IDB

fancybum wrote:46:30 “I don’t know what your family got you for xmas; my family love me so much and are so wealthy and generous that they took a picture of my dog and gave me a mug with a picture of our dog on it. Yes, that’s right, this was the xmas present from my family this year.” […]
“And that is Colin leaping majestically through a puddle of mud. So what that is, that’s somebody taking the photo like, ‘lol look at the dog’ and my mum like, ‘jesus christ the carpet the carpet the carpet, have we got a towel in the car, oh my god the car is about to be destroyed’ so there we go.
-Way less harsh on a second viewing, but still sarcastic in a not that good-natured way? Worrying more about the mess the dog will make than appreciating his joy or adorableness just makes me think of Dan breaking that window and the immediate worry being the blood on the carpet. I’M JUST SAYING, there’s some consistency there and maybe that’s the parallel he’s drawing that brings that tone and demeanour when he brings up his parents (because he's not even dragging the present really, kind of just more his family in general), he just doesn’t find them nurturing, to him or to Colin

Yeah, the carpet comment stuck out to me too. I agree with basically all of your commentary on it. (It also reminded me of that tweet about his mum crucifying Adrian for spilling milk on the carpet and the Radio Show story about little Dan crying for two hours because Santa made a mess with fake snow in his room...though you're right, the blood story and this dog story are a bit different in that they actually demonstrate his parents seeming to, like, actually prioritize things such as the carpet, in a certain way, at least from Dan's point of view?). There is consistency there and it does seem to be something that bothers him. It was interesting/telling to me that he went out of his way to bring it up in this case, even though his mum's probable response to the dog getting mud on the car/carpet was only tangentially related to the mug itself.

As for the shade about the gift, I agree he was sarcastic and not in a good-natured way, but it wasn't anything super damning. I don't think he was actually resentful about the Colin mug — I think he really liked the gift and appreciated it. I just think he's resentful about his family in general, and a bit of that resentment bubbled over. It's not the first time he's made comments about his parents getting him kind of low-effort or cheap gifts, so maybe this is a bit of a "thing" with him, even if in this particular instance, he feels the mug was enough (and possibly not even his only present, if the Book of Mormon book was actually from his parents and not some other family member).

ANYWAY everyone feel free to ignore my parent rambling lol please don't hate me

It was a great liveshow, made me very happy, and CONGRATS MANGED!!

And as always, fancybum, thank you so much, your liveshow recap posts are GOLD and I appreciate them with my entire being.

fancybum, your progression of more and more irritated then suddenly calmed by the flower crown critique speech was 100% me when watching.

fancybum wrote:-all right, I’m calm. Good speech. Keep talking about actual dumb criticisms not just the invented ones that inadvertently shit on your active audience thanks. Or if you want to shit on your audience for valid things (like 'stop shipping me/treating me like a Ken doll'), then do eet. I would have liked him to elaborate more on that before getting distracted by the gay comment. Maybe 2017!Dan can try being more upfront about what’s pissing him off because we need to go deeper

Just... fully agree with this. I'd love for Dan to be more direct and less passive-aggressive about what he doesn't like. I'd also love to have seen where that Ken doll comment was going.

Okay not to be extra and rant about a really specific thing in the live show but.... It upsets me that he's watching River Dale when it is LITERALLY just a (imo worse) version of Twin Peaks. What I'm trying to say is, Dan and Phil have watched X Files and now they're watching River Dale. They need to watch Twin Peaks. Now plz.

