Magna-Carta
Senior Member
- Location
- UK
I understand the point about empathy -- and as LM subtly said, I have no doubt that dusty’s experiences feel real to her. I also agree that cynicism for its own sake isn’t helpful. But in a thread where many people have invested emotionally and offered genuine concern, doubt becomes a reasonable response when the facts don’t add up, and things don't make sence.
There are still major inconsistencies that haven’t been addressed, even if some might think it's irrelevant, but it's there all the same. For example, Brenda reportedly said that she and dusty’s father were on the USS Arizona during the attack on Pearl Harbor, while dusty has previously said her father served on the Tangier at that time, and in these threads, dusty mentioned her father was on the Utah at the time. Three different ships at the same time, in two different locations. That’s a factual discrepancy -- not just a difference of opinion -- and it hasn’t been explained.
If we can’t clarify basic facts like that, and no one wants to offer clarity when clarity is asked for, how do we decide which parts of the story deserve empathy and which might deserve something else. Genuine trust comes from truth, not unquestioned belief. With over 200 posts between the two threads, and no concrete resolution or underatanding, the discussion risks becoming an ever growing tangle of speculation. Where facts, speculation, opinions and emotion blend together with no clear way to separate them or figure out what is fact and what is just emotion.
If the purpose of this thread is purely to support dusty emotionally, then let’s all say so now, and we can move forward on that basis only. But if people expect the thread to help establish what actually happened, what Brenda’s motives were, what her mindset is, and whether she poses any real danger, then we need clearer facts and fewer open-ended tangents. Otherwise each new tangent simply fragments the thread further and distracts from offering any genuine support to dusty. This thread is already in that situation, and has been for some time.
If our only purpose here is to provide emotional support, we could have done that in fewer than forty posts. Instead, everyone has shared opinions, some others have also even questioned facts, and we now find ourselves in a situation where some opinions are treated as having more validity than others -- all in the absence of verified facts.
So do we now stop applying logical reasoning, critical thinking, and analytical discussion, and just simply support and listen to dusty? Then ostracise and judge anyone who dares to introduce those things? Dismissing them and suggesting that if they don't like it, they might want to stop reading the thread.
There are still major inconsistencies that haven’t been addressed, even if some might think it's irrelevant, but it's there all the same. For example, Brenda reportedly said that she and dusty’s father were on the USS Arizona during the attack on Pearl Harbor, while dusty has previously said her father served on the Tangier at that time, and in these threads, dusty mentioned her father was on the Utah at the time. Three different ships at the same time, in two different locations. That’s a factual discrepancy -- not just a difference of opinion -- and it hasn’t been explained.
If we can’t clarify basic facts like that, and no one wants to offer clarity when clarity is asked for, how do we decide which parts of the story deserve empathy and which might deserve something else. Genuine trust comes from truth, not unquestioned belief. With over 200 posts between the two threads, and no concrete resolution or underatanding, the discussion risks becoming an ever growing tangle of speculation. Where facts, speculation, opinions and emotion blend together with no clear way to separate them or figure out what is fact and what is just emotion.
If the purpose of this thread is purely to support dusty emotionally, then let’s all say so now, and we can move forward on that basis only. But if people expect the thread to help establish what actually happened, what Brenda’s motives were, what her mindset is, and whether she poses any real danger, then we need clearer facts and fewer open-ended tangents. Otherwise each new tangent simply fragments the thread further and distracts from offering any genuine support to dusty. This thread is already in that situation, and has been for some time.
If our only purpose here is to provide emotional support, we could have done that in fewer than forty posts. Instead, everyone has shared opinions, some others have also even questioned facts, and we now find ourselves in a situation where some opinions are treated as having more validity than others -- all in the absence of verified facts.
So do we now stop applying logical reasoning, critical thinking, and analytical discussion, and just simply support and listen to dusty? Then ostracise and judge anyone who dares to introduce those things? Dismissing them and suggesting that if they don't like it, they might want to stop reading the thread.
Last edited:
