| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | TZubiri an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | “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. | | |
| ▲ | dpark 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | TZubiri 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | dpark 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | A threat can be violence but it’s not necessarily so. A threat is an expression of a negative result if something is not done. The negative could be violence, monetary loss, embarrassment, end of a relationship, or any other negative. Definitely not delving into legal definitions of coercion because I am not a lawyer and it is not relevant here. > 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 think you mean that threats are a common cause of conflict. “Are you threatening me?” “No, I’m merely posing a negative outcome that I will inflict if you don’t do what I want. Totally not a threat. Definitely not.” |
|
|
|
|
