kusunoki masashige wrote:why one might think he's a decent person? deduction. he's friends with a lot of people who are pretty vocal about social issues and they all say he's a lovely person.mermaid blood wrote:why is it sound logic to assume Phil holds opinions we've seen no evidence of? the most you can do with an absence is make assumptions, and assumptions are never enough to blindly defend anyone with.
And what are people even defending here? Why should he even need defending? I'm just confused why it seems to not be okay to have a opinion on a movie or, as we worked out, not saying what everyone wanted to hear about it. I think it's just strange to be disappointed in Phil for not being Dan.
what kind of cake does he get to eat here though? I think it's quite the opposite, when Dan comments on some "important issue" people expect Phil to do the same and then give him shit if he fails to do so.mermaid blood wrote:Phil deserves just as much scrutiny as Dan on social justice issues, if not more. Prattling and backtracking and getting it wrong and sometimes getting it really right at least shows a thought process, and an active preoccupation. Dan is lumped with the majority of this pressure and expectation from the fans because of the content he makes and the way he expresses himself, whilst Phil experiences the converse. That's fine, it's up to Phil what presence he has and he's autonomous in that. BUT the conversations above me show the unfair and nonsensical outcome of this: he also benefits from what DAN says, through positive projecting and protecting?
ah, no. if you don't wish to be engaged on a certain level as a social figure and media personality the most you (fairly) win is a shrug, and an ambiguous 'well i certainly HOPE he feels ___'. you don't get to have your cake and eat it too, benefitting from the actions of someone very close to you.
And Dan chooses to make the comments he makes, he likes to rant and to sometimes provoke. But Phil is just a different person, he seems to be a sucker for harmony and I sometimes get the impression he isn't overly confident in expressing himself. I for one can relate to that, very much. I guess you relate to Dan more...
of course there's no evidence for this. We discuss a lot of things there is no evidence for. But it is my honest opinion that if I were in his shoes, if I realized that a tiny little comment I made regarding a movie I've seen would cause this kind of drama (and it was the movie comment that triggered this whole discussion), I would be even more careful of what I said in the future. Maybe that's not the reason, maybe he just doesn't want to talk about it, maybe he's a homophobic racist (:gasp: he must be if he was a little bit bored watching a movie), but where's the point?mermaid blood wrote:The argument from the phandom 'this is why Phil doesn't express opinions' holds no water, there is no evidence for it. it's especially ridiculous as it doesn't seem to apply to Dan in any way, and arguably Dan shows more troubling signs of not coping with attention on his every opinion and decision than Phil ever has. It is a choice Phil makes, and Phil is an adult who is accountable to this choice like any other.
Phil's been like this all this time, why should he change now? Even oldschool Phil wasn't a beacon of social awareness, that's just not who he is or what he wants to do on a public platform. Why do people expect a complete change of character?
And as for "it's unfair to use this argument for Phil when Dan doesn't get this privilege although he's the one who really struggles with reactions to his opinions": I call bullshit. He might say this but that doesn't mean it's true. Actions speak louder than words, why would he do it again and again if he's so troubled by it? and just because Phil doesn't speak about not wanting to give an opinion doesn't mean he has no problem with it, if that were the case he would do it more.
Sorry, this post is a mess. I'm not overly confident in expressing myself.
yes yes yes
I personally hate the comparisons of dan and phil that seem to occur nor do I agree with the statement that phil must be super informed because he lives with Dan. Those to me are two independent facts that don't necessarily go together.
As for Dan having more scrutiny, that's his personal doing. He is openly willing to make a claim, therefore, he is also agreeing to experience whatever backlash is associated with it. That's just how he built his channel and fanbase to be, and he lives under that sociopolitical blanket and prides himself in it (as do his audience), so good for him. Phil, on the other hand, doesn't and he shouldn't have to just because dan does. They are individual people with individual tastes and as long as phil isn't an asshole or says anything racist/sexist, there's nothing really to deduce from his views except that he is someone who is caring and empathizes and that's about it. If he isn't comfortable stating his opinions on matters, should we expect him to? And as many people said, what importance does a youtuber we stans' words have? He's not going to fix any of the issues by acknowledging them. And yea people are passionate and want the people they look up to share their belifs but isn't that a form of entitlement? Why is that an expectation as a fan?
We are blanketed in a hidden corner of the internet under anonymous names so it's easy for us to state our opinions without shame, but put me in front of a camera with thousands of people picking my words and I won't share anything. I care passionately but I still won't do it. I'm not "deducing" that phil is this way or using anxiety as an excuse for his hesitation, but it's a viable explanation. Also watching Phil in vidcon conventions struggling to speak even when he puts the mic to his lips kinda shows me that even with small, nonpolitical things such as advice for youtube, he will stick with already known facts instead of ad-libbing. That to me shows, that even with so much experience and knowledge in a particular field, he will stick to the answers he knows and has previously shared instead of those he thinks about on the spot (same with the boncas speech). Lastly, its important to realize that nothing said here is ever the set truth, moreso, just theories on why they act a certain way based on watching them : shrug:
Also, this is not be shutting down scrutiny or cradling phil the angel bean, rather expressing the right to not expect someone to say something just to make us feel better. Im actually living for all your opinions and viewpoints because I do love scrutinizing phil and picking him apart. If phil does say something, we should rip it apart as much as we do dan, but I also think it shouldn't be done for the case of "scrutinizing phil just because we scrutinize dan and that's not fair!!11" but instead because he does say something and it did bother people (which can arguably be the case here)
yay i love running in circles with my thoughts
