[pi_22by7]

This is a sharp dissection of ‘inevitabilism’ as a rhetorical strategy. I’ve noticed it too: the moment someone says ‘X is inevitable’, the burden of proof disappears and dissent becomes ‘denial’. But isn’t that framing itself... fragile? We’ve seen plenty of ‘inevitable’ futures (crypto, the Metaverse, even Web3) collapse under public pushback or internal rot.

The question I’m left with: if inevitabilism is so effective rhetorically, how do we counter it without sounding naïve or regressive?