Difference between revisions of "Talk:Flutter"
JinkiesJanke (talk | contribs) |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Besides. she didn't wear one at all before December 20, which shows that she has become more aware of the leaks. | Besides. she didn't wear one at all before December 20, which shows that she has become more aware of the leaks. | ||
Plus, during the convention she also wore sunglasses. In the winter. | Plus, during the convention she also wore sunglasses. In the winter. | ||
Also, Chris did say this in the Toys For Tots video: "Don't do that, you really wanted to- if you really do wanna interact with me, just, say- [waves] -hi. Wave, say hi. That's how it's done, that's all it's simple. Y'know i- just pleasantries, don't be distant from me." Sure, it doesn't say anything about the pictures, but he was also a bit mad when he wasn't being photographed. | |||
:The evidence for Flutter wearing the mask in order to hide her identity is still pretty circumstantial. Just because she was seen wearing one after more leaks started coming out doesn't mean that's the reason she wears it. For all we know, she was wearing one regularly ''before'' she started getting documented. Like you said, it's possible, but that doesn't mean hard proof. And sunglasses in the winter is hardly weird, sunny days still happen during winter. | |||
:Don't forget to sign your username on talk pages with four tildes (~). [[User:Anaxis|Anaxis]] ([[User talk:Anaxis|talk]]) 15:10, 8 January 2024 (EST) | |||
:Agreed, we still know so little about her that we desperately want to fill in the gaps, but it's all speculation at this point. [[User:JinkiesJanke|JinkiesJanke]] ([[User talk:JinkiesJanke|talk]]) 16:54, 8 January 2024 (EST) |
Latest revision as of 16:54, 8 January 2024
Proposing a Flutter policy
It’s no secret that Christorians have bad actors amongst their ranks. It’s only a matter of time someone figures out her identity. Given that Chris met her in Lynchburg it’s highly likely she’s mentally handicapped in some capacity due to Chris living in a group home during the time he was located there. So since she’s likely to be an innocent bystander I think we should adopt a wallflower style policy for if/when her identity is revealed by either a ween or Chris himself.
Given what recently happened with the suitress policy we should also be willing to revoke it if we later find out she actually has trollish intent. Homsar (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2023 (EDT)
- Chris mentions in his latest video that Flutter reached out to him while he was in jail. That doesn't make it sound like he just happened upon her in Lynchburg, hardly making her an "innocent bystander" to me. In addition, there is currently zero indication that Flutter is mentally disabled in any way besides conjecture. Fiona actually was, and her policy was still rescinded. I don't think these reasons are a good enough argument for yet another censorship policy. Panasonichu (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2023 (EDT)
- Putting my hat in the ring here: I am absolutely, unequivocally opposed to censoring any more parties that don't ask for it personally, especially on a basis of supposed morality for them being mentally disabled. Not because I want to be cruel, but because we just went through this exact thing with Fiona, which led to a thrall of misinformation and false views that she was entirely a victim of circumstance, rather than someone who actively walked into Chris's orbit despite the warnings she received. I'm all for referring to Flutter primarily by her pseudonym if that makes people more comfortable, but actively censoring other information is something I don't think we should be engaging in unless there is a very, very good reason for it. And personal moralizing about whether or not she should be "protected" isn't one, in my opinion.
- I agree with the two people above me. She took the time out to contact Chris, presumably knowing about his online infamy. If you do that, you are putting yourself at risk of being doxxed, and that fact is made abundantly clear to anyone who chooses to do so. Cereally (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2023 (EDT)
Face mask
I don't think her wearing a mask is guaranteed to be about evading weens. She wore one on a plane and at a convention center, both have crowds of people. But has been seen other times in less crowded places without one. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2024 (EST)
You have just shown that to be possible for that to be the case. She wore it to places where she's likely to get identified and doesn't wear it in less crowded spots. Besides. she didn't wear one at all before December 20, which shows that she has become more aware of the leaks. Plus, during the convention she also wore sunglasses. In the winter.
Also, Chris did say this in the Toys For Tots video: "Don't do that, you really wanted to- if you really do wanna interact with me, just, say- [waves] -hi. Wave, say hi. That's how it's done, that's all it's simple. Y'know i- just pleasantries, don't be distant from me." Sure, it doesn't say anything about the pictures, but he was also a bit mad when he wasn't being photographed.
- The evidence for Flutter wearing the mask in order to hide her identity is still pretty circumstantial. Just because she was seen wearing one after more leaks started coming out doesn't mean that's the reason she wears it. For all we know, she was wearing one regularly before she started getting documented. Like you said, it's possible, but that doesn't mean hard proof. And sunglasses in the winter is hardly weird, sunny days still happen during winter.
- Don't forget to sign your username on talk pages with four tildes (~). Anaxis (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2024 (EST)
- Agreed, we still know so little about her that we desperately want to fill in the gaps, but it's all speculation at this point. JinkiesJanke (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2024 (EST)