Ultimatum - What is or is not an "ultimatum"?

[~Sophia~]

*** Split from earlier thread - ***

As for the supposed ultimatum that was mentioned by one poster above, there has been none. Diana made a request - yes, it was harsh but IMO it was well-deserved - but there was no ultimatum. An ultimatum is when you tell someone, "If you do such and such, I will respond by doing so and so." Diana has not done that.

bold mine

Diana wrote:

If you choose to continue posting on The Forum, then however honest and nice you are, please do not post comments on NoodleFood. Do not e-mail me with or for information -- or for any other purpose. Do not talk to me at conferences or elsewhere. Just stay away from me. I want nothing whatsoever to do with the fleas who attack me on that forum -- or the people who sanction such attacks by participating in the pointless bull sessions with the fleas on that forum.

I understand this as:

If you choose to continue posting on The Forum then I want nothing to do with you, regardless if you wish me well or not.

How is that not an ultimatum?

For those who participate in The Forum and gain value from it, their decision to value The Forum more highly than participation in NoodleFood is certainly understandable as well.

I don't consider NoodleFood less valuable to me (as compared above) but I sure do value my intergrity more.

Edited July 24, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added split notice

[Myrhaf]

Sophia is right. Diana Hsieh's statement was certainly an ultimatum. Diana Hsieh is saying: either disassociate with the Forum or have nothing to do with me. As I noted on my blog, I can't introduce myself to her if we're ever, say, at a conference together because I post on the Forum.

I don't agree with everything I read on the Forum, but I consider it good overall. They monitor the ad hominem attacks with greater care than Objectivism Online, where someone speculated that Dr. Peikoff is senile. Such a statement would never have been allowed to stand at the Forum. Even if I did have problems with the Forum, which I don't, Diana Hsieh's ultimatum would only make me more stubborn in defending the Forum. What kind of spineless wimp would leave the Forum just to get a blogger's approval? Her ultimatum is ill-considered.

[KendallJ]

Diana wrote:

I understand this as:

If you choose to continue posting on The Forum then I want nothing to do with you, regardless if you wish me well or not.

How is that not an ultimatum?

"If you post to the Forum, I will ignore you."

It certainly fits the format that Lidio gave, but I usually think of ultimatums as promising action toward something. If you state it in that vein, then it really reads more like:

"If you post to the Forum, I will NOT engage you."

Which doesn't fit Lidio's form. Also, I like to consider the "quaking in my boots test". Is it any sort of threat that I'm worried about? This is sort of like General Sherman, stating to the Southern garrison at Atlanta, "If you continue resitance, we will NOT attack you." Hardly an ultimatum.

[Myrhaf]

The first definition of ultimatum in the Answers.com dictionary is "A final statement of terms made by one party to another." Diana Hsieh's statement would fit that definition.

She didn't say anything about her ignoring anyone. Her statement is admirably clear: "If you choose to continue posting on The Forum, then however honest and nice you are, please do not post comments on NoodleFood. Do not e-mail me with or for information -- or for any other purpose. Do not talk to me at conferences or elsewhere. Just stay away from me."

She wants the 1,000+ members of the Forum to stay away from her unless they discontinue posting at the Forum. That is her "final statement of terms."

I hope she rescinds her ultimatum before she and I are ever in the same room together. If I had to keep my distance from her, it would just seem silly to me.

[mrocktor]

An ultimatum is a demand that another act, with ones own action (or inaction) conditional to their compliance, and typically a time limit.

"If it rains by Tuesday I will kill you" is not an ultimatum, it demands no action of the other (although it is conditional and time limited).

"Mow your lawn by Tuesday" is not an ultimatum, there is no consequence conditional to compliance (though one could be implied by intonation, body language or previous history - making it an ultimatum).

"Paint your house blue or I'll kill you" is an ultimatum, despite not having a time limit.

The case in point is an ultimatum of the third time: demand, consequence, no explicit time limit. Although the consequence is not a threat (of force), although the consequence is a negative (I will NOT engage you), it is still an ultimatum.

For comparison, if America states "Palestinians, you will disavow Hamas and Fatah or we will interrupt all american aid" - that is an ultimatum, of the same type.

EDIT: having read Myrhaf's post, being "non negotiable" is certainly an essential characteristic of an ultimatum - the essential, perhaps. My previous argument remains as a study on the form they usually take.

Edited July 23, 2007 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

It is not an ultimatum, it is at worst an implied ultimatum. An ultimatum directly asserts "If you do X, Y, which I have control over, will be the consequence". Had she said "If you choose to continue posting on The Forum, then if you post comments on NoodleFood I will delete them, I will put you in my spam-box, I will shun you or yell at you if you talk to me at conferences", that would be an ultimatum. Consider this: if someone says "Could you please pass the salt?", do you consider that to be an ultimatum? Implicitly (and using normal social rules), that would mean "Pass the salt (imperative), or I will hate or criticize you".

