Catallena wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:32 pm Yeah when I was put on anti depressants, it was definitely not supposed to be a permanent thing. They were supposed to make my life easier for 2 years at most while I underwent therapy for dysthymia, but also for a crippling anxiety disorder which got re-diagnosed into PTSD at the time (I got two more diagnoses years after that). The goal was to have therapy replace the effect of the prozac, and then to have me go on without either. And I think that's a pretty common way of dealing with it here?
Maybe that could have been Dan's reasoning too. It would be very interesting if he would talk a bit more about his whole experience (at times i would swear half of this fandom is in therapy), but I understand why it might be to personal to share.
I didn't do this earlier so I just want to take a moment to express my appreciation for Phil acknowledging the best reaction picture to exist, the emotionanal one.
wait wtf i never noticed it was spelled that way and im pretty sure ive religiously watched every damn radio show live back then and still didnt notice..... @knq me and you samealittledizzy wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:10 amI didn't do this earlier so I just want to take a moment to express my appreciation for Phil acknowledging the best reaction picture to exist, the emotionanal one.
While I would die if that were real, and would kind of expect it from 2019 Phil, it was just a meme someone made (though it is my fave reaction pic to use lol). This is the original:lesterchuu wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:17 amwait wtf i never noticed it was spelled that way and im pretty sure ive religiously watched every damn radio show live back then and still didnt notice..... @knq me and you samealittledizzy wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:10 amI didn't do this earlier so I just want to take a moment to express my appreciation for Phil acknowledging the best reaction picture to exist, the emotionanal one.
moody coming thru with the cold hard facts, good to know my memory wasnt wrongobsessivelymoody wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:46 am While I would die if that were real, and would kind of expect it from 2019 Phil, it was just a meme someone made (though it is my fave reaction pic to use lol). This is the original:
The moment starts at about 10:14 of this radio show on December 15, 2013
Yes, I don't know if it's everywhere in France but when i went on medication a few years ago it was supposed to be temporary, but it's because we were just getting to see the tip of my mental heath iceberg and in the end i had them for two years. Same a year later, had a relapse, was supposed to take medication for three months and ended taking them for a long time, i'm actually still taking them now but at the smallest dose.coffeepenguin wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:58 pm Re: medication, as a part of my job, I've been following debates and have been involved with some mental health services users' organisations in France, UK, Europe in general, as well as US, and there are a lot of people who think that the use of medication should be seriously limited, if not abandoned, in the treatment of all mental illnesses, not just depression, and community-based therapy, such as open dialogue, should be preferred.
Stakhanov wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:10 pm (wow I thought i posted this 2 hours ago but it somehow didn't luckily I copied the text and it was still stored on the clipboard)
@waveydnp What about Dan's replies is homophobic specifically? I've just reread them, and at worst I can see one joke where he parodies a gay accent? Which I don't find offensive at all. There is a difference to Dan making a joke (even if it the humor is stereotypical) and being homophobic. If you think those are equal, I think you trivialize the term to the point it means nothing. I would find that pretty disheartening as a bi person, as there are plenty of actual homophobes I would like to use the word for. So I do put the term in quotation marks.
Funnily enough, one of his replies on the blog makes clear to me he's an ally (as he has been since the very beginning I've known him):
Good point. I do think we tend to overlook how people can hide their depressions and appear to be doing fine and functioning to expectations while they might be slipping into a deeper repression. Dan draws attention to this too in the video. It can very well be that while we see him with friend, laughing, he's really not doing well. That could have been the case even during the tour, though like you say he has explicitly talked about how the tour gave hims something to do every day, gave him some purpose. But he also said that the touring period could be a highly productive time for content, and that they had planned ahead so that we wouldn't notice much of a changecoconut wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:33 am
In regard to Dan being very stable on tour despite not going to therapy— in his and Phil’s own words, because he “had a purpose”— of course, depression does not look or behave the same way in everyone. From a similar personal experience I feel maybe tour addressed the underlying need, but the feeling of it ending and being “back at square one” is very jarring and imo disheartening, which then leads to a low point. (Not intending to project in order to “prove” anything, just my two cents!)
