azara wrote:With all of this talk of whether or not the comments about the structure were offensive - why don't you just ask someone who's actually a First Nations member? It looks like everyone here is busy deciding what is and isn't offensive to other people. Why would you spend so much of your energy being offended on behalf of someone else? You'll find the world a lot less 'problematic' if you see it that way...
I'm First Nations and I did make a post talking about how I find it disappointing and ignorant if not outright offensive. It's a page or two back.
It's really heartwarming to read all these thoughtful posts, this is the exact sort of thing that needs to happen. If no one who wasn't First Nations spoke up about stuff like this, our voice would be so small and nothing would ever change. We need people to speak up and be "offended on behalf of someone else", otherwise people remain bystanders and let small issues like this AND bigger issues slip by. That leaves the members of the groups being targeted feeling alone, and makes the people saying offensive things think it's ok. Ignoring problematic things just bc you can doesn't make them go away, it just leaves the people affected alone. Discussion like what we have here is what makes change!
Edit: Thank you Mio!
this (and also to your other post)
and everything that mermaid and mio said
ah, imagine the amount of arguments we could avoid if people understood that correcting someone or pointing out a mistake doesn't mean you hate that person and it definitely isn't censorship
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:05 am
by anathema
I agree that the monument thing is pretty yikes, but it's not Dan and Phil's job to catch their mistake. That's what the editor is there for.
uglyamerican wrote:
My favorite photo of Phil is on page 53 [US edition.] If you have seen "Young Frankenstein," you'll get it. I haven't decided which photo of Dan I like best.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:08 am
by azara
I wrote out a reponse, but it appears to be have eaten by the posting machine. I don't really feel like doing it again (I get the impression that nobody will agree anyway), but I'll reiterate what I said, more or less.
I'm sorry @adonias that you were offended by the comments. I must not have seen your post, as I wasn't inclined to read all four pages of mostly repetitive argument. Thanks for offering your view and insight.
To clarify, I believe that we should have empathy for the suffering of others. You'll never find me arguing that we shouldn't care about genocides, wars, or serious inequality within the community. Of course we should!
I perceived this whole slew of posts as a huge overreaction to a minor issue, considering the comments weren't in any way intended to be offensive in the first place.
I view others deciding what should, or shouldn't, be offensive to other people, especially minorities, as somewhat degrading. By all means listen to what those directly impacted say; even ask them how they feel about something, if you think they might be uncomfortable. But these posts have gone far beyond that point, and most are written by people completely disassociated from the comments or their potential impacts.
I don't have a position on offence either way, as I am one of the disassociated.
Just saw a comment about how people shouldn't feel 'attacked'. I was referred to as horrifying and one of the reasons a poster hates people about a page back. That's definitely an attack...just saying.
And I'll add something I didn't say before: through blowing these very minor incidents out of proportion, you lose validity with the wider community for any other social justice causes you may promote. Perhaps keep that in mind.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:25 am
by pearshaped34
Catallena wrote:
It doesn't mean much, like Phil was randomly in the red earlier this week an he hasn't even posted in 2 weeks. But considering #DAPGOOSE was uploaded yesterday, these numbers are very telling in that some people are fed up with the amount content for books and tours.
I don't know about Dan's numbers today but on the 2nd when Phil shows a minus number in subs it seems all youtubers have a blank number where their daily view counts should go and a number of them lost subs. I read a discussion elsewhere and apparently Zoella lost around 3000 subs that day and I think for her that is very inconsistent as she's usually gaining at least that amount so I think YT was up to something that day rather then that being a reflection of actual people clicking unsub on that particular day.
That being said neither Dan and Phil's growth rate has been amazing lately. But then for the amount of effort they've been putting into their YT channels since the American tour maybe the fact they've managed to remain consistently in the green is amazing. Not every youtuber can do that.
I checked out Tyler Oakley's numbers a while back after someone making a comment on here and how fast his falling should be a warning sign to all big youtubers.
At the time I looked he was not only showing consistent red numbers for daily subs but his monthly view counts had went from like 12-20 million a month to around 2-5million in year-to-year comparison.
