>> But this presumption of "I feel comfortable with X and therefore nobody else needs help with this" > I'm having trouble finding where anyone said this I'm

>> But this presumption of "I feel comfortable with X and therefore nobody else needs help with this" > I'm having trouble finding where anyone said this I'm indicating the general tone. I'll be more careful not to misuse quote marks in this comment and use [] to denote paraphrases! When I itemise the traps people can fall into, and then get the response of "No. I'm very clear with demands on my time" it ignores the vast swathes of people that don't have this luxury. Now maybe this commenter just felt I was talking about them directly; I did, after all, phrase the though process in the third person. (Now YOU have a choice, do YOU continue donating... etc) But given this is a comment in the public domain, this seems unlikely. More likely is that the commenter is dismissing the problem, because it doesn't apply to them. In general, I think we're mostly on the same page here: > I don't think anyone is claiming that the common case is the developer who stands up for themselves, has healthy boundaries, and doesn't let internet-hate scare them. Most developers fall into this trap, including a past version of myself. Exactly. Me too. The problem is, having addressed it to some extent, some people choose to believe that it's no longer a problem. Often it manifests as kind of a "I fixed myself, so why haven't you?" mentality. > people can change their attitude in order to have a healthier relationship with their OSS projects, and can develop the assertiveness necessary to enforce their boundaries Putting the idea of access to therapy aside, you and I can agree that it is absolutely beneficial for people to work on this aspect of themselves, as a general rule. However, while it is right to say [This is not a healthy stance to take] but we should be careful not to imply [It's your fault you are being weak] or that the recipient is the problem, not the toxic individuals. And while that isn't overtly being said in these comments, that's still the implication I take from them, even trying to re-read it charitably.