Difference between revisions of "Talk:Flutter"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Panasonichu (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==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. | 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. | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:Chris mentions in his [[Setting the Record straight - there never was any sex involving me in 2021|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 Fiona actually was, and her policy was still rescinded.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. [[User:Panasonichu|Panasonichu]] ([[User talk:Panasonichu|talk]]) 12:49, 18 October 2023 (EDT) | :Chris mentions in his [[Setting the Record straight - there never was any sex involving me in 2021|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 Fiona actually was, and her policy was still rescinded.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. [[User:Panasonichu|Panasonichu]] ([[User talk: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 also agree with Panasonichu that claims about Flutter having met Chris in a group home or being mentally disabled are entirely conjecture, meaning it should have no ground in any sort of pro-censorship argument for her. [[User:Anaxis|Anaxis]] ([[User talk:Anaxis|talk]]) 17:23, 18 October 2023 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 17:23, 18 October 2023
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.