I can understand that any joke or word can be hurtful or offensive to others. I wouldn't ever deny an individual can be impacted. Everyone has their own past and lives through their own experiences which can make even the most well intended little joke extremely hurtful. That's one reason that in interpersonal relationships I always try to be kind and polite to people. As I get to know a person better, you get better at navigating what things you can talk about and then funnily enough it is among friends where you often can get refreshingly blunt or sufficiently tactful to bring up issues you wouldn't even talk about with others. But in a public space (such as that blog) you're talking to an abstract audience and you have a right to express yourself as you are, even if that will clash with the sensibilities and sensitivities of others. I Dan's case, he states in the blog himself that he is a "sarcastic, alternative guys that is sometimes inappropriate". So yes, no doubt his replies are hurtful to some but that's fine. Nobody is forced to read his writings and everybody can cause offense (most of the times unwittingly).I havent re-read Dan's replies so what i'm gonna say is gonna be a general answer.
It's not because there are really bad full on homophobes out there that a "joke" like you think Dan made doesn't hurt. So what you think is not offensive or homophobic may be hurtful for someone else who may think it is in fact homophobic.
And I think the little jokes like that are the hardest to fight and i think it's exactly for that reason that they need to be called out.
Also you made the distinction between Dan and the actual homophobes out there and you put in your post his reply saying he is of course a LGBT supporter. But to me, it's not because you are a supporter or even a member of the community that you're immune to doing something homophobic sometimes.
WelcomeNevermind wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:09 am I never really understood why so many people in the Phandom say that 2012 Dan was so horrible and homophobic. I mean, I'll admit that he didn't really handle his Blog very well back then. He didn't really know what he was doing, he didn't have the experience on how to approach certain topics yet. But homophobic? Where?
Most of his blog was just him defending himself. Saying that he isn't gay is not homophobic, saying that he doesn't want to date/kiss his best friend is not homophobic, saying that he doesn't want to wear nail polish is not homophobic. His "famous" fyi: I like vagina quote is also not homophobic. It's definitely a kinda weird statement if it comes out of nowhere, but nothing homophobic about it.
Back then he didn't know how to handle his internet fame properly, 2012 was when they kinda blew up on Youtube and I guess it just hit him hard and he thought that the best way to handle stuff that he didn't like was by being defensive, sometimes rude and angry. I feel a lot of people in the Phandom don't like 2012 Dan because he was actively denying Phan back then, which still is nothing homophobic.
I don't ship Phan and I don't think that they are dating, so maybe that's why I see things different when I look back to those "bad 2012 times"?
+1 to this and it's nice to hear from someone in this fandom for once that 2012 wasn't some annus horribilis (yes I did just make a lame joke about the Queens speech).
And that's exactly what I meant in my earlier post. People who strongly believe/want to believe that they are dating seem to read those old quotes in a totally different way than I do for example. None of the quotes posted above contain homophobia. He's not mocking the idea of just 2 random men being together. He just doesn't like the idea of him and Phil being together, which is personal preference and not homophobia.alittledizzy wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:05 pm It's been a while since I've read some of those, but yeah. I understand the context of the situation for Dan, I understand the place he was coming from while I still don't condone his microaggressions. But his lashed out intent was to make people feel ridiculous for thinking two men could be in a relationship, and that's damaging and homophobic.
Let me maybe surprise on this day of love but I agree with everything you say above the tag. Reading his posts I see someone who is clearly angry, frustrated about all the growing cohort of fans that believe they are in a romantic relationship, sometimes with a lot of passion and plenty of fanfiction and graphical fanart. You speak about the effect his crude wording and denial has on you as a viewer. That's one perspective, which I don't mean to diminish, but it is true that there are other perspectives too. That of the fan who does not believe they are together but who sees the effect the ship has on the content that's made, on what becomes popular and expected of them, on how it influences and limits what they do. More relevant perhaps is the perspective of Dan and Phil themselves. I feel that's getting overlooked here. Imagine for a moment they aren't together. (I guess this is a less romantic version of typical Phan imagineautumnhearth wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:15 pm @Stakhanov fine I’ll bite. These are things that stand out to me, that while not strongly or objectively homophobic, could be subjectively so and “if” they are together many do qualify as gaslighting. At the very least they feel like a slap to the face to me and I’m others (I’m sure they don’t to you). Under the cut so as not to taint this day of love (if anyone celebrates it as such, I don’t really, but this is also not what I hoped to be doing with my morning).
