alittledizzy wrote:Possible reasons Dan isn't tweeting:
- He's playing the genocide route of Undertale. He'll emerge sometime mid-January with a soul deadened by the amount of pixelated murder his hands have committed.
- He's with Phil on the Isle of Man.
- Romantic getaway with the secret girlfriend he met on his secret tinder profile.
- He's with Phil in London already, both of them graduated ninja school and can travel entirely undercover now.
- He's made a Christmas tradition of breaking his phone and can't get it fixed.
- The wifi/phone service is just epic bad this year.
- He's with Martyn on the Isle of Man. #dartyn
- He's too busy contemplating which IDB Awards categories to vote for, has no time for tweeting.
- They eloped on Boxing Day. Honeymoon in Japan for the new year.
- This year he's decided to focus on his holiday time on the true reason for the season: bonding with Colin the dog.
- Moving - he's busy organising all the new storage they finally have.
- FFXV
- Been kidnapped by a demon/stalker/Nick Jonas
- They got a puppy, and Dan is stuck house-training/cleaning up "accidents".
- They got a puppy, and Dan has completely forgotten about his pre-puppy life cos of the fuzzy little fluffball.
- Secret project #325543675 - in space. Super-top secret.
brilliant.
I think ninja school might have just been the escape the room thing they did, btw.
annetamiau wrote:Or... Dan and Phil are busy moving to their new house. Dun dun duuuuun.
IckleMissMayhem wrote:
- Moving - he's busy organising all the new storage they finally have.
- FFXV
- Been kidnapped by a demon/stalker/Nick Jonas
- They got a puppy, and Dan is stuck house-training/cleaning up "accidents".
- They got a puppy, and Dan has completely forgotten about his pre-puppy life cos of the fuzzy little fluffball.
- Secret project #325543675 - in space. Super-top secret.
Okay, the moving one - too real. Please, pleaaaaaaaase. FFXV - though would he really betray Phil by playing that without him?
a few more to consider:
- Dan has devoted his last week of December to painting a mural of Phil's ladybug shirt selfie.
- Actual hibernation. Bear is not a nickname, it is Dan's animal form.
- Dirty weekend in Brighton with PJ.
- They're trying to hit 100 on Bubble Bobble still, but not filming it, because we don't deserve that.
- He's trying to find a shoebox big enough to fit all his Kanye memorabilia into, so he can cry over it then hide it under his bed.
- They're busy being happy.
i just made an account to jump into the recent discussion about queerbaiting. now i don't know if you've been talking about this in depth before aha as i've only been lurking for a month or so, so in case i'm merely repeating things, please bear with me. however, the question that comes to mind for me every time i see this term floating around with regards to deppy is: is it even possible for real people to queerbait. now, don't get me wrong, i (think i) do understand where the sentiment comes from. say, for example, dan would suddenly start saying "no homo" unironically again, i'd say that in the wake of things he talked about especially this year like "it's hard to put you in a box" in the diss track or talking about "gayness" in this exact phrasing in a life show, it would be insensitive at the least. (i honestly don't think there is a chance he will, just creating a hypothetical example.) however, this would be about things they actually and explicitely said - and as we all know, these instances don't amount to a lot with deppy. they don't talk explicitely about neither their relationship nor their orientation. now queerbaiting is a term that was coined for fictional characters and plot lines, therefore originally refers to content that is scripted and cannot be applied to spontaneous behaviour. if someone were to accuse deppy of queerbaiting in full sobriety, they would have to mean that they sit down every trimester and decide on how exactly to act and which moments to fabricate so that the phan ship is fueled most efficiently and their viewer statistics profit the most. i'm overdramatizing, of course, but the way i understand the term (and going by all definitions i have seen), that's basically what it would have to come down: fabricated, scripted moments, that are consciously and deliberately included in order to falsely make viewers believe they might be lgbt and/or a couple so that they stick around because of that.
