Post
There's a fallacy, I call it the "but they consented" fallacy, there's probably a better term
You see it in convos around informed consent for clinical trials or to tech stuff
Where people justify lowering standards for something (increasing risk, making something worse, etc) by saying that they're just giving people more choice or something
But most people don't actually think they're consenting to something *that bad* even if you tell them explicitly beforehand
For many, depending on the situation, no matter how many times you tell them "there's no guardrails"
They'll still go into that situation and then be surprised if there's really no guardrails
"They wouldn't let me do this if it was really ____" (fill in the blank)
And this isn't some "humans are stupid lol" thing
That person who ends up in the situation where they thought there'd be guardrails and there isn't, *they're* the rational one, and everyone who let them end up there is in the wrong
@researchfairy "I never claimed this food did not contain cyanide" is not a valid defense, but people keep trying it.
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