With the whole "stop treating me like a ken doll" moment, I feel as though it's pretty self explanatory what he was most likely going to get into before stopping and going into another rant.
Dan is constantly objectified (and honestly one of the most objectified people I've ever seen on the site) by the YouTube community wether it's for looks or just because he's shipped with his best friend. But he doesn't want people to watch him just because he's a pretty face or because him and his best friend would look so cute together. Like he was about to say, he's dan. He most likely wants people to watch him for his content that he makes and feels is really good. Not for all those other objectifying reasons. I've been wondering for quite sometime now if that's one of the reasons why he's so so picky and critical of content on dinof. Does he seriously think most people only watch because of those reasons? Is this why he takes the criticisms from his male audiences more seriously and personal because he sees more women in the comments objectify him more than men (although ironically most youtubers that do objectify him are actually male...)? :/ There's more questions raised rather than answered here honestly.
But on the good note of all this, it's nice to see dan kinda put his foot down and say that he's his own person. Even if he didn't get to finish his statement, be it he got distracted or something, it is nice to see him even acknowledge, at least to me. Maybe one day he'll explain this more, because this whole situation is not fair to him and he deserves to address it if it really does indeed bother him as much as we think it does. Especially when it comes to the weird bias mindset of "it's ok" for women to objectify men but if it's the other way around it's not. Both ways are not ok and men need to speak out more about it.

I know that this is actually not that important but I just can't get my head around when did Dan/they sleep during Monday? He said in his liveshow that he watched the Grammy's live, right? It could have ended at around 6/7 am London time. Then he said they filmed the video in the morning because Phil had to go see the dentist. They looked pretty good and full of energy in that video for having only like 3/4 hours of sleep. I just think that they maybe filmed it on Sunday (and Dan just delayded his tweet) or Dan's definition of a morning includes like 2 pm.

confusedpanda wrote:With the whole "stop treating me like a ken doll" moment, I feel as though it's pretty self explanatory what he was most likely going to get into before stopping and going into another rant.
Dan is constantly objectified (and honestly one of the most objectified people I've ever seen on the site) by the YouTube community wether it's for looks or just because he's shipped with his best friend. But he doesn't want people to watch him just because he's a pretty face or because him and his best friend would look so cute together. Like he was about to say, he's dan. He most likely wants people to watch him for his content that he makes and feels is really good. Not for all those other objectifying reasons. I've been wondering for quite sometime now if that's one of the reasons why he's so so picky and critical of content on dinof. Does he seriously think most people only watch because of those reasons? Is this why he takes the criticisms from his male audiences more seriously and personal because he sees more women in the comments objectify him more than men (although ironically most youtubers that do objectify him are actually male...)? :/ There's more questions raised rather than answered here honestly.
But on the good note of all this, it's nice to see dan kinda put his foot down and say that he's his own person. Even if he didn't get to finish his statement, be it he got distracted or something, it is nice to see him even acknowledge, at least to me. Maybe one day he'll explain this more, because this whole situation is not fair to him and he deserves to address it if it really does indeed bother him as much as we think it does. Especially when it comes to the weird bias mindset of "it's ok" for women to objectify men but if it's the other way around it's not. Both ways are not ok and men need to speak out more about it.

sadly since he didn't finish his rant we will never know what he was going to say, but i suspect his rant was aimed not that much at objectifying looks wise, but more, well, "treating as a ken doll" i.e. the phandom demanding stuff from him that is his personal life and not video content. like constant paint your nails, wear your earings, adopt a dog, move your house? the shipping part is pretty obvious, yeah, he shaded it in his self-roast video too so it's a sore spot. not surprising since his youtube comments and his twitter @replies and even this place, it's all focused on his (alleged) relationship with phil, the youtube and twitter sections being quite vile ("last time i was this early dan still liked pussy!!! lmao!!!" "they fucked before filming this video!!"). i know it always comes down to "he's a grown ass man" but yeah... or maybe not, maybe he was talking about something else.
either way i wish he'd actually finish his talk, because if he doesn't like something he should put his foot down and say it and not make up excuses which don't help (like with "i always forget to wear my earrings"), but maybe he has war flashbacks of the 2012 "omg dan is so rude" so he shuts himself up instead of letting it all come through. who knows.

Eurovision but with a twist:

Dan and Phil Should Sing TATINOF Song on Eurovision

https://www.change.org/p/dan-howell-dan ... eurovision

I really liked that liveshow, lots of interesting moments!

