members here.

I'm issuing a warning to your account for trolling. Keep in mind that any further posts like this can lead to your account being banned.

After listening to the concerns of some members here, taking rules 1 and 10 into consideration, and, frankly, being mildly insulted by it myself, I'm also going to change your username to something more appropriate. You are welcome to send me or any other moderator a private message with a new username - a reasonable one - and we'll change your username to that.

[daichii]

As usual, I watch Phil's liveshows. His silence on any issue is my issue with this rather than his opinion about the movie. There are so many things in which he could give his commentary, however it seems to me as if he doesn't make an effort to educate himself about any social issue or he knows/reads about it but is too scared still to say anything and that's just sad.

[SexyTrashCan]

I approve of the name change from a disgusting slur to "danisanangel" thank you mods.

[nephilimcat]

As usual, I watch Phil's liveshows. His silence on any issue is my issue with this rather than his opinion about the movie. There are so many things in which he could give his commentary, however it seems to me as if he doesn't make an effort to educate himself about any social issue or he knows/reads about it but is too scared still to say anything and that's just sad.

I'm pretty sure he does know a lot just by living with Dan. Whether or not he also educates himself, is something we can't know. So he chooses not to say anything, I'm going to assume it's because people are going to take everything apart. As you said, he might be too scared that this happens. And now it's exactly what happened after he actually gave an opinion. See the problem here?

Some people just don't like to talk about issues or are more subtle with it. That's okay. Important to me is, that he does not support assholes.
And isn't he a great influence in other ways? He spreads kindness instead of hate, keeps out of drama, shows that being a bit different is okay and feels comfortable not being the stereotypical guy, even joking about manliness (don't know if I wrote this correctly). Isn't that already something? Everybody should do what they feel comfortable doing.

[melon lord]

As usual, I watch Phil's liveshows. His silence on any issue is my issue with this rather than his opinion about the movie. There are so many things in which he could give his commentary, however it seems to me as if he doesn't make an effort to educate himself about any social issue or he knows/reads about it but is too scared still to say anything and that's just sad.

why is he obliged to give commentary, though? Is this an unspoken contract with entertainment people? How do you know that he maybe doesn't speak up against homophobia to narrow minded family members? why do you assume that his sexuality - which is one whole half of Phan - is not a struggling topic for him to discuss, let alone be open about it to thousands of strangers? Why does nobody wonder if maybe not everyone he knew or is related to accepted his sexuality or his potential relationship with Dan?

Maybe Phil has a form of anxiety (not necessarily of the medical kind, but anxious nonetheless) about speaking in front of crowds, especially with something personal. Especially after certain leaks of a very private moment. Maybe he is nervous about being opinionated. Maybe he just doesn't want to talk about it with so many people with potentially conflicting opinions to his. Maybe he doesn't enjoy debates.

People on the internet will jump through flaming, spiked hoops to protect "muh social anxiety" and to be tolerant to triggers, to spread awareness of the inability to make a phone call or step outside or talk to someone without having a panic attack or freaking out. So why is Phil assumed to be a totally mentally healthy normie who could and should talk about it, as though it's his job? Last time I checked, his channel wasn't about social justice or political issues. He blogs about his day and what he bought.

What his sexuality is, what his relationship status is, and what his beliefs are, are totally up to him to decide if he wants to disclose or not. Yes, having good and open opinions about important issues is nice especially if you look up to them. I really get that. But it's not his obligation to talk about it, and it's certainly not our right to demand it.

And, to further my point, say he spent the next week poring over books, posts, articles, websites, about these issues. Say he binged LGBTQ+ movies one after the other. Which one of these reactions people have had to Moonlight is supposed to inspire him to open up about it? Is it the accusation that he's an uneducated, privileged white oaf who refuses to look past the end of his nose? Is it the discussion that he never talks about anything and why doesn't he and why he should and why why why me me me I want I want I want!

These attacks are not only insulting Phil's ability to be empathetic to people outside of his creed and social class, which we don't possibly know, but also an attack on any potential for Phil to open up. Why step out of your cage when you see hungry lions at the door?

[flarequake]

As usual, I watch Phil's liveshows. His silence on any issue is my issue with this rather than his opinion about the movie. There are so many things in which he could give his commentary, however it seems to me as if he doesn't make an effort to educate himself about any social issue or he knows/reads about it but is too scared still to say anything and that's just sad.