The form is not that of an ultimatum. This is another classical example of how a clever person can exploit the denotation / connotation difference, by saying something that is not literally an ultimatum, but is typically interpreted as being an ultimatum. People tend to ignore what was actually and literally said, because we generally don't care about the actual wording, and we care about the person't intent. I think the "Or I will shun / filter you" part is a reasonable inference, but it is an inference.

[blackdiamond]

The first definition of ultimatum in the Answers.com dictionary is "A final statement of terms made by one party to another." Diana Hsieh's statement would fit that definition.

Either that definition is wrong (it covers situations that are certainly not ultimatums), or the sense of the word as defined here is different from the one used in this discussion.

If i put a notice on my shop that says "you can't enter this shop if you have dirty shoes" is that an ultimatum? [And how is that different, essentially, from Ms Hsieh's "ultimatum"?]

[Myrhaf]

If you rephrase it as "Either you wipe your shoes or you don't come into my shop," then I'd say you have an ultimatum. An either-or command (or request) is an ultimatum.

I hope you come by my blog, Black Diamond. I want to see Zambia in my Site Meter.

[blackdiamond]

If you rephrase it as "Either you wipe your shoes or you don't come into my shop," then I'd say you have an ultimatum. An either-or command (or request) is an ultimatum.

Wouldn't you say she phrased it the way I phrased it (and not the way you've rephrased it)?

I hope you come by my blog, Black Diamond. I want to see Zambia in my Site Meter.

Sorry, I'll only come to your blog if ...(just kiddin , I'll just come - with no ultimatums! I enjoy your blog posts at OO.net homepage.)

[Myrhaf]

Yes, she phrased it as an if-then statement. I still think that's an ultimatum, but I will concede it is not as clearly an ultimatum as and either-or statement -- which is why we're having this discussion, I suppose.

[blackdiamond]

After a good night's sleep (it's 8 am in Zambia), I'm now quite certain that this was not an ultimatum at all (not even an implied one).

An ultimatum always involves two parties in a dispute or negotiation. You can never give an ultimatum to the public, or to unknown people, or to "whoever it may concern".

Only a party that is directly involved in a negotiation or a dispute can be given an ultimatum.

Thus, "you can't enter this shop with dirty shoes" is not an ultimatum even if it is rephrased. "To enter our country, you need a valid passport" is definitely not an ultimatum even if you phrase it as "get a valid passport in your country or we won't allow you entrance in our country". The other person or party has to be involved in a dispute or negotiation with you, and an ultimatum simply means 1. giving them your final conditions (in negotiations) and 2. final demands - or face consequences (in a dispute).

Ms Hsieh can only give an ultimatum to Ms Speicher in this situation, because the dispute or feud is between them. There are no negotiations involved, so it can't be an ultimatum in sense 1 of the word; it can only be an ultimatum in a dispute condition. A condition to the public is just a condition of use of her property, which would be like the condition given by a nation on who can enter that country, or by a shop owner, etc.

[JMeganSnow]

They monitor the ad hominem attacks with greater care than Objectivism Online, where someone speculated that Dr. Peikoff is senile. Such a statement would never have been allowed to stand at the Forum.

Unless it was management policy: that is why I expect Diana hasn't felt any need to wholesale ban members of Oo.net from communicating with her even though I know she doesn't especially like this forum, either.

Now, why does it matter whether a particular ban is an ultimatum or not? Does something become better or worse depending on whether it actually qualifies as an ultimatum?

If you look at the etymology of the word ultimatum it's pretty easy to decide whether a given statement qualifies as one or not. It comes from (I think, I didn't bother to look it up, so smack me if I'm wrong) the Latin word ultima which means last or final. An ultimatum is the final word on a topic: its distinguishing characteristic is that it is not open for negotiation or debate.

It is not often used to describe more passive statements because the modern connotation of ultimatum is that you are a jackass who is not open to debate. Now I ask: does not being open to debate on some issues necessarily mean you are a jackass? And why would anyone that subscribes to a philosophy as absolutist as Objectivism find this connotation problematic?

[dianahsieh]

Unless it was management policy: that is why I expect Diana hasn't felt any need to wholesale ban members of Oo.net from communicating with her even though I know she doesn't especially like this forum, either.

Augh, I just managed to delete a lovely reply that I wrote. Let me try again... *grumble* ...

In general, I'm not much of a fan of web-based or e-mail-based discussion forums. The structure of the technology doesn't facilitate fruitful discussions, I don't think.

However, I certainly like and respect OO.net well enough to post on the MetaBlog, as well as post occasional comments. That's because I've found that most posters sincerely admire Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and others -- and honestly seek to understand Objectivism. That's also true of the owner and the moderators, as much as I know them. (David's withdrawl of his original comment in the election debate spoke volumes to me, despite the unjust hay that some have repeatedly attempted to make of it.) I've also found the moderation fair and open: I particularly like that deleted posts can be inspected in the Trash.

Overall, and this is the crucial point, I've always found that I could get a fair hearing on OO.net, even though disagreements may persist. As Jennifer indicates, that's largely thanks to good management policy. Given my enormously unpleasant experiences with the alternatives, I certainly don't take that for granted.