however, i see (mostly) two problems with this notion. first of all, as deppy do not even address this topic themselves, everything we know and see is filtered by how we as the audience perceive it. as it's for example seen quite often in reactions to their videos here, while someone might perceive a certain action or scene as deliberately flirty, the person next to them will see it in a completely different light. that means that the whole discussion does not have an even ground to be based on in the first place if we judge other things than what they say explicitely. take that away and we only have two men addressing each other as "mates" or best friends, which is not a basis on which we can accuse them of baiting. the problem i see underlying all of this is that most accusations of queerbaiting i've seen so far are in fact based on behaviour, not statements, which means that it is all based on a "measure" which sort of behaviour is considered as "leading the audience on" in some way or the other, which i feel like is hugely problematic in itself.
secondly, we don't know which part of their behaviour is scripted and which is genuine or spontaneous. it's fair to make the assumption that part of it is scripted or at least played up or exaggerated. it is even, in my opinion, fair to make some assumptions about which parts these are, as we've seen some candid moments we can take as a reference, and we've had instances of them talking about playing up certain aspects (for example recently dan's competitiveness although it's kind of hard to believe, isn't it?). however, this doesn't mean we can extrapolate this to every instant and tell for sure whether something was spontaneous or scripted.
now i suppose that some might not use the term "queerbaiting" for scripted behaviour exclusively, but for example also when discussing which candid moments are shown to us and which are kept private. i'm talking a situation where, say, something happens, deppy are aware that showing it to the audience will fuel the ship, and deliberately include the moment in a video for the views/discussion. nevertheless, however we might feel about this, i don't think this is a case to which the term applies, because even if it is consciously included, it is still unscripted behaviour.
tl;dr i don't think the term "queerbaiting" can be applied to real people and we should be reluctant in its use because of its implications.
please note that i'm not jumping into this discussion accusing anyone specifically to have been thoughtless etc., this post was really not meant to attack or criticize - only general thoughts on this topic i've had for a while. the instances i've referred to are mostly things i've seen on other platforms and i've made this post mostly to put my thoughts in order and to join in an interesting discussion (for which i'm slightly late, i know).
alittledizzy wrote:FFXV - though would he really betray Phil by playing that without him?
You know he would. Alternatively, they might've watched Kingsglaive together, then fought over who got to play the game first, and Phil's killed Dan in the ultimate DvP... Or, y'know, "accidentally"
- Bondage gone wrong. Phil lost the key to the handcuffs, and Dan's stuck for the time being...
alittledizzy wrote:- They're busy being happy.
Well, if you insist on being sensible and realistic... Go on then. I'll settle for this one!
IckleMissMayhem's evil fic writing alter ego. :twisted:
lurker wrote:tl;dr i don't think the term "queerbaiting" can be applied to real people and we should be reluctant in its use because of its implications.
I agree with a lot of your post, but to avoid quoting too much of it I'm just going to distill it down to this line. I think the problem here is going to be in how people fundamentally approach Dan and Phil; people who believe strongly that what we see aren't the real Dan and Phil rely heavily on that to explain how queerbaiting can apply to this (as they see it) fictionalized version of real people. Dan and Phil, if you believe they scripting their own personas and videos to that extent, can queerbait.
But I personally don't see Dan and Phil as scripting that much. I don't think selectively choosing which facets of your personality you want to expose to your audience of millions is the same as fictionializing, therefore I agree that I think queerbaiting isn't the right word. (I mean, I'd go with closeted, but to each their own.) The line of thought - judging someone else's sexuality or expression of it by the standards of assuming that they're doing it somehow because of you - seems inherently selfish to me too. The fandom culture preaches self-acceptance but leaves no room for celebrities to have a learning curve of their own, instead believing that everything they do must be in some way because of fans (to misguide them, to manipulate them, etc) and that if they are legitimately non-het they have an expectation to come out (to clear up fans confusion, to be representation, etc).
I don't go visit my grandmother and walk into the room announcing my sexuality to her. If I'm at a work event with people I don't know, I might choose discretion as a default. If I'm at a party with friends, I might be more open. Closets comes in many forms. None of that invalidates my actual sexuality. The same way I believe it makes sense that Dan and Phil at one point openly identified as bisexual, then decided they were no longer comfortable sharing that identity as their audience grew. They may grow more comfortable again. That comfort may manifest in a different way. That's how actually living in the world and being queer works.
Basically, imo: Dan and Phil have the right to decide what type of audience they're comfortable being up front about their sexuality to, except - if they're accused of queerbaiting the moment they deviate from what fans think should be the narrow line between 'telling the truth' and 'lying' then actually don't really get that right. So not only is the phrase queerbaiting technically wrong, imo, it's dehumanizing in that it reduces real people to fictional concepts.
IckleMissMayhem wrote:
alittledizzy wrote:- They're busy being happy.
Well, if you insist on being sensible and realistic... Go on then. I'll settle for this one!
idk if we're talking sensible and realistic I think your secret project in space one might really be it.
i just made an account to jump into the recent discussion about queerbaiting. now i don't know if you've been talking about this in depth before aha as i've only been lurking for a month or so, so in case i'm merely repeating things, please bear with me. however, the question that comes to mind for me every time i see this term floating around with regards to deppy is: is it even possible for real people to queerbait.
tl;dr i don't think the term "queerbaiting" can be applied to real people and we should be reluctant in its use because of its implications.
Welcome!
Thanks for your post. I'm one who struggles with sometimes viewing Deppy's behavior as queerbaiting. In that light it's interesting to consider that behavior can't be queerbaiting because behavior just is. It seems like the essence of the arguement is that behavior can't lie, only words can. Certainly, many philosophers have argued this point!
lurker wrote:now queerbaiting is a term that was coined for fictional characters and plot lines, therefore originally refers to content that is scripted and cannot be applied to spontaneous behaviour. if someone were to accuse deppy of queerbaiting in full sobriety, they would have to mean that they sit down every trimester and decide on how exactly to act and which moments to fabricate so that the phan ship is fueled most efficiently and their viewer statistics profit the most. i'm overdramatizing, of course, but the way i understand the term (and going by all definitions i have seen), that's basically what it would have to come down: fabricated, scripted moments, that are consciously and deliberately included in order to falsely make viewers believe they might be lgbt and/or a couple so that they stick around because of that.
however, i see (mostly) two problems with this notion. first of all, as deppy do not even address this topic themselves, everything we know and see is filtered by how we as the audience perceive it. as it's for example seen quite often in reactions to their videos here, while someone might perceive a certain action or scene as deliberately flirty, the person next to them will see it in a completely different light. that means that the whole discussion does not have an even ground to be based on in the first place if we judge other things than what they say explicitely. take that away and we only have two men addressing each other as "mates" or best friends, which is not a basis on which we can accuse them of baiting. the problem i see underlying all of this is that most accusations of queerbaiting i've seen so far are in fact based on behaviour, not statements, which means that it is all based on a "measure" which sort of behaviour is considered as "leading the audience on" in some way or the other, which i feel like is hugely problematic in itself.
secondly, we don't know which part of their behaviour is scripted and which is genuine or spontaneous. it's fair to make the assumption that part of it is scripted or at least played up or exaggerated. it is even, in my opinion, fair to make some assumptions about which parts these are, as we've seen some candid moments we can take as a reference, and we've had instances of them talking about playing up certain aspects (for example recently dan's competitiveness although it's kind of hard to believe, isn't it?). however, this doesn't mean we can extrapolate this to every instant and tell for sure whether something was spontaneous or scripted.
now i suppose that some might not use the term "queerbaiting" for scripted behaviour exclusively, but for example also when discussing which candid moments are shown to us and which are kept private. i'm talking a situation where, say, something happens, deppy are aware that showing it to the audience will fuel the ship, and deliberately include the moment in a video for the views/discussion. nevertheless, however we might feel about this, i don't think this is a case to which the term applies, because even if it is consciously included, it is still unscripted behaviour.
tl;dr i don't think the term "queerbaiting" can be applied to real people and we should be reluctant in its use because of its implications.
Good post, but I think it can be applied to "real people" in some cases. We're not talking about Dan & Phil down the shop, we're talking about people entertaining an audience on a media platform. Queerbaiting, as described above: actions consciously and deliberately included in order to falsely make viewers believe they might be lgbt and/or a couple so that they stick around because of that can be done on YT just as easily as on Supernatural. But the difference here is Dan & Phil aren't falsely putting forward the possibility of lgbtness to lure in an audience that craves that; they're literally just living their lives acting like themselves (or close enough in a relatively-staged-for-the-camera kind of way). Queerbaiting in fiction is so infuriating because it dances around lgbt relationships with no actual intent to ever deliver (Dean & Castiel looking like a possibility and then being reduced to a running joke because Dean is STRAIGHT and he's a man's man m'kay, like lol go watch a gay show fangirls because Dean's not into that, ok? ok. but they'll still be close and even homoerotic sometimes for the 'benefits' without any of that icky actual gay stuff or any real world implications). Dan & Phil haven't declared they're straight, so "acting" (ughghghghg) like they could be otherwise is their own fucking business and to reduce their lives (their consistent words and actions over years) to some kind of devious charade to bring in views and money at the expense of the validity of personal sexual identity is kind of fucked up? Like hardcore fucked up and insulting to lgbt people as a whole? Just a bit? Like D&P's actual lives aren't a fiction calculatingly hinting at future delivery of what an audience wants and it's ridiculous to chalk up every action or perceived flirting or whatever to a fake out intended to reel in non-straight viewers. Just no.
also literally everything alittledizzy said because I'm too slow.
I have some (probably late) comments/thoughts of Phil misgendering Frisk which are therefore behind the spoiler:
I noticed the misgendering at the time, and honestly it upset me. Frisk is always referred to by 'they' pronouns, and is deliberately visually androgynous, and I have no doubt that comments have made them well aware that Frisk is considered nb, so it was a shame to see Phil gender them as female despite that - and a bit of a call back to them both trying to gender them right back at the beginning of the game. I agree that it does imply that Phil hasn't fully internalised the concept of non-binary genders, as bisexualshoemarriage mentioned before, even if he is aware of them. Yes, of course, Western society is utterly rubbish at this and it's hard to learn/overcome that conditioning, but a slip like that - on something like pronouns - to me implies more than just simple misspeaking. In this case I would suggest Phil misspoke despite knowing that Frisk is nb because he hasn't got that concept set in his mind well enough to overcome the instinct to gender them.
Even awareness of nb genders does set him above a good proportion of humanity, and I do recognise fancybum's point - just in trying to speak sensitively and not upset people Phil is doing very well, really, but it's not the same thing as fully understanding/accepting/internalising the existence of nb people. He's always going to fail at speaking sensitively if it's not something he actually looks to understand - by which I don't mean memorising every single possible gender in the world, just looking into enough to both understand and retain that some people just aren't men or women. Dan seems to be a bit better in this regard as he will consistently include mention of nb people when he speaks to his audience generally in liveshows now, but I remember Phil making a comment in another one of the gamingmas videos (I don’t remember and can’t find which one, sorry, I did try!) in which he used ‘men and women’ (or something along those lines) to mean ‘people’, and yeah, that does suck. As he’s aware of nb genders - I assume, I’m sure there have been some comments to imply so? - then it is a bit rubbish to still consistently exclude nb people. I don’t mean to suggest that it’s in any way intentional, I don’t think that at all, but it is just upsetting every time he does it.
As for why Dan seems to be allergic to twitter (loving all of the suggestions so far!):
- they're in Japan and Dan can't work out the time difference to tweet at normal times. (Phil took photos and scheduled all his tweets before leaving.)
- Phil was packing up the flat while Dan edited gamingmas videos and now Dan's unpacking it all in the new place and it doesn't have wifi yet.
- Colin ate his phone.
- he's absorbed in trying to figure out how he can steal Colin without his family realising it was him, or questioning his new identical dog.
alittledizzy wrote: I don't think selectively choosing which facets of your personality you want to expose to your audience of millions is the same as fictionializing, therefore I agree that I think queerbaiting isn't the right word. The line of thought - judging someone else's sexuality or expression of it by the standards of assuming that they're doing it somehow because of you - seems inherently selfish to me too. [...] So not only is the phrase queerbaiting technically wrong, imo, it's dehumanizing in that it reduces real people to fictional concepts.
your post was such a great addition to what i said, phrased much more coherent than what i might have come up. thanks for adding your thoughts!
fancybum wrote:Good post, but I think it can be applied to "real people" in some cases. We're not talking about Dan & Phil down the shop, we're talking about people entertaining an audience on a media platform. Queerbaiting, as described above: actions consciously and deliberately included in order to falsely make viewers believe they might be lgbt and/or a couple so that they stick around because of that can be done on YT just as easily as on Supernatural.
now that i've read yours and alittledizzy's reply, i do agree that there might be cases in which the term could be applicable - say, a youtuber with a vlog sort of channel that's based on a character/"persona" that shares only the name and (of course) looks with the person representing it. such a series of videos could have a "plot line" that is queerbaiting, in which case the creator could be held responsible. but as you've said as well, that's miles away from what we're seeing with dan and phil. (as far as we know, of course, maybe the conspiracies are true and they're both paid actors.) the term "fictionalizing" that alittledizzy mentioned probably sums this up best.
fancybum wrote:Dan & Phil haven't declared they're straight, so "acting" (ughghghghg) like they could be otherwise is their own fucking business and to reduce their lives (their consistent words and actions over years) to some kind of devious charade to bring in views and money at the expense of the validity of personal sexual identity is kind of fucked up?
i think that adds especially to the type of argumentation that is based on behaviour alone -- i'm imagining someone coming up to me and saying something like "you cut your hair short to look gayer, that means you're leading me on", which is overdramatizing again, of course, but still -- i think the narrative that certain behaviour is either "proof" or "baiting" just bugs me in general.
LeftHandedism wrote:
Welcome!
Thanks for your post. I'm one who struggles with sometimes viewing Deppy's behavior as queerbaiting. In that light it's interesting to consider that behavior can't be queerbaiting because behavior just is. It seems like the essence of the arguement is that behavior can't lie, only words can. Certainly, many philosophers have argued this point!
thanks for the welcome! and yes, that's basically where i was going if i had the ability to make a point without talking for five minutes.
Reason why Dan's not tweeting: Loved the lists, particularly the ninja-esque ability to move around in public without being recognized (not hard: no straightened hair or black skinny jeans,) but:
He's taking time off during the Christmas Break? Regular tweeting is actual work for these guys (except of course the posse down in SA at Caspar Lee's house... hold it, maybe that's another possibility... ) Slightly related: Caspar Lee has busted the 7M mark.
Dan has stolen Colin the Dog, he must now live the rest of his life avoiding family, friends and fans so that no one knows it was him. Goodbye Dan #Dolin
Loving all the where-are-they ideas. Dan trapped in bondage gone wrong (I'm sure they'd know to have shears or a small saw handy) or busy painting a mural of Phil's ladybird selfie
They did the escape the room thingy a few weeks ago, I think for friendmas.
I really don't think they have gone to Japan, if Phil's live show is next week it really doesn't give them much time to enjoy themselves properly unless they do the stream there which is highly unlikely.
Another #whereisdan scenario came to me in the shower:
Being a self-proclaimed Star Wars nerd, he could be in mourning for the death of Princess Leia / Carrie Fisher. And now sadly, the Queen Mother has also left this dimension.
Well i'm beaten to the punch by papierklemmen but it looks like we have at least found 12-years old Dan
Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
lurker wrote:i personally think dan has been lying face-down on the floor ever since phil posted the ladybug selfie like all of us. someone needs to check on him.
it's too late. He's been dead for 2 days. Phil killed Dan #confirmed.
You have been banned for creating multiple accounts. If you would like to get in touch with us about this, read this thread. Please do not create any more accounts.
