8 ms·

"Tall people earn substantially more money on average, and so it seems only fair (from this short writer’s perspective) that they experience a bit of added disc

• boardwaalk 10y ago
  I was just about to comment on that. Quite bizarre commentary for a Economist article.
• csydas 10y ago
  Please expand on what you find disagreeable here, else the post is just white noise and not really appropriate for HN. I do think the author's reasoning in that part is flawed and a bit vengeful simply because it seems to me like a misguided sense of justice and right/wrong, and that they want what they perceive as justice simply because of the circumstances of one's birth sometimes being a boon, sometimes being a burden. But this is also a post from a blog, not an article from The Economist - I think the opinion is shallow and poorly thought out, but it's just an opinion.
  • demosthenes111 10y ago
    It's a completely ridiculous comment. This policy isn't about "fairness" but rather weight distribution and cost of fuel. Punishing tall people for being born tall and making more "on average" is absurd.
  • jayjay71 10y ago
    "Please expand on what you find disagreeable here, else the post is just white noise and not really appropriate for HN." That comment piqued my curiosity enough for me to read the article, something which probably isn't true for over 99% of the comments I read on HN. So I strongly disagree with you that it isn't appropriate for HN. There is nothing defamatory in what he says, and whether or not it is substantive can be decided with votes like all other comments.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • manojlds 10y ago
      Actually I skipped the last few paras after getting the initial tone of the article and this comment made me go back.
  • clort 10y ago
    Its disagreeable because "on average, <type> people earn more than <!type> people, therefore all <type> people should pay more for the same service" is not an obvious conclusion to make. In fact, it is tainting some folk with the faults that others with a similar attribute have and is in the end discriminatory and unfair because their height was not a choice they made. If the author had written that tall people should pay more because they are bigger and need a bigger space then that might have been more palatable, but in the end I'm not sure that the extra space is the significant factor, since I can sit upright easily in the vertical space allocated for everybody to walk through the plane. Do we also need to charge more for people with big hairstyles, or those who choose to wear high heels? Also, why is there a minimum cost for the average space needed, my partner (155cm) takes up less space than average!
    • djsumdog 10y ago
      I like your <type> statement because it draws to the bigger problems with generalizations. It's also the weird logic flow I see more and more in western culture. "Privilege" is a word I hear thrown around a lot today. Often times when people use that word, they do not realize they are making broad assumptions about other peoples' circumstances (typically) based on an ascribed attribute. To go even further in relation to this and air travel, is obesity ascribed or achieved? If you get charged extra for being tall, that's not something really in your control. Discriminating against an ascribed trait isn't really fair and is the reason for civil rights legislation. There are cases where it's difficult to determine if something is ascribed vs achieved. This is why laws for marriage equality have taken as long as they have in much of the world. In terms of obesity, we see the trends and we see it's increasing. This is something we can measure. Homosexuality was something that could be hidden, and therefore the measurements could easily be off as people may have lied in previous decades to fit in with social norms. Ultimately, fighting obesity has a lot to do with education, and changing some of the very wrong ideas we have about what is and isn't healthy food. But that's another matter. In the article, they're mostly describing airlines that weigh people to distribute loads on planes. That seems logical. Now in regards to airlines charging them a different price due to weight and fuel consumption, that gets into a very grey area of how we deal with the reasoning behind obesity, choice, human rights and market costs.
  • taneq 10y ago
    You could argue that a tall person should not be charged more than a short person for the same service, even if it costs more to provide it to them, on the basis that their height is a circumstance of their birth. You cannot make the same argument for someone who is obese, since their obesity is almost certainly a choice (or a result of lifestyle choices, depending how you look at it).
    • coldtea 10y ago
      >since their obesity is almost certainly a choice Citation needed. In fact there's a HUGE industry of obese people making the choice to lose weight (diet, gyms, etc) and failing.
      • chillacy 10y ago
        I think being obese is as much a choice as being poor is a choice: you're born into it and have obese friends who feedback into an inactive lifestyle. Escaping obesity is possible with hard work, as is escaping poverty, but its also not easy. That said, counting calories isn't that hard, but it does take discipline, and that's not easy.
        • coldtea 10y ago
          >That said, counting calories isn't that hard, but it does take discipline, and that's not easy. Several studies have shown that we're not good in discipline at all, unless for people that it's innate. So discipline might be a factor out of our control too (genetic), and it's just the presence of people with more innate discipline (against genetic) that makes it achievable.
          • chillacy 10y ago
            Yea that doesn't surprise me, though studies also say that we're strongly influenced by our peers and are largely creatures of habit, so there are definitely tricks around this like hanging out with others into fitness or even lurking on a fitness subreddit.