About the punk "appropriation": first of all thank you Sakura selfie for your rant

Then again I can understand the people criticising that this is what he takes from the discourse of cultural appropriation. I mean, it's a subculture. Literally anybody can go ahead and dress in spiky leather jackets and dye their hair and whatnot who cares. But then again, Punk is also connected to a political stance and very real movement, so...
I feel this a lot actually because I used to hang with real "punks" and take part in political actions in my teens while the whole "emo" movement came up that just plain mainstreamed the style and had it handed to them via H&M, and I'm still sour about how dumb and apolitical all these emo kids were.
Anyway, this might be an interesting question for the sociopolitical thread, because honestly I've never thought about cultural appropriation this way but maybe it does count? Idk.

Another (kind of related lol) thing that I noticed was the completely casual reaction to the person saying they were "high while watching this", where he only says he's sorry he talked about food so much. Yay dude

mio wrote:I really liked that liveshow, lots of interesting moments!

About the punk "appropriation": first of all thank you Sakura selfie for your rant

Then again I can understand the people criticising that this is what he takes from the discourse of cultural appropriation. I mean, it's a subculture. Literally anybody can go ahead and dress in spiky leather jackets and dye their hair and whatnot who cares. But then again, Punk is also connected to a political stance and very real movement, so...
I feel this a lot actually because I used to hang with real "punks" and take part in political actions in my teens while the whole "emo" movement came up that just plain mainstreamed the style and had it handed to them via H&M, and I'm still sour about how dumb and apolitical all these emo kids were.
Anyway, this might be an interesting question for the sociopolitical thread, because honestly I've never thought about cultural appropriation this way but maybe it does count? Idk.

Another (kind of related lol) thing that I noticed was the completely casual reaction to the person saying they were "high while watching this", where he only says he's sorry he talked about food so much. Yay dude

I actually thought calling it "cultural appropriation" was a bit ignorant and insensitive. I agree with you and sakura selfie that he had a point since the Punk movement was political and not just a fashion trend but cultural appropriation cuts a lot deeper than that. Punk is not a culture in that sense, it's a movement and I don't think you can "appropriate" a political movement by dying your hair and putting on a leather jacket. Especially since the aesthetics of the punk movement have long found their way into mainstream fashion (which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing). In the end Punk was and is something that was always open to everyone. I do think you have a point there and so did Dan but I did cringe a bit at his calling it cultural appropriation. Likening dressing up like a subculture, no matter how political, to the exploitation of non-western cultures is a bit... no.

realeyesrealize wrote:

Is it bad this is the most attractive Dan has been to me, well, ever?

Dan has been busy promoting the Pastel video AND amazingphil on Facebook this morning. He also included the change.org petition for Phil's blue hair in his replies

hi it's this guy, former poster, occasional lurker, bitter old man who accepted he can't get through a single video without cringing. still living!

not going to be a regular poster again, but on my monthly visits i sometimes see days old posts i wish i'd been around to discuss so i'll drop in while the punk discussion is going.

first off, i never took punk appropriation comments seriously. but also, there is a big, complicated movement behind punk.

yeah, it had a lot of political drive and stuff, but specifically (almost exclusively imo) for women. gender subversion, sexual openness, rejection of societal expectations were big parts but definitely focused around women. girls invented punk rock, not england but another big part of punk is that it was a pretty middle class subculture. the leftist punks still wore swastikas and didn't have actual strong specific political/economic views because of how many were white people from southern england from rich families who they wanted to rebel against. punks were often very privileged and misguided and not actually that far off the rich 14 year old "like, i just think everyone is pansexual really... wish society was more accepting of my gay anime senpais "
working class people in the 70s and 80s largely didn't want to be part of a subculture that wanted you to look ripped and dirty. they didn't have much money and didn't want to use it looking even poorer, which is why into the 80s the skinhead/two tone movement was more filled with working class people.


