undefined | Better HN

0 pointss1artibartfast1y ago0 comments

I think the interesting thing about this post is the sense of entitlement.

Why does a businesses operating in a way you dislike entitle you to yell at them and break their rules?

Maybe the cause is conflating not getting your way with active harm. Refusing to serve you would be neutral, stealing from you would be harm.

0 comments

thaumasiotes1y ago

Refusing to serve me is harmful to the shop in the most straightforward way you can possibly imagine. They make less money for the same amount of work.

Their entire operation is harmful (to them, and to everyone who buys from them) in the same way; they could easily double the number of customers they process by having one of the idle employees making the drinks instead of the cashier.

s1artibartfastOP1y ago

Yeah, I just think that is a strange standard for "harm". I dont think anyone would be harmed if they refused to serve anyone and every employee was idle. What if they dont want to double the number of customers and care more about something else.

I think it is best to approach interactions without entitlement. They dont owe you service, and can choose on which terms they will engage.

Your concept of harm reminds me of how some people think they are "harmed" if someone doesn't want to date them, becoming angry and aggressive.

thaumasiotes1y ago

> I dont think anyone would be harmed if they refused to serve anyone and every employee was idle.

The owner might have a different opinion.

> Your concept of harm reminds me of how some people think they are "harmed" if someone doesn't want to date them

...and? That's a pretty commonly recognized harm. For example, it's the basis of the tort "alienation of affections".

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointss1artibartfast1y ago0 comments

I think the interesting thing about this post is the sense of entitlement.

Why does a businesses operating in a way you dislike entitle you to yell at them and break their rules?

Maybe the cause is conflating not getting your way with active harm. Refusing to serve you would be neutral, stealing from you would be harm.

0 comments

thaumasiotes1y ago

Refusing to serve me is harmful to the shop in the most straightforward way you can possibly imagine. They make less money for the same amount of work.

s1artibartfastOP1y ago

I think it is best to approach interactions without entitlement. They dont owe you service, and can choose on which terms they will engage.

Your concept of harm reminds me of how some people think they are "harmed" if someone doesn't want to date them, becoming angry and aggressive.

thaumasiotes1y ago

> I dont think anyone would be harmed if they refused to serve anyone and every employee was idle.

The owner might have a different opinion.

> Your concept of harm reminds me of how some people think they are "harmed" if someone doesn't want to date them

...and? That's a pretty commonly recognized harm. For example, it's the basis of the tort "alienation of affections".

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse