Comment by 1dom
4 months ago
> No. There is no valid justification, and the suggestion otherwise suggests a lack of understanding of what exactly these rude individuals are demanding.
Like I said, the fact that people are human, and that minios did a thing repeatedly, is why the expectation is there. Saying it's not justified is like saying the sky isn't justified being blue, getting upset and frustrated about it is even more silly.
There's no need for people to be rude, I agree, but I don't really see any people being disproportionately rude in their comments, especially in the context of a provider who pulled part of their provisions without fair warning.
> Like I said, the fact that people are human
Repeating something unreasonable does not make it reasonable.
If I donate to charity for 10 years in a row, someone might come to expect my donation, sure. If I chose to lower or stop my donation, the only response others are entitled to is gratitude for the remaining and past donations. There is no requirement for warning. Heck, in this particular case the whole "charity donation" is still there, just packaged differently. Discontent makes no sense.
People's rude behavior isn't limited to HN comments, they take it everywhere: Reddit, GitHub issues, mailing lists, channels. Nor was my comment specific to this minio news, but rather about people's attitude towards free things in general.
> If I chose to lower or stop my donation, the only response others are entitled to is gratitude for the remaining and past donations.
I'm sorry, I don't think we're going to agree. I think it's weird that you're trying to proscribe people's allowed responses, and getting upset that it's not just gratitude.
If you see the world that way, you're never going to see my point which is that humans recognise patterns, and that creates expectations. Price doesn't matter. You can repeat all you want that those expectations should just be gratitude, but they're clearly not, that's why we're having this discussion.
I can't make humans not be pattern recognition machines, but you can update your mental model to accept that they are. If you base your expectations in what we both see in reality, then you'll accept that they're not going to just be gratuitous. That's not because they're horrible people, it's because they're humans that recognise patterns and have a biological cost to patterns being disrupted.
> I think it's weird that you're trying to proscribe people's allowed responses
There's nothing weird about classifying behavior as rude, nor about refusing to waste my limited time on this planet on those not deserving of it.
It's an entirely natural part of every-day life to make such distinction, necessary even to avoid things negatively impacting mental health, and I think it's weird to suggest otherwise.
> I can't make humans not be pattern recognition machines, but you can update your mental model to accept that they are.
This translates to "I will not change my stance so you need to change yours". I have no reason to or incentive to change my stance to accept unpleasant, unreasonable or abusive behavior in response to creating free things, so no.
I don't care why someone is being unpleasant, unreasonable or abusive, nor do I need to - I'm not their therapist, and it's perfectly valid for me to just walk away.
> I'm sorry, I don't think we're going to agree.
That's fine.
Granted, I'd prefer if users stopped such unreasonable behavior as it's more healthy to not have toxic interactions than having to mentally ignore them (or worse, respond, report or ban them), but can't win every time. It would've been more productive for the users too.
2 replies →