tldr, appropriating a subculture is different and way less bad than appropriating actual important culture but there's power balances, race etc to take into account in all this. punk was middle class people trying to piss off a system for no real reason (see: pointlessness of anarchy) but skinhead/two tone - both in its racist subsets and the main two tone ideal of being HEAVILY influenced and welcoming of black peiple and culture - was for the working class, and a posh boy getting old boots and braces would be more concerning. ~pastel~ isn't really a culture so much as a common theme among weeaboos so

still tldr, subculture appropriation CAN have problems mostly because of class but there isn't really one here.

okay that was my post for the year.

confusedpanda wrote:With the whole "stop treating me like a ken doll" moment, I feel as though it's pretty self explanatory what he was most likely going to get into before stopping and going into another rant.
Dan is constantly objectified (and honestly one of the most objectified people I've ever seen on the site) by the YouTube community wether it's for looks or just because he's shipped with his best friend. But he doesn't want people to watch him just because he's a pretty face or because him and his best friend would look so cute together. Like he was about to say, he's dan. He most likely wants people to watch him for his content that he makes and feels is really good. Not for all those other objectifying reasons. I've been wondering for quite sometime now if that's one of the reasons why he's so so picky and critical of content on dinof. Does he seriously think most people only watch because of those reasons? Is this why he takes the criticisms from his male audiences more seriously and personal because he sees more women in the comments objectify him more than men (although ironically most youtubers that do objectify him are actually male...)? :/ There's more questions raised rather than answered here honestly.
But on the good note of all this, it's nice to see dan kinda put his foot down and say that he's his own person. Even if he didn't get to finish his statement, be it he got distracted or something, it is nice to see him even acknowledge, at least to me. Maybe one day he'll explain this more, because this whole situation is not fair to him and he deserves to address it if it really does indeed bother him as much as we think it does. Especially when it comes to the weird bias mindset of "it's ok" for women to objectify men but if it's the other way around it's not. Both ways are not ok and men need to speak out more about it.

This. I truly feel bad for Dan and I understand he feels he has to overcompensate on his channel with "quality content" because people are SO quick to dismiss all of his success because he has a pretty face. That's not fair at all. Dan's videos are comedy content, not just a bland tag. I think even though it causes him to say questionable stuff about his audience, he is 100% justified about his anger. It's clear everyone dismissing his creative content as easy money (I have a feeling his family does this too....) made him super insecure. I was so happy they put him on the comedian panel in 2015 then he got objectified the entire time still! There's nothing we can really do about it, it's just sad.

Thanks to jaej, et al, for the incredibly interesting punk discussion!

I am a walking contradiction myself, but Dan literally went from "I am not a Ken doll," to promoting the petition to get Phil to dye his hair pastel blue in .5 seconds. Is it not the same because it pertains to Phil and not him? I don't know

gnostic wrote:Is it bad this is the most attractive Dan has been to me, well, ever?

not at all, I relate deeply (life is hard when you have a thing for grey hair)

Philena wrote:Thanks to jaej, et al, for the incredibly interesting punk discussion!

I am a walking contradiction myself, but Dan literally went from "I am not a Ken doll," to promoting the petition to get Phil to dye his hair pastel blue in .5 seconds. Is it not the same because it pertains to Phil and not him? I don't know

I'd like to thing that he really loves the new video and that is why he is promoting it so hard- I mean Phil tweeted about it twice and Dan has surpassed that- Dan also posted his pastel picture on instagram, tumblr (vid promo too) and then There's these Facebook posts.

What does Dan find so important about THIS video that he is shouting about it from the rooftops?

Amiaw wrote:

Philena wrote:Thanks to jaej, et al, for the incredibly interesting punk discussion!

I am a walking contradiction myself, but Dan literally went from "I am not a Ken doll," to promoting the petition to get Phil to dye his hair pastel blue in .5 seconds. Is it not the same because it pertains to Phil and not him? I don't know

I'd like to thing that he really loves the new video and that is why he is promoting it so hard- I mean Phil tweeted about it twice and Dan has surpassed that- Dan also posted his pastel picture on instagram, tumblr (vid promo too) and then There's these Facebook posts.

