You're saying that "if someone tells you some entitled garbage, and you believe it, it's not entitled garbage?". So essentially it's not entitlement because someone else told you?
Well, entitlement is just an opinion too -- surely it's not an objective fact that someone is entitled (except we're talking about a king, an inheritance, and so on).
Specifically, it's the opinion that something must be a certain way because you want it like that.
Nah. Entitlement is the belief that one is due something unconditionally. Its ego at heart; an entitled person probably has no opinion on what is due others.
> See "strawman fallacy". People absolutely are making false claims, including about entitlement.
You certainly demonstrated the fallacy. You took the most absurd interpretation of my words that is possible in a literal sense which happens to be easier for you to mock.
Describing someone's behavior as entitled doesn't amount to making a false claim. That's the most obvious interpretation of what I actually said. But you took it to mean that any claim of entitlement can't be false.
> Your imagining someone to be entitled does not make them so, and your accusation belittles their actual, valid reasoning.
There's no imagination or accusation involved here when the very comment I'm referring to is right here in this very thread. It's a statement of fact.
The parts I quoted are ad hominem attacks that accuses someone of neglecting an obligation that objectively doesn't exist. That's the dictionary definition of entitlement.
> It actually shows you to be the one "entitled" to your projected redeclaration of their identity and rationale
Like misrepresenting my words or calling me "narcissistic?"
> potentially shared value-based opinion about the facts being criticised
The parts I quoted isn't a fact-based criticism. It's an ad hominem attack.
> irrellevant as calling out someone for being "entitled to breathe air" if you catch them criticizing the air's quality
Everyone is entitled access to clean air. People have an obligation to keep the air clean.
No one is entitled access to free labor, including having your pet features implemented and maintained in a software project.
But overall, gosh. How many fallacies, misrepresentations, and personal insults can you pack in such a short comment?
It is not entitlement, it is the human way of communicating. You are not the other side, you are just representing the anti-intellectualism that is not too popular on HN.
See "strawman fallacy".
People absolutely are making false claims, including about entitlement. Your imagining someone to be entitled does not make them so, and your accusation belittles their actual, valid reasoning. It actually shows you to be the one "entitled" to your projected redeclaration of their identity and rationale - implying the accuser (you) is more likely to have narcissistic tendencies than the person holding a potentially shared value-based opinion about the facts being criticised.
Furthermore, it's about irrellevant as calling out someone for being "entitled to breathe air" if you catch them criticizing the air's quality.
The blog banner "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." means absolutely nothing beyond saying what we all trivially accept (though the latter half is true), that anyone can say what they like within the law's limits.
Entitlement implies a right and a right demands an obligation on the part of others. There is no obligation at all in respect of someone's opinion so what can the statement possibly mean? We should stop talking about entitlement in this loose way.
I have a hard time believing that the word "entitle" was accompanied by no judgement, but if not, then I apologize for making assumptions. I find feelings of entitlement to be largely the result of selfishness or delusion, and so when I hear it applied to me, that's what I think is being said.
Now, that is a ridiculous take. By your definition, entitled people have to describe themselves as such? The rest of us use "entitlement" as a term to describe the action of others. People aren't making "false claims" when they do that.
Resorting to personal attacks because someone refused to implement and maintain your pet feature for free fits the description of "entitlement" in my book.
You're using the word "entitled" in a very strange way.
Entitled isn't a statement of practicalities or realpolitik; it's a statement of ideals. "Entitlement" as a concept doesn't make sense outside of the context of morality and ethics (or laws). It's not about the way the world is, but about the way the world ought to be.
If I'm an employer trying to spend the limited resources I have to get the right people on my team, barring exceptions I'll get into below, I have a right to be told the truth. You don't have to tell me everything, and if I ask a question you're entitled to say "None of your business". But if I say, "What experience do you have leading a team" and you lie to inflate your experience, and based upon that I hire you, then you have harmed me, you have harmed your future colleagues, you have harmed the other person I might have hired if you'd told the truth, and you have harmed yourself by putting yourself in a situation where you can't perform and can't trust or be trusted. A symmetric set of harms can be sketched out for employers. So no, you absolutely are not entitled to lie to me as a potential employer, and neither are companies entitled to lie to you as a potential employee.
The one exception I'd carve out is if you had the expectation that I'd misuse the truth. If I ask, "Are you pregnant", or "Have you ever been a union organizer", then "yes" could be misused to refuse to hire me (which is against the law), and "none of your business" might be construed as "yes". (Similarly to why, in WWII, I'd answer "No" if Nazis came to me door and asked me I were hiding Jews.)
But if I'm hiring you to lead a team, what I would do with an honest answer to "What is your experience leading a team" is legitimate, not misuse; and you have neither a moral, ethical, nor legal right to lie to me in your response.
Perhaps you really meant that practically speaking, below a certain level, there's no way to police minor "misrepresentations" from one side to the other. But just because it's possible to do it and get away with it doesn't make it right; and the fact that lots of people are causing harm to others by misrepresenting themselves doesn't negate the harm that you're causing when you do it too.
Just to clarify: I wasn't saying you'd called him entitled. I'd just felt the need to expand upon that point, because the words "entitle" or "entitled" appear about 12 times on this comments page already, and are bound to appear even more. I sort of picked that section of your comment as a segue into discussing the entitlement topic. Sincere apologies to you if I gave you the impression that I was accusing you of labeling the guy entitled.
reply