  • hillz 10y ago
    First, I agree with you. But to answer: One chooses to be obese more than one chooses to be tall, so arguing that tall people should have to pay more for their size while the obese shouldn't seems illogical.
    • thinkloop 10y ago
      > One chooses to be obese more than one chooses to be tall I wonder - have you ever tried weed? With a few foreign molecules in your system you can go from barely liking cookies to consuming 5 boxes without being able to stop. The satiation part of the brain is very sensitive. Imagine having to constantly fight similar urges because of slight mutations in that zone. I think physical make up could be indirectly the most important factor in determining weight, especially when it comes to extremes like obesity. edit: reworked phrasing
      • taneq 10y ago
        > Imagine what it would be like fighting similar feelings every second of every day because your satiation part of the brain is a bit off. Yeah, that's how I stay not-obese.
      • hueving 10y ago
        Yes, they choose because of poor diet choices, nobody is hooking up a tube of big macs to their faces. A quarter of the entire US population didn't suddenly catch a disease and become obese. Being sedentary and taking in 2500 calories a day is definitely a choice. A very small percentage of obese people have hunger as extreme as your 5 cookie box example. All it takes is not paying attention to caloric intake over a long period like 5 years.
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
        • Smaug123 10y ago
          I'm not expressing an opinion about the causes of the current obesity problem, but your comment had the opposite effect on me than the effect you wanted. "A quarter of the entire US population didn't suddenly catch a disease and become obese." Why not? When you put it that way, it strikes me as pretty implausible that 'a quarter of the entire US population suddenly became lazy and started stuffing their faces for no good reason'. Epidemics have happened frequently before; bouts of mass overeating are historically rare.
  • coldtea 10y ago
    >Please expand on what you find disagreeable here, else the post is just white noise and not really appropriate for HN. Maybe don't assume what's "appropriate for HN" (unless something is obviously offensive or spam, etc)? Far from white noise, the parent pointed a specifically interesting (and inane) excerpt from the post. Whether you agree or disagree, it doesn't take much imagination to see what one can find appalling in that part. First, not sure if the author is half-joking, but the notion that tall people are fair game because they "earn substantially more money on average" is especially idiotic. Something true "on average" (and from statistics the poster read for specific cultures/countries) doesn't obviously apply to all members. Besides, rich people, whether short or tall, don't pay more for anything else they buy unless they they want too -- so again this would be just an arbitrary tax on tallness. Second, the post goes on to say that "the overweight and obese? They receive no such life benefits, and it feels rather cruel, if not illegal, to ask them to pay extra for the same service". Only it's obviously not about having benefits in other fields of life (!), it's about their weight's cost to the airline (more personal weight amounts to less cargo, more fuel etc). >But this is also a post from a blog, not an article from The Economist - I think the opinion is shallow and poorly thought out, but it's just an opinion. So?
    • kelnos 10y ago
      > Maybe don't assume what's "appropriate for HN" As members of the HN community, that is literally our job to do. Communities are maintained by agreeing on and enforcing norms. You may not agree with someone's assumptions about whether or not something is appropriate, but they are absolutely within their rights to make a value judgment based on that. > Far from white noise, the parent pointed a specifically interesting (and inane) excerpt from the post. Yes, but this is a discussion forum. Quoting a section of text and then "annotating" it with "Jesus..." is not discussion, and doesn't foster discussion, at least, no aside from the "yeah, no kidding" variety. Fortunately, in this case, someone has called the poster out on it, and has in the process started discussion about it, but that's in spite of the original, not because of it.
      • coldtea 10y ago
        >You may not agree with someone's assumptions about whether or not something is appropriate, but they are absolutely within their rights to make a value judgment based on that. As a member of the HN community, consider where this leads: endless flamewars and meta-discussions on comments, instead of TFA. Note also that I'm not against people speaking on what's "appropriate for HN" in general, just against particular uncalled for instances. If a comment is defamatory or off-topic etc, it's a fair game. >Quoting a section of text and then "annotating" it with "Jesus..." is not discussion, and doesn't foster discussion, at least, no aside from the "yeah, no kidding" variety. Quoting and exclamations are very much part of discussion. In fact, for quoting this should go without saying. From books to scientific papers and on to legendary literary or scholarly exchanges, you'll find extended use of quotations. It is an act of curation and highlighting. Same for the annotation "Jesus", that serves to give us a clear indication of what the commenter thought of the quotation (he doesn't approve of it). You claim that "it didn't foster discussion", but you are disproven in reality. Besides the distracting meta-discussion, the comment did foster discussion of that particular quote, which you can see in the thread below, with people arguing pro and against the very ideas expressed in the quote.
• dingo_bat 10y ago
  The tall hate is real. As a tall person myself (6'4''), I am open to paying a bit more for taller seats and a bit more leg space. Because of the absolute impossibility of the former, I have found myself avoiding less important trips altogether.
  • zeroer 10y ago
    I'm 6'2" and broad-shouldered. First class seats, while not taller, give more leg room and more width and are hence much more comfortable for me. Have you ever flown business or first class?
    • loeg 10y ago
      That costs a lot more than ordinary tickets. Often 2x.
      • seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        That is an understatement. If it was only 2X, I would fly business class more often when going between continents.
      • enobrev 10y ago
        They definitely are far more expensive. This is why I maintain loyalty with a frequent flyer program with an airline that has a generally decent business / first class. For shorter flights, I'll sit wherever and gain miles/points, but for anything 3+ hours, I'll use an upgrade (about 15k miles/points) for a better seat and service. This keeps the flights inexpensive, while opening up the option for more leg room when I really need it (I'm 6'6").
    • cm2012 10y ago
      Seriously, dude. That is some privilege.
      • zeroer 10y ago
        Sure, it' a privilege to fly business class. But dingo_bat explicitly said he would pay more. How would it not be relevant that paying more for better seats is actually an option.
• function_seven 10y ago
  It’s a joke. “(from this short writer’s perspective)” is the clue that the writer is joking about their small karmic victory over tall people.
  • p10_user 10y ago
    I smiled as I read it and took it to be a joke, but it might do the writer some good to be a little less subtle here. Admittedly I'm not very tall myself.
• oskarth 10y ago
  Sounds like something George Constanza would say.
  • Art_Van_Delay 10y ago
    WORLDS ARE COLLIDING.
• Johnny555 10y ago
  Hawaiian Airlines is not charging more for heavy passengers, they are delaying seat assignment and assigning seats based on weight (for better weight distribution): So Hawaiian Airlines instituted a new policy. People flying between Honolulu and American Samoa would no longer be able to select their seats before arriving at the airport. Instead, they would be assigned seats when they checked in so that the carrier could distribute their weight evenly around the plane. Ironically, Samoa Air (from their own country) does charge by weight: ...Samoa Air in 2013 became the first airline to charge passengers by weight.
  • tylerhou 10y ago
    I think the person's objection is that the logic presented in that paragraph is pretty terrible. (Otherwise, the paragraph reads like a bad joke, which should have no place in formal writing, especially not writing as reputable as the Economist.)
    • dagw 10y ago
      The Economist has always included the occasional joke and bad pun in its articles to lighten the mood. It's one of its charms.
• disposablezero 10y ago
  I had to move my mom to another seat on a recent flight because the adjacent passenger spilled into three seats total. Everyone was uncomfortable until the large passenger (American college American football player) occupied two seats after my mom moved to a luckily open seat. I'm on the side of horizontally/vertically large people need to pay for what they use, because forcing another passenger to stand for a 7 hour is ridiculously short-changing other paying customers. [0] Or throwing off the CG of a plane to where it may be uncontrollable and crash... yeah, I want that because people are too precious about their weighs. PS: I happen to be so tall as to be at the 0.1% percentile range and barely fit into any coach seat without folding my ankles into my pockets. Sports cars, clothes and shoes all have an PITA tax for being vertically-challenged. And I couldn't fit it an F-16 if I wanted to, fuck my life. LOL. 0. http://abcnews.go.com/US/passenger-forced-stand-obese-flyer-takes-seat/story?id=15017545 http://abcnews.go.com/US/passenger-forced-stand-obese-flyer-...
  • smcl 10y ago
    I've always heard "vertically challenged" as a short-person euphemism, it's funny to hear it refer to tall people in this context
• r00fus 10y ago
  As a shorter person, that sounds like flamebait indeed. Taller people have issues while flying that never really bother me, from having their knees bashed by seat reclines to having minimal elbow space.
• andrewclunn 10y ago
  I mean sometimes the neo Marxism is just laid bare. Forget safety, utilitarian fuel gains, or the discomfort of those forced to sit next to the severely obese... The real injustice is that we're punishing "victims" and should only punish those vile privileged folk! Truly a rage inducing attitude.
• groktor 10y ago
  i stopped reading at this point.
• wcummings 10y ago
  This is obviously a joke, in case "from this short writer's perspective" didn't give it away.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]