What does Dan find so important about THIS video that he is shouting about it from the rooftops?

Obviously it's because he edited it Just kidding, but it does make you wonder, what is it about this particular video? He has hyped it to the max.

Idea: Maybe he thinks the pastel tag is going to blow up, and he wants to make sure that he had a hand in starting it?

Philena wrote:Thanks to jaej, et al, for the incredibly interesting punk discussion!

I am a walking contradiction myself, but Dan literally went from "I am not a Ken doll," to promoting the petition to get Phil to dye his hair pastel blue in .5 seconds. Is it not the same because it pertains to Phil and not him? I don't know

Why do you all take the Ken doll rant to be so serious?
I know he likes to joke with a sprinkle of truth but it's usually more ambiguous, this time he was really stressing the sarcasm when talking about it.

Amiaw wrote: What does Dan find so important about THIS video that he is shouting about it from the rooftops?

Maybe the importance will become clear when they drop the pastel merch (i'm only half kidding).

malday wrote:Maybe the importance will become clear when they drop the pastel merch (i'm only half kidding).

Ding ding ding ding! How could I have missed the obvious?!

And, yeah, he could have been joking, but I feel like there are always grains of truth behind Dan's rants.

I'm late to the party as usual! It is sad how my time zone makes me perpetually off the convo but anyway here we go:

pastel video I insanely loved it! The thing that struck me the most, being someone from a conservative society, is how they dressed up unashamedly in conventionally "girly" clothes and flower crowns and yet they did it with a totally straight face. There wasn't the sense that this was a forfeit or something to be mocked. They didn't do it ironically or with cringing. Even when Dan brings up his professional integrity, he's referring to the fact (I saw it this way anyway) that it's a tag kind of video rather than oh we're dressing up in girl clothes OMG. IN fact they were both unapologetically into the whole thing. Two men who aren't known specifically for being camp (aka Tyler Oakley) or flamboyant and they are dressing up in pastels and flower crowns and it is completely fine. I can't say what an immense subversion of gender normativity and masculine standards this whole video was to me.

Dan and philosophy I mean, I dunno, this is just my opinion, but give the guy a break man He didn't get a uni education especially in philosophy or the arts like literature etc. so what he has is off the internet that he researched out of his own interest, so evidently his knowledge would not be as deep as say an actual philosophy or even literature major. It's alright! It seemed a bit mean to say that his knowledge of philosophy was shallow - I mean, everyone engages with things like that at different levels eh? What I would like him to do is to elaborate more on his thoughts on this sort of things! I know he mentioned Camus before but what would be great is to have an actual conversation with his audience on his interest in Camus, rather than just mumbling that they wouldn't understand/know Camus - which is what he did in the liveshow where he brought it up.

And now I'm off to see the liveshow.

malday wrote: Maybe the importance will become clear when they drop the pastel merch (i'm only half kidding).

Dan hates promoting the merch- at least that's the impression he gives and Phil "my middle name is merch shop" Lester is usually very vocal about it so it's funny that Phil hasn't said much about it. I can't be sure but I doubt that Phil is going to be dressed in his pastel clothing for his live show - that's more Dan's thing so who knows.

If Dan and Phil start selling flower crowns I am done

Btw can someone explain to this n00b fan what about that galaxy pattern made it a quintessential part of Deppy merchandise?

Thanks

gnostic wrote:If Dan and Phil start selling flower crowns I am done

Btw can someone explain to this n00b fan what about that galaxy pattern made it a quintessential part of Deppy merchandise?

Thanks

Um???
https://us.danandphilshop.com/collectio ... ower-crown

Not sure as to galaxy print, though Phil often wore that style of shirt/bag.

Is2g I will stop postng soon. Slow morning here.