Comment by dpark
3 days ago
Is it inappropriate? Not really. Is it a threat? Yeah, it really is. “I’m going to stop using your software if you don’t change this” is a threat. “I’m going to fork it and ship a competing product” is a stronger threat.
It was a clear attempt to sway with intimidation. It was done politely but that doesn’t change what it was. (The dev had already closed as won’t fix, too, so they had preemptively answered.)
“hey, X is a dealbreaker for me, if this is not fixed please let me know so I can look for someone else”
“how dare you threaten me?”
I understand how one might feel attacked by an ultimatum, but a policy of rejecting ultimatums altogether only has the benefit of keeping pride intact, on the other hand it discourages people in your life from giving you a last chance, from communicating why they are leaving, and for letting them come back if the parting was amicable
best response is to just communicate you are not fixing X and parting ways amicably, no hard feelings. not only is it beneficial for the ultimated party, but it’s fair for the ultimating party, who is absolutely in their own right to rescind their voluntary relationship, in no way is it a threat to communicate that possibility, because a threat implies violence or damage.
An ultimatum is a threat. That’s literally the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum
Again, I did not say the threat in this case was inappropriate. It’s totally legitimate to say “this doesn’t work for me; change it or I’m out”. But it is a threat. We should be honest with what we are doing. If nothing else it makes it easier to understand (and predict) a defensive reaction when we understand and acknowledge a threat is being delivered.
there’s certainly an ambiguety in the word threat, where the main definition is about violent coercion, but it is sometimes used as a useful metaphoric shorthand.
and it’s very common for the usage to cause conflict, the exchange of “are you threatening me?” “no, i’m just telling you what I’ll do” is very common.
i personally wouldn’t use it as a shorthand when there’s no violence or punitory damage implied, unless I purposefully wanted to escalate things. it’s a word that refers to violence, so it will harsh the vibes instantly
a key element of coercion (and this is deeply studied in law so there is less subjectivity than regular language) is that the hypothetical presented cause a damage, and then the avoidance of that damage is traded for a positive action. it doesn’t really apply to a case where a person exercises their right (to leave) and it only secondarily (or not at all) causes a damage, there is no intent to harm and no manipulation of the other into acting one way to avoid that harm.
in the context of leaving a relationship, it might make some sense only if there’s a contract, or even some sense of loyalty that is expected from an extracontractual custom, we are talking marriages or (arguably) employment or religious affiliation, where bonds and codependence are formed. but invoking that treatment for strangers on an as-is warrantyless usage contract? nah
11 replies →
A threat is not an ultimatum.
A threat is an intention to cause harm.
> best response is to just communicate you are not fixing X
You mean the response that was already written in a previous message and the response user decided to ignore so they can pester more?
Is “I won’t buy this car if you don’t give me a discount” a threat too?
It is not a threat to pass along an intention of performing a non-harmful action.
Let me add some more double negatives in there.... It's not not a threat to not keep quiet about intention to not not cause pain to another person.
Sure. The threat here is the loss of the sale.
I don’t really care though. Call it whatever you want.
The benefit of giving a discount is actually _getting a sale_
The way I read your response is "you must buy my X, otherwise you're negatively impacting me already" and it's something turned on its head.
How is "_I really like your software but I the way X is solved bothers me, so I'm going to modify it thanks to your prior permission_" a threat?
"a competing product", perhaps for these pissed with the deb's human skills or those who want to use it in the unique environment he refuses them to adapt them to, contrary to his own licence?
No, seriously, intimidation? "Your position is untenable for us, we'll find another way forward" is a "let's agree to disagree", not more.
I responded to 100% of this in the thread.
You can disagree with my view on the situation, that’s fine. But I will decline to re-argue every point for you.
It is not a threat.
Threatening is expressing an intention to cause pain or harm.
This is not that.
Posting the same narrow definition 6 times doesn’t make it true. In one of your many replies you cite dictionary.com. This is the top definition on dictionary.com when I load it:
a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course.
But you do you.
<3 thanks!