Talk:Natalie Wynn

Quotes

Inbox

Quotes which may be considered for inclusion.

Quote on toxic arguments

• Why do people cut themselves? Part of it is what we could call masochistic epistemology: whatever hurts is true. … I'm not going to respond to your worldview like it's an intellectual position worthy of rational debate. Because these ideas and arguments, you're not using them the way rational people use arguments. You're using them as razor blades to abuse yourselves. And I know, because I've done the exact same thing. … And the solution to that has to be therapeutic, not logical. … So what you have to do is get off those forums as fast as possible. I'm going to post a link in the description of this video to instructions on how to block certain websites from your computer, because for me, that's what it took.
  • "Incels" (30:07–31:16) (transcript). ContraPoints (2018-08-17).

There seems to be some unresolved issues with regard to what this page should be and how it should be structured, so I am submitting this quote here for consideration. BurningLibrary (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Outbox

Quotes which may belong somewhere else.

Discussion

I have some concerns about the way page has been expanded recently. Of course, I am happy that it has been expanded and I want us to keep most of the additional quotes. I certainly don't want to undo the good work that has been put into doing this but I do think we should tidy things up a bit.

• I'm not sure that we have the right to put our own bold and italics on for emphasis. This isn't in the source material, which is verbal. I can see the appeal of doing so, to mirror her spoken pattern of emphasis, but I'm not comfortable due to the arbitrary choice of what to bold. Also, I think it is overdone. If we do want to italicise or bold anything then I think it should be just a few words.
• I don't think that most of the linking within the quotes is necessary. A lot of the links don't seem to work reliably for me and I'm not sure that they would add anything anyway. Maybe a very few links to Wikipedia or Wiktionary are OK but we do not want to be linking out to other sites except to reference the quotes.
• I would like to put back the publication dates for the videos. (I assume this is uncontroversial.)
• I think that we need to be careful with the our own contextualising comments because it is not for us to introduce personal interpretations. Introducing the characters makes sense but I'm inclined to move that into the introduction so that the quotes area is just quotes. Using tweets and interviews for context is a good idea but we should be sparing with the tweets.

In general, I do think that we might have gone a little overboard. I'd like to trim some of the quotes down so that the main points stand out and do not get lost. (I think this would also reduce the need for bolding.) Also, I fear that some of our quotes are long enough that they could (maybe?) present a copyright issue.

I'd also like to avoid any jokes that won't make sense when quoted here, out of their original context. For example the reference to "biological sequins" is only likely to confuse readers as it only makes sense in the visual context of the video. I was also thinking of removing the "mouthfeel" quote but I'm now in two minds. We need to be able to present it in a way that makes sense and is more than a joke. I know that it is iconic with her fan base but I'm not sure how much it tells general readers.

Given the extreme levels of hate that she is sometimes bombarded with online, I'm also a little wary of drawing attention to any quotes which could be used, out of context, to attack her. I'd certainly like to avoid quotes from older videos that no longer reflect her views.

I'm going to start off by adding the dates in and removing links that don't work. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The links changed automatically; I tried to enter proper Wikipedia/Wiktionary links and it went haywire. As for making text bold, it’s because I share the same fear as you—that the quotes would be taken out of context or misinterpreted, which is why I emphasized the parts that are key to the point she is trying to make in earnest. And as for quotes she no longer sides with, I don’t think there’s anything I quoted she disagrees with today, except maybe the part about toxicity in SJ circles—and that’s a huge ‘maybe’, because she’s said that she was trying to appear more centrist there, but also considering everything she’s been through recently, and more recently her criticism of the left in ‘Jordan Peterson. But I am aware of this, and this is why I didn’t include, say, all the times she identified as a man or denied being trans, or her remarks about Anita Sarkeesian being a ‘moral fanatic’ with a ‘one-note worldview’ (which she barely even stood by back then), and certainly not the classist and ableist jokes she made to appear more ‘edgy’ and has since thoroughly disavowed. שונרא (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)