3 ms·
I'm not weighing in on this particular example because I haven't looked at in sufficient depth. However I want to strongly push back on the argument that: some
by EthanHeilman 7y ago
I'm not weighing in on this particular example because I haven't looked at in sufficient depth.
However I want to strongly push back on the argument that: something can't be torture or abuse because the person is physically able to leave. The absence of a locked door does not capture the full scope of coercion and psychological in many situations.
This sort of excuse is often used by cults and domestic abusers to justify why the terrible things they do are not abusive. People die or have life long psychological trauma from hazing rituals that they are "free to leave at any point".
- qubex 7y agoI concur with you on this. The availability of a theoretical ‘out’ does not automatically mean that the victim is consenting to the ongoing mistreatment. Often it is intrinsic that taking that ‘out’ has perceived costs that make it less preferable than enduring the experience the victim is being subjected to. This is in and of itself a source of great angst for the victim.
- EthanHeilman 7y agoGiven the sunk cost fallacy, the magnitude of increasing suffering someone might put up with is unbounded.