I'm pretty sure he does know a lot just by living with Dan. Whether or not he also educates himself, is something we can't know. So he chooses not to say anything, I'm going to assume it's because people are going to take everything apart. As you said, he might be too scared that this happens. And now it's exactly what happened after he actually gave an opinion. See the problem here?

Some people just don't like to talk about issues or are more subtle with it. That's okay. Important to me is, that he does not support assholes.
And isn't he a great influence in other ways? He spreads kindness instead of hate, keeps out of drama, shows that being a bit different is okay and feels comfortable not being the stereotypical guy, even joking about manliness (don't know if I wrote this correctly). Isn't that already something? Everybody should do what they feel comfortable doing.

The last line was what I was thinking to say, but couldn't think how to say it or much more with it. I also don't want to project onto him cos I know the anxiety that's kept me staying out of things, but we don't know how he feels.

[mermaid blood]

why is it sound logic to assume Phil holds opinions we've seen no evidence of? the most you can do with an absence is make assumptions, and assumptions are never enough to blindly defend anyone with.

Phil deserves just as much scrutiny as Dan on social justice issues, if not more. Prattling and backtracking and getting it wrong and sometimes getting it really right at least shows a thought process, and an active preoccupation. Dan is lumped with the majority of this pressure and expectation from the fans because of the content he makes and the way he expresses himself, whilst Phil experiences the converse. That's fine, it's up to Phil what presence he has and he's autonomous in that. BUT the conversations above me show the unfair and nonsensical outcome of this: he also benefits from what DAN says, through positive projecting and protecting?

ah, no. if you don't wish to be engaged on a certain level as a social figure and media personality the most you (fairly) win is a shrug, and an ambiguous 'well i certainly HOPE he feels ___'. you don't get to have your cake and eat it too, benefitting from the actions of someone very close to you.

The argument from the phandom 'this is why Phil doesn't express opinions' holds no water, there is no evidence for it. it's especially ridiculous as it doesn't seem to apply to Dan in any way, and arguably Dan shows more troubling signs of not coping with attention on his every opinion and decision than Phil ever has. It is a choice Phil makes, and Phil is an adult who is accountable to this choice like any other.

[malday]

Delurking for a moment because I'm actually pretty disappointed with the recent discussion as I expect a bit more from people here. But no one has even bothered to check what Phil actually said about the film. Someone said that Phil called the film boring and that turned into "Phil didn't like the film", "he doesn't care about the issues surrounding it", "he doesn't care about those types of films" all without bothering to check the facts. But what he actually said was (possibly slightly off the bit is around 29:30 in the liveshow)

"I did enjoy it. I got slightly bored, which is unlike me. So it is one of those that you have to think about and it's quite harrowing. But it was objectively a good film."

Thanks for this, i hadn't had the time to see the ls and hear what he actually said.
Bit of an overreaction to him not actually saying anything bad about the movie.

Did people think he'd said something bad about the movie? I'd seen the full quote referenced in the posts discussing this, though perhaps not on IDB so that makes sense why some responses were defensive about the movie opinion rather than having a conversation about Phil and social awareness in general. Either way, I'm glad the full quote was included here.

I've said this a couple times already, but the point for most people as far as I can tell isn't his reaction to the movie specifically - and absolutely not people making decisions on what he thinks based on just that reaction alone. The bigger conversation involves the movie as just another factor in pre-existing frustration that stems from Phil not discussing social issues.

But I'm absolutely loving everyone sharing their opinions on why Phil doesn't discuss things like that, and I agree with most if not all of it.

What it looked like to me was that the whole conversation was triggered by him using the word "boring" about a movie that is very politically important to a lot of people. People's disappointment with his opinion was the catalyst for the discussion about his social awareness.

Had he left that part out, i'm not so sure it would have sparked this conversation this time.
The whole thing would have ended with a "yes, thank you phil for your support" if he had used 100% positive language and not given a movie critic type of review.

[captainspacecoat]

why is it sound logic to assume Phil holds opinions we've seen no evidence of? the most you can do with an absence is make assumptions, and assumptions are never enough to blindly defend anyone with.

