First of all, thisIckleMissMayhem wrote:Didn't they also sass how underwhelming Stonehenge was/is? Didn't see any fuss then.human wrote:Yeah, I don't think it's a huge deal either. There are lots of meaningful monuments in London and it doesn't bother me if people who don't know what they are make jokes about how they look. It's not like these people know the meaning behind the monument and are then still making the jokes about it; that would be pretty bad but not this imo.bantstrash wrote:Re the Canadian monument. Well they weren't wrong, it is like a canadian stonehenge. Stonehenge was/is a religious monument. It probably wasn't very respectful to say in the book it was creepy af but lots of religious monuments are creepy so I can understand them thinking it.
What next. People going to kick off cos they rehearsed for TATINOF in an old church?
There are two issues here, the landmark's being a thing of Canadian indigenous people with all the consequential colonialist implications (past mistreatment, current mistreatment, acceptance of responsibility, what Catallena said) and its having a spiritual significance. I don't think calling this landmark "Canadian Stonehenge" is somehow a colonialist dismissal. Actually, Stonehenge is a British equivalent if you count Romans' and Normans' invasions. Yes, the civilization that built it doesn't exist anymore contrary to today's Canada, but I think, for white English men not in any way personally or professionally involved with it, Deppy (or at least Dan, judging by the effect that visiting the British museum usually has on him) have demonstrated a pretty good awareness of the issues with colonialism in the past, so I don't really see how it was offensive from this point of view Disclaimer: I'm not Canadian and I was born an ethnic majority in country with a lot of indigenous peoples who've suffered a lot in the past, so it may not really be my place to talk about it. However, the encounters that I had with the indigenous people of my country during my late teenage years have essentially changed my whole world view and made me go professionally into human rights, so I've at least been trying for the past ten years to understand what I'm talking about.
As for the spiritual significance, either you can't sass it all (which is ridiculous, because that's literally what religious freedom and freedom of speech mean), or it's a case of double standards (see Stonehenge comments and any Deppy's comments on religion, basically, we even have a thread for it).
Now, for the consent. *takes a deep breath* First of all, eevee, if you want to be serious about it, it's not all about sex and sexual assault (not to diminish the graveness of sexual assault). There are whole groups of people living in this world who can't legally consent to anything, like minors and people under guardianship, be it elderly people or people with psychosocial disabilities or else. They can't choose where they want to live or what they want to spend their money on, they can't marry - or sometimes get a divorce of their own accord, they can't vote. They just don't get to consent, the decision is not theirs. Even when it is about sex, consent is a hugely complex issue, it's about free will and decision-making capacity and extends well beyond a simple "no means no" (it does, but it's not all).
But do Deppy actually remove the seriousness of consent by joking about it? Yes and no. Jokes can be a coping mechanism, a powerful tool to fight your fear (brilliantly illustrated in the HP with boggarts). That's why people make homophobic, racist and sexist jokes, because they are afraid of "the Other". But I want to highlight the fact that the premise of Dan's jokes is not that the consent is not important, but that it applies to everything. So it doesn't really diminishes its importance, it just shows that it's something he thinks about a lot and what's maybe been bothering him. In what context, we could only speculate: was it the Glozell incident? was it Onision? something else entirely or everything put together? I would say it has to do with the general influence that the phandom has on its life, but again, it's a pure speculation on my part. Now, would I like that if Dan used his platform to really educate people about consent? Very much so. Do I think he's capable of it? Sadly, no, I think he actually struggles with it and that's why he brings it up so much, like Phil with masculinity a couple of years ago. But he's learning and this is also a very good example for his audience where they can see his evolution.
eevee wrote:I knew someone was gonna bring up the "using jokes to cope" argument and I don't have anything to say to that because I don't know how violated he actually felt and if he's coping. But I still feel like he should consider the impact of his remarks to such a large audience and maybe not make them on cameraSakura Selfie wrote:I personally think Dan has had some issues since the glozel incident, he was clearly embarrassed by it and from what I can see that's when the consent mentions started pretty much...She invaded his personal space very publicly and made him uncomfortable, and I think he uses the jokes as a way of coping with that and emphasising that he should be able to consent (or not) to people using him like that.
Do you want him to be himself or do you want him to be a good role model? It's a genuine question, I'm trying to understand your point of view.
[offtopic]I do have a jokes-related thing that bothers me lately with Deppy, though. It's Phil joking about Dan's dark soul
Like, whatever your opinion on their relationship, it's ok for Dan to say it about himself (personally, I'd prefer less self-depreciation on his part, but I do it myself all the time, so not judging), but with Phil it's like he's mocking him? idk 
[/offtopic]
I've been looking everywhere for the full show - anyone knows where to get it? Maybe we could discuss it too (Phil's dancing is so cute) even though it's kind of outdated oops. Thanks!
[/offtopic]
It's so rare Aboriginal culture and issues get addressed in a positive light or even addressed at all, ESPECIALLY on a world stage and to have Deppy put an aspect of it in their travel book only to make fun of it?? (no matter if they meant no offense, this is one instance I'd say I don't care if they thought saying "creepy AF" was somehow not a negative comment. It comes across as one regardless. They should have known better. Someone editing should have caught that.) They really shouldn't have bothered adding it at all. Why add a part of our culture just to make a comment like that? A culture that right here right now are facing so many issues in being heard, seen and respected? I don't get it, I really don't.
