4 ms·

> You are not entitled to the attention of others. You are not entitled to having value attached to your complaints. You are not entitled to this explanation.

> You are not entitled to the attention of others. You are not entitled to having value attached to your complaints. You are not entitled to this explanation. I wish I understood this earlier in my life.

GChevalier 4y ago
I admit I chuckled at "You are not entitled to this explanation" while reading the article. How far can it go xD
- geoduck14 4y ago
  >How far can it go You aren't entitled to know that ;)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Buttons840 4y ago
  He's not entitled to me reading his rant, or changing my behavior based upon it. Is this deeper? You know, I don't think I've ever participated in a conversation that used the word "entitlement" and came away a better person.
  - asib 4y ago
    That sounds like a you problem more than a general rule that using the word engenders unproductive conversation.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    I agree, the non-stop one-sided accusations of entitlement didn't seem very productive to me. I wonder if some day someone will write a post about things maintainers aren't entitled to. I can think of several things. This is in no way exclusive to software. It's people in general. Dealing with people is extremely difficult. At least software developers aren't likely to get sued over these complaints.
    - Buttons840 4y ago
      Yes, the word "entitlement" is mainly used in response to widely acceptable behaviors, and is almost always a passive-aggressive escalation. I may not be entitled to be listened to when I speak, but it's still reasonable for me to speak with the expectation that I will be listened to. If I do speak, it's not an aggressive claim that I'm entitled to speak and you must listen.
tomxor 4y ago
Are you able to shed some light on where the entitlement is coming from? Asking as someone who has honestly never held such assumptions, I remember quite clearly my initial instinct towards various FOSS projects as "their castle their rules", I'm kinda puzzled why anyone would think otherwise... but this is a long time ago in internet years.
- stavros 4y ago
  People (me included) think that publishing and maintaining software is an implicit guarantee of (or attempt at) some level of proper behavior. When the software doesn't work as it should, people feel that that guarantee has been violated. Many contribute fixes and actively improve the software, but many post entitled comments.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bsuvc 4y ago
    > People (me included) think that publishing and maintaining software is an implicit guarantee of (or attempt at) some level of proper behavior Except there is no implicit guarantee. For example the Apache 2.0 license outright says it, so there is no argument about "implicit guarantees" https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License
    - stavros 4y ago
      I agree.
    - 4y ago
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> You are not entitled to the attention of others. I wish advertisers would understand that.
aeturnum 4y ago
Everyone has their own frame of reference and their own opinion on what is right or wrong in a particular situation. There could also be a singular objective hierarchy of morality or righteousness - but each person is going to have to come to their own conclusion about if that exists or not. I think the philosophy of engagement they outline there is internally consistent, but I don't think it supports where they go next: > If you think Cognitect is not doing anything for the community, or is not listening to the community, you are simply wrong. It's consistent to say that you do things for your own reasons and other people are not entitled to any engagement w/r/t their opinions on your work - but then also you are not entitled to anyone else agreeing to your opinions either. You can have all the opinions you want about your own work - but you're not entitled to anyone agreeing with them. The idea that doing the work should mean something for you is, after all, just another opinion. Alternatively, you could proceed from an ethic of building a shared understanding of creative community. Then you get to say things like "you are wrong if you don't think we are helping" - because you have a definition of community that you're following and the work you are doing is structured to support that definition. But then complaints do have value and standing, because you're promoting a kind of social contract. Not all complaints have standing ofc - but certainly some will!
monksy 4y ago
To some extend of being a human you are. Are you entitled to expect things to go exactly your way? No. Are you entitled to get what you want without trade? No. However, the whole claim of "we are going to do everything we want" and you're going to give us appreciation and some kind of resources (admiration, money, time, commits) is just selfish. Humans are social animals, what you create and put out is mention to be used by someone. It's not just wankery that is there for people to not get something of it.

GChevalier 4y ago

I admit I chuckled at "You are not entitled to this explanation" while reading the article. How far can it go xD

geoduck14 4y ago
>How far can it go You aren't entitled to know that ;)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Buttons840 4y ago
He's not entitled to me reading his rant, or changing my behavior based upon it. Is this deeper? You know, I don't think I've ever participated in a conversation that used the word "entitlement" and came away a better person.
- asib 4y ago
  That sounds like a you problem more than a general rule that using the word engenders unproductive conversation.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  I agree, the non-stop one-sided accusations of entitlement didn't seem very productive to me. I wonder if some day someone will write a post about things maintainers aren't entitled to. I can think of several things. This is in no way exclusive to software. It's people in general. Dealing with people is extremely difficult. At least software developers aren't likely to get sued over these complaints.
  - Buttons840 4y ago
    Yes, the word "entitlement" is mainly used in response to widely acceptable behaviors, and is almost always a passive-aggressive escalation. I may not be entitled to be listened to when I speak, but it's still reasonable for me to speak with the expectation that I will be listened to. If I do speak, it's not an aggressive claim that I'm entitled to speak and you must listen.

tomxor 4y ago

Are you able to shed some light on where the entitlement is coming from? Asking as someone who has honestly never held such assumptions, I remember quite clearly my initial instinct towards various FOSS projects as "their castle their rules", I'm kinda puzzled why anyone would think otherwise... but this is a long time ago in internet years.

stavros 4y ago
People (me included) think that publishing and maintaining software is an implicit guarantee of (or attempt at) some level of proper behavior. When the software doesn't work as it should, people feel that that guarantee has been violated. Many contribute fixes and actively improve the software, but many post entitled comments.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bsuvc 4y ago
  > People (me included) think that publishing and maintaining software is an implicit guarantee of (or attempt at) some level of proper behavior Except there is no implicit guarantee. For example the Apache 2.0 license outright says it, so there is no argument about "implicit guarantees" https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License
  - stavros 4y ago
    I agree.
  - 4y ago

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> You are not entitled to the attention of others. I wish advertisers would understand that.

aeturnum 4y ago

Everyone has their own frame of reference and their own opinion on what is right or wrong in a particular situation. There could also be a singular objective hierarchy of morality or righteousness - but each person is going to have to come to their own conclusion about if that exists or not. I think the philosophy of engagement they outline there is internally consistent, but I don't think it supports where they go next: > If you think Cognitect is not doing anything for the community, or is not listening to the community, you are simply wrong. It's consistent to say that you do things for your own reasons and other people are not entitled to any engagement w/r/t their opinions on your work - but then also you are not entitled to anyone else agreeing to your opinions either. You can have all the opinions you want about your own work - but you're not entitled to anyone agreeing with them. The idea that doing the work should mean something for you is, after all, just another opinion. Alternatively, you could proceed from an ethic of building a shared understanding of creative community. Then you get to say things like "you are wrong if you don't think we are helping" - because you have a definition of community that you're following and the work you are doing is structured to support that definition. But then complaints do have value and standing, because you're promoting a kind of social contract. Not all complaints have standing ofc - but certainly some will!

monksy 4y ago

To some extend of being a human you are. Are you entitled to expect things to go exactly your way? No. Are you entitled to get what you want without trade? No. However, the whole claim of "we are going to do everything we want" and you're going to give us appreciation and some kind of resources (admiration, money, time, commits) is just selfish. Humans are social animals, what you create and put out is mention to be used by someone. It's not just wankery that is there for people to not get something of it.