Phil deserves just as much scrutiny as Dan on social justice issues, if not more. Prattling and backtracking and getting it wrong and sometimes getting it really right at least shows a thought process, and an active preoccupation. Dan is lumped with the majority of this pressure and expectation from the fans because of the content he makes and the way he expresses himself, whilst Phil experiences the converse. That's fine, it's up to Phil what presence he has and he's autonomous in that. BUT the conversations above me show the unfair and nonsensical outcome of this: he also benefits from what DAN says, through positive projecting and protecting?

ah, no. if you don't wish to be engaged on a certain level as a social figure and media personality the most you (fairly) win is a shrug, and an ambiguous 'well i certainly HOPE he feels ___'. you don't get to have your cake and eat it too, benefitting from the actions of someone very close to you.

The argument from the phandom 'this is why Phil doesn't express opinions' holds no water, there is no evidence for it. it's especially ridiculous as it doesn't seem to apply to Dan in any way, and arguably Dan shows more troubling signs of not coping with attention on his every opinion and decision than Phil ever has. It is a choice Phil makes, and Phil is an adult who is accountable to this choice like any other.

I have nothing of worth to add to this, but this is exactly what was underlying my posts about the topic. I do think that Dan and Phil are held to different standards regarding social justice/politics etc, I feel like people take any (valid) criticism of Phil to heart whereas they're more likely to pick apart the things that Dan says. They're both grown adults, they're wealthy white men who are going to get things wrong sometimes and if people find fault with what they've said they are completely entitled to voice those criticisms. I don't think "potential social anxiety" is an excuse for staying quiet on issues of social justice personally. No, Phil isn't obliged to talk about anything he doesn't want to but I do think it wouldn't hurt for him, as a wealthy white man with a voice, to at least do the bare minimum with this sort of thing.

I adore Phil (and Dan), I think he genuinely seems like a lovely, kind-hearted man and I enjoy his content. And it's not like he never speaks about social justice issues, after all in that very same liveshow he talked about the lack of diversity in Final Fantasy XV and how he thought there should have been more female characters. I just think people shouldn't be so quick to excuse Phil or give him the benefit of the doubt when we really don't know him or his true opinions. As a consumer of Phil's content, I am entitled to voice my concern over things he has said and not just blindly take everything at face value.

Also needless to say Dan's tweet about Moonlight gets a tick of approval from me

[malday]

why is it sound logic to assume Phil holds opinions we've seen no evidence of? the most you can do with an absence is make assumptions, and assumptions are never enough to blindly defend anyone with.

I think it's fair to use assumptions to defend someone against other assumptions made about them.

But then again, i don't have expectations from either of them to comment on social issues.

[melon lord]

I have nothing of worth to add to this, but this is exactly what was underlying my posts about the topic. I do think that Dan and Phil are held to different standards regarding social justice/politics etc, I feel like people take any (valid) criticism of Phil to heart whereas they're more likely to pick apart the things that Dan says. They're both grown adults, they're wealthy white men who are going to get things wrong sometimes and if people find fault with what they've said they are completely entitled to voice those criticisms. I don't think "potential social anxiety" is an excuse for staying quiet on issues of social justice personally. No, Phil isn't obliged to talk about anything he doesn't want to but I do think it wouldn't hurt for him, as a wealthy white man with a voice, to at least do the bare minimum with this sort of thing.

I adore Phil (and Dan), I think he genuinely seems like a lovely, kind-hearted man and I enjoy his content. And it's not like he never speaks about social justice issues, after all in that very same liveshow he talked about the lack of diversity in Final Fantasy XV and how he thought there should have been more female characters. I just think people shouldn't be so quick to excuse Phil or give him the benefit of the doubt when we really don't know him or his true opinions. As a consumer of Phil's content, I am entitled to voice my concern over things he has said and not just blindly take everything at face value.

Also needless to say Dan's tweet about Moonlight gets a tick of approval from me

Two things to note: Diversity in Final Fantasy and Japanese media is a very discussed topic in general so Phil voicing his opinion on it is not groundbreaking in the slightest. Also if (general) you wants to go down that route, Final Fantasy is actually very liberating on masculinity when you consider most male protagonists are either effeminate or they are very emotional/go through very difficult times without turning into Westernised macho surly guys. Not that this absolves it of its issues, of course.

and also, "as a wealthy white man with a voice" why does Phil have to be ~The Voice~ ? Is this for the benefit of young phans to have a positive role model? Is this so that the socially aware phans can pat themselves on the back and be like "ah yes I follow the right people, they agree with my opinions!", is it so that we have more to analyse on IDB? I would much rather demand a voice from politicians than Phil. Why are his donations to the local charity not considered important? Why does his fulfilments of Make A Wish requests not amount to anything? Why does the voice of so many peers saying Phil is a lovely person not mean anything in the face of Phil stepping on a public podium and saying ~the opinion~ ?


(side note I'm not trying to shut down anyone, I'm honestly trying to converse)

[kusunoki masashige]

why is it sound logic to assume Phil holds opinions we've seen no evidence of? the most you can do with an absence is make assumptions, and assumptions are never enough to blindly defend anyone with.

why one might think he's a decent person? deduction. he's friends with a lot of people who are pretty vocal about social issues and they all say he's a lovely person.
And what are people even defending here? Why should he even need defending? I'm just confused why it seems to not be okay to have a opinion on a movie or, as we worked out, not saying what everyone wanted to hear about it. I think it's just strange to be disappointed in Phil for not being Dan.

Phil deserves just as much scrutiny as Dan on social justice issues, if not more. Prattling and backtracking and getting it wrong and sometimes getting it really right at least shows a thought process, and an active preoccupation. Dan is lumped with the majority of this pressure and expectation from the fans because of the content he makes and the way he expresses himself, whilst Phil experiences the converse. That's fine, it's up to Phil what presence he has and he's autonomous in that. BUT the conversations above me show the unfair and nonsensical outcome of this: he also benefits from what DAN says, through positive projecting and protecting?

ah, no. if you don't wish to be engaged on a certain level as a social figure and media personality the most you (fairly) win is a shrug, and an ambiguous 'well i certainly HOPE he feels ___'. you don't get to have your cake and eat it too, benefitting from the actions of someone very close to you.

what kind of cake does he get to eat here though? I think it's quite the opposite, when Dan comments on some "important issue" people expect Phil to do the same and then give him shit if he fails to do so.
And Dan chooses to make the comments he makes, he likes to rant and to sometimes provoke. But Phil is just a different person, he seems to be a sucker for harmony and I sometimes get the impression he isn't overly confident in expressing himself. I for one can relate to that, very much. I guess you relate to Dan more...

The argument from the phandom 'this is why Phil doesn't express opinions' holds no water, there is no evidence for it. it's especially ridiculous as it doesn't seem to apply to Dan in any way, and arguably Dan shows more troubling signs of not coping with attention on his every opinion and decision than Phil ever has. It is a choice Phil makes, and Phil is an adult who is accountable to this choice like any other.

of course there's no evidence for this. We discuss a lot of things there is no evidence for. But it is my honest opinion that if I were in his shoes, if I realized that a tiny little comment I made regarding a movie I've seen would cause this kind of drama (and it was the movie comment that triggered this whole discussion), I would be even more careful of what I said in the future. Maybe that's not the reason, maybe he just doesn't want to talk about it, maybe he's a homophobic racist (:gasp: he must be if he was a little bit bored watching a movie), but where's the point?
Phil's been like this all this time, why should he change now? Even oldschool Phil wasn't a beacon of social awareness, that's just not who he is or what he wants to do on a public platform. Why do people expect a complete change of character?
And as for "it's unfair to use this argument for Phil when Dan doesn't get this privilege although he's the one who really struggles with reactions to his opinions": I call bullshit. He might say this but that doesn't mean it's true. Actions speak louder than words, why would he do it again and again if he's so troubled by it? and just because Phil doesn't speak about not wanting to give an opinion doesn't mean he has no problem with it, if that were the case he would do it more.

Sorry, this post is a mess. I'm not overly confident in expressing myself.

[SexyTrashCan]

[captainspacecoat]

Two things to note: Diversity in Final Fantasy and Japanese media is a very discussed topic in general so Phil voicing his opinion on it is not groundbreaking in the slightest. Also if (general) you wants to go down that route, Final Fantasy is actually very liberating on masculinity when you consider most male protagonists are either effeminate or they are very emotional/go through very difficult times without turning into Westernised macho surly guys. Not that this absolves it of its issues, of course.

and also, "as a wealthy white man with a voice" why does Phil have to be ~The Voice~ ? Is this for the benefit of young phans to have a positive role model? Is this so that the socially aware phans can pat themselves on the back and be like "ah yes I follow the right people, they agree with my opinions!", is it so that we have more to analyse on IDB? I would much rather demand a voice from politicians than Phil. Why are his donations to the local charity not considered important? Why does his fulfilments of Make A Wish requests not amount to anything? Why does the voice of so many peers saying Phil is a lovely person not mean anything in the face of Phil stepping on a public podium and saying ~the opinion~ ?