). You see how part of your rapidly growing audience rejects your own truth. Some people don't believe you when you say the v-day video as a prank and think they've gotten intimate glance into your love life. You have since 2009 said you are not in a relationship and not gay (you are bisexual) and your genuine friendship gets misinterpreted and sexualized. I can't speak for you, but I would try to correct that perception. I would feel like people act like I'm a liar, don't care about what I think or feel and come to a bunch of wrong conclusions while they can't know the truth of it. Maybe I realize that I shouldn't have shipbaited and flirted on social media in 2009, and don't want my audience to focus on that part of my life in which i was 'prone to lying and attention seeking". Maybe reality was complicated and some interest was real at the time, was about my ex which I was breaking up with or barely had broken up with, or was a way to gather attention and an inside joke. I prefaced with understanding the context as a means of saying this is why I am not holding 2012 Dan against 2019 Dan, but my belief that they're dating does not change the fact that implying that thinking two men are together is wrong/relating that to creepy/weird/insane is the issue.Nevermind wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:08 pmAnd that's exactly what I meant in my earlier post. People who strongly believe/want to believe that they are dating seem to read those old quotes in a totally different way than I do for example. None of the quotes posted above contain homophobia. He's not mocking the idea of just 2 random men being together. He just doesn't like the idea of him and Phil being together, which is personal preference and not homophobia.alittledizzy wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:05 pm It's been a while since I've read some of those, but yeah. I understand the context of the situation for Dan, I understand the place he was coming from while I still don't condone his microaggressions. But his lashed out intent was to make people feel ridiculous for thinking two men could be in a relationship, and that's damaging and homophobic.
Yes, I agree, that would be an issue, if he actually had said that. But he didn't. He found it creepy that people kept on shipping him and Phil, trying to prove that they are in a relationship, even though he said many times that they were just platonic friends. This isn't about homosexuality at all. It's about the fact that random people on the internet wanted to believe that he is dating someone he wasn't. It would have been the same if one of them was a girl, except no one would have seen any moral issues with them denying phan then.alittledizzy wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:20 pmI prefaced with understanding the context as a means of saying this is why I am not holding 2012 Dan against 2019 Dan, but my belief that they're dating does not change the fact that implying that thinking two men are together is wrong/relating that to creepy/weird/insane is the issue.Nevermind wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:08 pmAnd that's exactly what I meant in my earlier post. People who strongly believe/want to believe that they are dating seem to read those old quotes in a totally different way than I do for example. None of the quotes posted above contain homophobia. He's not mocking the idea of just 2 random men being together. He just doesn't like the idea of him and Phil being together, which is personal preference and not homophobia.alittledizzy wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:05 pm It's been a while since I've read some of those, but yeah. I understand the context of the situation for Dan, I understand the place he was coming from while I still don't condone his microaggressions. But his lashed out intent was to make people feel ridiculous for thinking two men could be in a relationship, and that's damaging and homophobic.
Things like "secretly gay" "bumming my friend" "wrong and creepy" "'gays' lol." and adding "haha" to the end of the question that just directly asked if he was gay - all phrases that specifically mention queerness or queer acts in the context of demeaning the relationship that people were asking him about. If he really wanted to make it just about saying he and Phil weren't together he could have very, very, very easily responded to the same question using respectful phrasing or keeping his disrespect limited to saying they weren't together and not linking the animosity toward sexuality as well.Nevermind wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:27 pmYes, I agree, that would be an issue, if he actually had said that. But he didn't. He found it creepy that people kept on shipping him and Phil, trying to prove that they are in a relationship, even though he said many times that they were just platonic friends. This isn't about homosexuality at all. It's about the fact that random people on the internet wanted to believe that he is dating someone he wasn't. It would have been the same if one of them was a girl, except no one would have seen any moral issues with them denying phan then.alittledizzy wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:20 pmI prefaced with understanding the context as a means of saying this is why I am not holding 2012 Dan against 2019 Dan, but my belief that they're dating does not change the fact that implying that thinking two men are together is wrong/relating that to creepy/weird/insane is the issue.Nevermind wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:08 pmAnd that's exactly what I meant in my earlier post. People who strongly believe/want to believe that they are dating seem to read those old quotes in a totally different way than I do for example. None of the quotes posted above contain homophobia. He's not mocking the idea of just 2 random men being together. He just doesn't like the idea of him and Phil being together, which is personal preference and not homophobia.alittledizzy wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:05 pm It's been a while since I've read some of those, but yeah. I understand the context of the situation for Dan, I understand the place he was coming from while I still don't condone his microaggressions. But his lashed out intent was to make people feel ridiculous for thinking two men could be in a relationship, and that's damaging and homophobic.
