> 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.
> 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 is weird to proscribe that a human should act in an inhuman way, like trying to provide a subset of actions they're allowed to do in response to you - that's not how humans work. It's weird because most people accept that others humans can act how they want, often with some pattern, so when you're saying humans have to act in a particular way, and how they're only entitled to certain actions in response to you: that's weird.
> This translates to "I will not change my stance so you need to change yours".
Sorry, what languages do you think you're translating to/from here? How did it translate the fact that humans are pattern recognition machines into my personal stance which I must change for you? How am I supposed to change this fact that you're unwilling to accept? Why are you unwilling to accept it? It's supported by a lot of inventions literature, and it would make your life and those around you happier?
> 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.
like I said, point to this unreasonable or abusive behaviour here - I don't see it - I see you getting upset about humans being humans.
> 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.
> It is weird to proscribe that a human should act in an inhuman way,
No, it is weird to suggest that just because humans do something it becomes "human" and acceptable (it is not), just like it's weird to suggest that humans generally accept this (they don't).
Theft, abuse (verbal or physical), slavery, murder, rape, etc., are all "human" in that many humans do it, might have it stem from relatively natural urges, and might have internally reasoned that their actions are sound and justified. It is normal and accepted to classify certain human behaviors as "wrong" and unacceptable. See: any country with a legal system.
Outside legal concepts, humans also strongly and explicitly discriminate in who they find acceptable and pleasant by virtue of including (and exclusion) from their social circles and choice of partner, with responses ranging from procreation to complete exclusion, active avoidance and even intense reactions upon unwanted meetings.
Actions have consequence, and accepting/including an abusive individual is masochism.
> How did it translate the fact that humans are pattern recognition machines into my personal stance
The problem here is that you confuse the concept of "fact" with "opinion". Your definition of humans as "pattern recognition machines" is neither fact nor decisive in the matter. It's just an idea and belief that you personally prescribe to, which I neither agree with nor find relevant.
If anything, we're stimuli-optimizing, work-minimizing procreation machines, and neither that nor your description is relevant to the discussion. Even if we did fit your description, it has no implication on the outcome of "acceptable behavior".
> So why haven't you walked away from me? :)
Discussing unreasonable and abusive behavior is not the same as enacting or experiencing unreasonable or abusive behavior. Imagine if you got a speeding ticket for dicussing that speeding should be okay.
Granted, I might walk away anyway by virtue of the discussion being rather unproductive, but hey it's my time on the planet and so only I get to decide if I want to waste it. :)
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.