(side note I'm not trying to shut down anyone, I'm honestly trying to converse)

I don't really know much about Final Fantasy, so that was very informative, thank you!

As for your other points, I don't expect Phil to be ~The Voice~ at all. As I said before, I place more importance in voices actually belonging to the marginalised community Moonlight is about. I think his donations to local charities and involvement with Make A Wish are wonderful, and I especially love that they don't brag about their involvement with charities or use it for their own gain. Like I said, I think Phil is a lovely person, I believe that like Dan he holds liberal beliefs and I think the fact that so many different people in the youtube community have a lot of genuine respect for Phil and consider him to be a kind person speaks volumes for the sort of person Phil is.

I'm not attacking Phil or casting doubt on his personality or anything, I'm just saying people are entitled to question him (and Dan, and any other person in the public eye) and if people (myself included) felt that it was unfair to compare Moonlight with Manchester by the Sea without acknowledging the wider cultural importance of Moonlight then they're allowed to do that. I don't really see how doing so equates with holding Phil to impossible standards, and I don't think it's fair to assume that the people who have an issue with this are only talking about it to "pat themselves on the back" or anything.

[pearshaped34]

As much as I'd be interested in hearing Phil's opinions on just about every social and political issue out there I don't feel let down as others do that he doesn't choose to give said opinions. I consider both his and Dan's content to be be part of my mindless entertainment viewing category and I don't personally feel it some kind of requirement for people working in a public field that isn't connected to some social or political area them to give me their opinions on serious issues.

I don't consider it remotely disappointing if they choose to keep their views to themselves I think for someone in their position it's a valid and understandable choice. And admittedly I'm personally fairly confident from what I do see of Phil that his opinions won't repulse me and until he says something that makes me question that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And to be clear him saying he found one movie that has social and political importance kind of boring is not enough to make me question and judge his viewpoint on every major issue. Mostly because I can name a dozen movies (some of them critically claimed) on issues I care about deeply that I thought were boring. Those type of movies are not always riveting even when you care.

[SexyTrashCan]

[flurry]

As much as I'd be interested in hearing Phil's opinions on just about every social and political issue out there I don't feel let down as others do that he doesn't choose to give said opinions. I consider both his and Dan's content to be be part of my mindless entertainment viewing category and I don't personally feel it some kind of requirement for people working in a public field that isn't connected to some social or political area them to give me their opinions on serious issues.

I don't consider it remotely disappointing if they choose to keep their views to themselves I think for someone in their position it's a valid and understandable choice. And admittedly I'm personally fairly confident from what I do see of Phil that his opinions won't repulse me and until he says something that makes me question that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And to be clear him saying he found one movie that has social and political importance kind of boring is not enough to make me question and judge his viewpoint on every major issue. Mostly because I can name a dozen movies (some of them critically claimed) on issues I care about deeply that I thought were boring. Those type of movies are not always riveting even when you care.

Thank you. Exactly my thoughts. Also not expecting Dan/Phil to provide social commentary is not the same as consuming their videos mindlessly. Everyone wants something different out of watching YouTube - if I really wanted to have such commentary a) I won't go to YouTube b) even if I did I would go to the Hank brothers etc. So I'm confused as to why people would expect D&P to provide things beyond light entertainment. After all the majority of their viewers watch their videos and not really their liveshows so that's the group that they are catering to as well.

Again, just my thoughts.

[mio]

As much as I'd be interested in hearing Phil's opinions on just about every social and political issue out there I don't feel let down as others do that he doesn't choose to give said opinions. I consider both his and Dan's content to be be part of my mindless entertainment viewing category and I don't personally feel it some kind of requirement for people working in a public field that isn't connected to some social or political area them to give me their opinions on serious issues.

Totally with you on the mindless entertainment viewing category, and I think nobody expects him (or Dan actually) to change their main channel content to socio-political commentary. It'd just be great of him to use his voice on twitter or in his liveshows to touch on social issues every now and then, like acknowledging the underlying importance of a movie when he's reviewing it. But I really dont want to focus all this on one instance, it's more of a bigger issue that itched me a few times already whenever he was talking about something without grasping the bigger political context. Not that he's not an absolute lovely person, he just gives off the apolitical-because-he-can vibe sometimes.
But he's clealy been evolving lately and I love that new direction

edit: why the hell am I still awake and watching the oscars? and who can link me to some good live trashtalking of jimmy kimmel on twitter?