

Since this is a story relayed by Charles Robert Jenkins, who was not exactly an objective journalist, and rather a quite interesting individual:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Robert_Jenkins
Sharing the context since there’s such an excited appetite for, uh, tankie spin.









I think the point there is that the random opinions are valid because they are just opinions. Either they’re based on wrong or incomplete information or they aren’t. If you can get past that hurdle the discourse can offer corrections or fill in the blanks.
The arguments being made either have merit or they don’t. The ones with merit would approach that truth you mentioned, and the ones that don’t obscure it. If that makes any sense.