If you're relying on your YT income primarily that is a big drop in money coming in.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:37 am
by karma_yeah
I took a look at the views for spooky week and only FNAF has over a million views. Of course, the baking vid has 1.5 million already. No surprise there.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:04 am
by pearshaped34
eevee wrote:
I'm going to go ahead and call you all out for being selective SJWs. Listen, I agree that calling a religious monument "creepy af" is insensitive and ignorant. Potentially harmful. Listen, I agree.
But I don't want to hear any of you saying that if you try to defend Dan (and now Phil) for their consent jokes.
I know this is a few pages back but I'm playing catch-up and this post seriously bothers me and I need to comment on it.
Going back a few threads (about mid-October) I recall a discussion where a poster put something on here about being offended about some posts Dan made on social media which they viewed as being mocking to the Christian religion and you made a (respectful) post back basically saying you disagreed they were offensive. Which was a perfectly nice and acceptable response but what is not acceptable is you now telling people unless they are upset about the consent joke issue that upsets you they are not entitled to be offended by the completely unconnected inukshuk monument comments in the book.
By your own logic unless you are going to also be offended by the potentially religious mocking posts that offended that one poster what right do you have to be offended by the completely and totally unrelated issue of the consent jokes?
Or is it not all or nothing in that case? You can say the religion thing wasn't offensive and are then okay to go on to still champion the causes that offend you but no one else can unless they also support the things you personally find offensive?
People can and will pick what offends them at will and sorry but you can't decide what offends other people even if you think a particular issue should be universally offensive.
(Disclaimer- I personally am not offended by anything I've mentioned in this message but I respect other people's right to be so however I do not respect people telling other people they need to support something completely unrelated before they are allowed to give commentary on another issue.)
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 4:54 am
by Breatherepeat
Starting 2:55
Starting 4:12
Same antics. Same sexual innuendo. Love it.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:16 am
by mysterylovescompany
pearshaped34 wrote:(Disclaimer- I personally am not offended by anything I've mentioned in this message but I respect other people's right to be so however I do not respect people telling other people they need to support something completely unrelated before they are allowed to give commentary on another issue.)
Just want to say that I agree with you. Social justice covers a wide range of topics, and they're certainly not all related. Kudos to IckleMissMayhem for trying to lighten the mood.
Personally, I have always thought of Dan's comments re consent as normalising the issue and putting it in regular vocabulary. It's not necessarily sexual. So it doesn't offend me at all. It means I'm often reminded of it, and that's a good thing in my mind.
I don't really have an opinion on the dapgo monument picture because I know little about Indigenous Canadian cultures, but the caption did make me stop for a second when I read it. It made me think of tourists who climb Uluru even though the local Aboriginals specifically ask people not to. In the end, calling it 'creepy AF' was definitely a thoughtless comment.
Here's hoping for a new AP video soon! Spooky week got me spoilt.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:48 am
by JoeAverage
Catching up with the thread and here are my two cents:
I personally don't feel I'm educated enough on this regard to make a long comment on what is acceptable what is not, life has taught me to never just talk for the sake of talking, specially on deep subjects, but I just wanted to say that from what I have been reading I feel everyone is actually on the same side here, just we are differing in some aspects:
-We all agree that deppy are not bad people and at most were just acting ignorant.
-That it's kind of ridiculous that the editors left that in but alcohol out.
-That the first nations people have suffered more than enough and should be respected, just as their culture.
-and that education is important.
What we disagree I think can be summed in the following:
-I'm offended
-I'm not offended
It all comes as a personal thing, it's okay to be offended and it's ok to not be, it's not okay to disregard either because it differs from your opinion. It's also not okay to minimize the pain of other people just because you have not lived it, but I don't think this is what is happening here, like I have stated before, we are all in the same side just not agreeing on a personal "Its bothering me" level and that's okay, we cannot change people's feelings on some stuff just as people can't change ours.
I am not expert at all, and I am still reading thru all of it so if anyone finds anything wrong or lacking please dm me, I will appreciate it.
trashqueen wrote:
ah, imagine the amount of arguments we could avoid if people understood that correcting someone or pointing out a mistake doesn't mean you hate that person and it definitely isn't censorship
I agree, educating someone is another form of showing them appreciation and respect. Knowledge is power.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:05 am
by frkin-zazzed
JoeAverage wrote:Catching up with the thread and here are my two cents:
I personally don't feel I'm educated enough on this regard to make a long comment on what is acceptable what is not, life has taught me to never just talk for the sake of talking, specially on deep subjects, but I just wanted to say that from what I have been reading I feel everyone is actually on the same side here, just we are differing in some aspects:
-We all agree that deppy are not bad people and at most were just acting ignorant.
-That it's kind of ridiculous that the editors left that in but alcohol out.
-That the first nations people have suffered more than enough and should be respected, just as their culture.
-and that education is important.
What we disagree I think can be summed in the following:
-I'm offended
-I'm not offended
It all comes as a personal thing, it's okay to be offended and it's ok to not be, it's not okay to disregard either because it differs from your opinion. It's also not okay to minimize the pain of other people just because you have not lived it, but I don't think this is what is happening here, like I have stated before, we are all in the same side just not agreeing on a personal "Its bothering me" level and that's okay, we cannot change people's feelings on some stuff just as people can't change ours.
I am not expert at all, and I am still reading thru all of it so if anyone finds anything wrong or lacking please dm me, I will appreciate it.
trashqueen wrote:
ah, imagine the amount of arguments we could avoid if people understood that correcting someone or pointing out a mistake doesn't mean you hate that person and it definitely isn't censorship
I agree, educating someone is another form of showing them appreciation and respect. Knowledge is power.
after catching up on this whole thread today i agree wholeheartedly. bolded some of the things i think are particularly important in your post
thanks for the resources as well, i'll be sure to read them once i'm done for the summer tomorrow
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:38 am
by Artdefines06
Jeeze I leave for a day...
Just gotta state my side of the fence because that what a forum is for - The consent jokes always seem in good taste to me, because he's taking the side of the victim. If he was making fun of consent, or joking about how the victim needs it, it would be different. Instead he is lecturing the intruder. As someone who has been an abusive situation, I approve and am happy when he makes these comments.
"Canadian Stonehenge" - I went to the one in london. I remember it was the coldest I have ever been (we went in january) and that no one could tell us who had made them, or why. I think they helped tell time, or the change of the seasons with the way the sun cast shadows? No one, including the people working there and our tour guide, seemed very impressed with the history of it, more the mystery of it. No offence, but the english did a pretty thorough job of erasing any history of its original people, so an obliviousness toward the fact that it might be important to aboriginals is pretty unsurprising from a couple of white boys from england.
JOkes that Dan makes that DO bother me are the "This looks like a good place to jump off a bridge" or "Should I just end my life now" jokes over stupid sht like not getting a pokemon, or embarrasment. That is not something to joke around about in any way.
But then again, the rules are fuzzier for comedians. Dan does consider himself a comedian when the camera is on, so maybe he is aware of what he is saying and just thinks it's ok because he has some free comedian pass. idk.
"You try so hard to be peaceful and diplometic, but you can't make toast without tumblr saying your problemetic"
Well, this is what happens when you are problematic dan. If you want to be some shining icon of social awareness, it needs to be all the time. Just think WWPCPD (what would PC Principal do?)
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:56 am
by hiddenwombat
[offtopic]#DAPGOOSE: at 50:59 Phil takes a question from the goose, reads it and very quickly throws it on the floor. I wonder what it was, I've not seen him nope so fast before.[/offtopic]
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:28 am
by hmm
Artdefines06 wrote:
The consent jokes always seem in good taste to me, because he's taking the side of the victim. If he was making fun of consent, or joking about how the victim needs it, it would be different. Instead he is lecturing the intruder. As someone who has been an abusive situation, I approve and am happy when he makes these comments.
...
Jokes that Dan makes that DO bother me are the "This looks like a good place to jump off a bridge" or "Should I just end my life now" jokes over stupid sht like not getting a pokemon, or embarrassment. That is not something to joke around about in any way.
but also there are different types of consent jokes dan makes- some (like about physically touching other people, glozell ect.) i think are probably helpful in bringing awareness about what consent is. But some of the jokes about consent for touching objects seem to trivialise the concept (but come from a well-meaning place). To me some of them seem similar to Dan's comment once in a liveshow that being transgender is okay, you can even choose to be a pineapple.
The other issue with them is that the mention of consent triggers some victims of assault- genuinely am undecided on this but dan could make consent jokes less frequently, and maybe more so in his liveshows rather than his danisnotonfire content.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:48 am
by 000dia000
hiddenwombat wrote:[offtopic]#DAPGOOSE: at 50:59 Phil takes a question from the goose, reads it and very quickly throws it on the floor. I wonder what it was, I've not seen him nope so fast before.[/offtopic]
I re-watched it and saw the little frown oh my...
I a have a feeling that these comments were moderated? There weren't many in the goose sack, so I'm inclined to believe it was just something he felt was too long-winded or awkward for him in subject manner. Possibly a question that was already discussed somewhat and he decided to scrap it? I don't think it was anything too bad but then again the first question from the mother was rather cringe. Maybe it was something similar but Phil doesn't have the awkward half-answering ability Dan has?
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:51 am
by akui
Dear white people, when a minority complain to you about a racial problem, the only correct answer is: I might not fully relate, but I respect.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:15 pm
by jesuisunèléve
akui wrote:Dear white people, when a minority complain to you about a racial problem, the only correct answer is: I might not fully relate, but I respect.
What, you sayin' colored folks can't be tourists?
This type of thing isn't regulated to being white. An uninformed tourist comes in all flavors.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:16 pm
by dezzawintz
fancybum, yesss. I echo everyone's sentiments, great post.
Gonna put all of this under a spoiler for those who aren't interested in discussing what is and isn't problematic though you ought to be. We all ought to be. Sick one if it doesn't affect your life in any way but not everyone is so lucky.
mermaid blood wrote:lmfao! if anyone is bored of reading only 2.5 pages of thoughtful criticism on an important political topic and jumps straight to '"no one can do anything anymore! we just shouldn't even speak!" you need to check your empathy levels and your privilege.
This. A thousand times this.
adonais, thank you for your input. I'm sorry that it made you feel gross
I'll be honest, they could have done better on this one. Of course they didn't mean to say anything harmful, but most people don't deliberately set out to hurt others when they make offensive remarks. It upset people, and that matters whether you think it should have upset them or not. I still adore them and I'll still stan them, but there's no harm in talking about the times they drop the ball. We should talk about every single time anyone drops the ball, so we can all live a joyous life where we all hold balls and no one is marginalised. (I see ya, dirty minded fuckers. Balls for all.)
As for consent, I'm of the belief that he makes those comments to deal with personal stuff, but it's still incredibly important to talk about the after effects of that. eevee has every right to be uncomfortable with it, and I just want to point out that you don't choose to be distressed by something. Literally not one single person in the entire world wants to be triggered (and to anyone rolling their eyes at that word, I just want to remind you that it's a legitimate symptom for people with post traumatic stress disorder and other mental health issues. It refers to the catalyst of a flashback, or panic/anxiety attack not someone finding something vaguely upsetting, and I fucking hate that it's become a meme but that's a different rant for another time.)
Talking about these things ISN'T A BAD THING, and NO ONE IS TRYING TO CENSOR ANYONE. Deppy do and say tons of stuff that various people might find upsetting, because they're rich white boys who've had a lot of good fortune and started out with a lot of privilege. For example, I don't like it when Dan starts every liveshow pop culture rant with "you'll know about this if you're cultured" and/or infers that only cool people will get his reference/joke/meme/whatthefuckever, because I grew up in poverty and under the rule of an abuser who strictly controlled what I was and wasn't allowed to consume. Some people don't have the means to be cool; I'm roughly his age and I didn't have access to a computer until 2008, and you bet your sweet arse that when I finally did I wasn't allowed to download the latest sweet fucking tunes. Every time he does it I'm reminded of a time where I existed outside of pop culture, entirely unable to relate to the people around me whenever they talked about their favourite show or band, and I'll be honest, it isn't a time I like to remember.
Is it a small complaint? Probably. Does it get to me? Yeah, definitely. Do I hate him for it? Of course not; as far as I know he hasn't lived like that, so it makes sense that it wouldn't occur to him. Does that invalidate my feelings? Fuck, no. Do said feelings make me an oversensitive flower who needs to get a grip? No, and I'll tell you for why: the people that you might think are being overly precious and complaining about every breath deppy take are largely people who have lived through great adversity. If it seems like we're being "too much" to you or moaning unnecessarily, it's likely because these things haven't affected you, not because we're weaklings who need to get a grip. We raise these issues precisely because we have previously coped and dealt with unimaginably horrific events or situations; we're stronger than our complaints have lead you to believe, and asking people to consider them seems entirely fair if you ask me.
Anyway, rant over. Sorry if this seems aggressive, I just had some feelings and I typed them all out in one go. Dezza out, peace
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:26 pm
by mio
jesuisunèléve wrote:
akui wrote:Dear white people, when a minority complain to you about a racial problem, the only correct answer is: I might not fully relate, but I respect.
What, you sayin' colored folks can't be tourists?
This type of thing isn't regulated to being white. An uninformed tourist comes in all flavors.
Hmm, I think this is not about being uninformed tourists but about power imbalances and historical implications.
e.g. I live in a european country with a lot of historical places but I couldn't care less if idk some chinese tourists made fun of the way an old castle looks. And that's because we don't have a history of chinese people coming and murdering our people and taking away our land.
Two white british guys joking about a first nations monument... that's a bit different.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:29 pm
by SquishPhan
akui wrote:Dear white people, when a minority complain to you about a racial problem, the only correct answer is: I might not fully relate, but I respect.
Wow, good to know that as a white person I have no right to my own opinion on things.
Also the people who brought this problem up in the first place where white, or at least not indiginous themselves.
Since then someone from First Nations has expressed that they felt unhappy with it and I can respect that.
I agree that it wasn't very smart move from the boys nor their publishers, but I still however do not think this is such a big deal as it was made out to be. I also still stand by my point that I hope the people who were offended by it (which they are obviously allowed to be) do their part to help native people irl. Not being sarcastic or anything, really just hope that people put money where their mouth is and help out.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:30 pm
by DryCereal
akui wrote:Dear white people, when a minority complain to you about a racial problem, the only correct answer is: I might not fully relate, but I respect.
Racist. Bonus patronsing attitude though too. Nice.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:39 pm
by uglyamerican
azara wrote:
.....And I'll add something I didn't say before: through blowing these very minor incidents out of proportion, you lose validity with the wider community for any other social justice causes you may promote. Perhaps keep that in mind.
+1
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:41 pm
by notworthreading
IckleMissMayhem wrote:
akui wrote:Dear white people, when a minority complain to you about a racial problem, the only correct answer is: I might not fully relate, but I respect.
Racist. Bonus patronsing attitude though too. Nice.
at the risk of adding fuel to the fire I'd just like to point out that the "white = oppressing majority culture" paradigm isn't always correct, particularly in Europe where oppressed ethnic/regional/racial minorities are usually white.
but also, it is hard to judge someone's tone on a forum, particularly when English is a second language for a lot of people here, and there's a lot of potential for misinterpretation of posts.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 1:01 pm
by SquishPhan
uglyamerican wrote:
azara wrote:
.....And I'll add something I didn't say before: through blowing these very minor incidents out of proportion, you lose validity with the wider community for any other social justice causes you may promote. Perhaps keep that in mind.
+1
+ 2
notworthreading wrote:
IckleMissMayhem wrote:
akui wrote:Dear white people, when a minority complain to you about a racial problem, the only correct answer is: I might not fully relate, but I respect.
Racist. Bonus patronsing attitude though too. Nice.
Saying that all white people are not allowed to have an opinion on something does sound racist to me. Racism does go both ways.
mez29 wrote:at the risk of adding fuel to the fire I'd just like to point out that the "white = oppressing majority culture" paradigm isn't always correct, particularly in Europe where oppressed ethnic/regional/racial minorities are usually white.
Re: Dan & Phil Part 30: I want your ass
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 1:11 pm
by 000dia000
discourse is important
but what the fuck has this got to do with dan and phil anymore?
