The Reasoning behind The Sundering? (*6.0 Endwalker Spoilers*)

[Lyth]

Venat's faction wasn't making a case for fatalism, and just sitting down to die. Her stance was about having the resilience to move forward in the face of suffering while having the determination to seek out sustainable solutions for the long term. Trying to bring back the souls that were sacrificed to Zodiark by sacrificing the souls of yet others does nothing to advance a solution out of the stalemate, especially when we know that Zodiark is only a temporary countermeasure. There are plenty of short-sighted, hedonistic things that you can do to make your quality of life better in the present, but that doesn't mean that it will last forever.

Likewise, the survivors of the Eighth Umbral Calamity didn't erase their suffering. They suffered tremendously, but they survived. And they took steps for themselves to build a better future under the guidance of Midgardsormr. Again, resilience.

I always find it odd when someone uses the term 'platitude' as a rhetorical tool to make a point sound less valid. They're platitudes because they are truths that are so blatantly self-evident to most people and so often repeated that you're bored of hearing them. It's a bit like conceding that your views go against common sense.

[Veloran]

Venat's faction wasn't making a case for fatalism, and just sitting down to die. Her stance was about having the resilience to move forward in the face of suffering while having the determination to seek out sustainable solutions for the long term.

A wonderfully sweet-sounding principle that does nothing to elucidate why exactly they should be willing to leave 75% of their race trapped inside Zodiark when they could yet be saved. Venat didn't even tell them they were in a conflict, why should they believe her on nothing but the basis of unfounded rhetoric?

Likewise, the survivors of the Eighth Umbral Calamity didn't erase their suffering.

For all they knew, that is exactly what they were doing.

[Lersayil]

I always find it odd when someone uses the term 'platitude' as a rhetorical tool to make a point sound less valid. They're platitudes because they are truths that are so blatantly self-evident to most people and so often repeated that you're bored of hearing them. It's a bit like conceding that your views go against common sense.

Have you ever been served a bad platitude in a low point of your life?

Platitudes have a number of issues, one frequent among them is the people using them actually not understanding the reasoning behind them, hence using them incorrectly.

Venats reasoning was sound for a situation where there was no other reasonable choice but to accept, move on, and solve greater issues. Had the Ancients been on the same page it might've worked, but from their point of view the issue was all but resolved, and their life philosophy never actually failed. Venats argument would sound disconnected from the actual situation. (which feeds into another issue of platitudes where the deliverer just comes across as distant, preachy, disconnected and unempathetic even if they are correct)

Anyways I think my point is that they can be infuriating even when used correctly at the best of times with the best of intentions. Venats case was... some of these.

That being said, it might just be a careless mistranslation on my part. The corresponding word in my language has a strictly negative (and worse) connotation, and I never heard anyone use 'platitude' in a better context.