← Back to context

Comment by brudgers

16 hours ago

A person in a conversation is socially obligated to make reasonable attempts to speak and respond to other people’s questions, comments, and concerns.

Slaves and servants and subjects have the obligation you describe.

It is the nature of their bondage.

Asking questions and complaining and unsolicited opining are hallmarks privilege.

To the extent a social contract is a contract, it requires both parties to receive consideration.

19 comments

brudgers

Reply
teddyh  16 hours ago

Comparing mainainers being socially obligated to respond to questions to actual slavery, is unseemly.

If people don’t want the social burden of being a public person or even the relatively small burden of having a public project, they have the option of not being public.

  • marcus0x62  16 hours ago

    Or -- stay with me -- they have the option of running their public project in the manner and with the level of effort they want. If you don't like that, you are free to run your own projects according to your own standards.

    • teddyh  15 hours ago

      People “have the option” to say whatever they want – it’s called Free Speech, and it’s an important legal right. But that does not mean that I think that everything people do say is right and proper. I can, and will, criticize people for what they say, and I will also criticize maintainers who treat their users with less than reasonable respect.

      You are conflating legal rights with what is socially or ethically right, and I think this is a dubious rhetorical trick.

      12 replies →

  • zoogeny  15 hours ago

    Why only two options? It seems limiting the options of engagement only serves to create a false dichotomy for the purposes of supporting your argument.

    If the only two options are to become obligated to the public or not to engage at all, what a sad world this would be. Thankfully, there are many, many alternate options in the reality we share, even if not in your imagined reality.