4 ms·

> but you seem to be applying them only to one side. I guess the principle I am arguing for is when one side is prepared to use physical force (which they beli

> but you seem to be applying them only to one side. I guess the principle I am arguing for is when one side is prepared to use physical force (which they believe is justified) to remove someone from their private property, then the "trespasser" should abide by that (for the time-being), and seek legal remedy. I see this as the only option to remaining civil. I don't see how society can function without violence without this being adhered to. Also, when someone is charge with private security or as law enforcement, they should be respected where they physically enforce something. Again, once they have made up their mind to enforce something physically, I don't see a way to maintain civility in any other way than respecting their wishes. In this case it was the airline's private property, and they felt justified to physically remove someone. Now whether or not this is justified, is a matter for the courts to decide.

mikeash 10y ago
You focus entirely on what happened after the law arrived, and ignore the circumstances that led up to it. I completely agree that once they say, "get out or we'll take you out," you should get out peacefully, and pursue any remedy afterwards. However, I also contend that in a case like this, where the passenger was not any sort of threat, it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. The idea of preserving civility by preferring nonviolent responses says that the passenger should have left peacefully, and that United never should have tried to force him off. This is what I mean by "applying them only to one side." Both parties were in the wrong, but you're giving the one with all the power (and the one that started it) a free pass, and focusing all of your criticism on the customer.
- masondixon 10y ago
  > I completely agree that once they say, "get out or we'll take you out," you should get out peacefully, and pursue any remedy afterwards. Cool :) > and that United never should have tried to force him off. But once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property, you must carry this out. There were three other passengers who left peacefully, and to ask another passenger to leave because someone refused would have set a precedent. I really don't see United with any other choice. Its their private property and they need to be able to do as they please. If they break the law, then they get punished. But its their private property. > Both parties were in the wrong, but you're giving the one with all the power (and the one that started it) a free pass, and focusing all of your criticism on the customer. I don't see United in the wrong. Its their private property and they can do as they wish. I would have done exactly the same in the situation. I would never allow a passenger to stay on the plane when they are ordered off of it.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Why do you begin the analysis with "once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property"? Where United went wrong was deciding that they must force someone off the plane, rather than coming to a mutual agreement with someone to leave the plane. Once they've decided to do this then, yes, they need to follow through. But they didn't have to make that decision, and they shouldn't have. By taking the decision as a given and only talking about what happened afterwards, you're ignoring the whole problem.
    - masondixon 10y ago
      We can both say what we think both parties should have done, but this is entirely subjective and would come down to ideological differences and feelings. > Where United went wrong This is where we can find some truth to the matter. What does wrong mean here. Each side could have averted this event. And each side lost something from this event. Dr - Lost his dignity, became a celebrity with his face plastered around the world (good and bad - i.e. some people like myself think he is an idiot), physical injury, mental anguish, etc. United - Share price, reputation, had to apologise, may lose customers, etc. For both sides there are lots of negatives. United clearly had more to lose (tangible shareholder value and reputation) so they should have not created the situation. I wish more people would look at this for what it is, which is childish behaviour from a professional adult, and just move on, but alas in today's world it seems that every event is being filmed and ready to go viral, so perhaps the next video we see will be me sitting on a plane that is being delayed hours while someone is being coddled and sweet talked to get off a plane they are being bumped from. This Dr may miss his appointments with his patients, but what about all the other hundred passengers who will be late or miss their connections.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Wrong in this case means using violence when it was not necessary. This seems to be the standard that you're using to condemn the passenger. Why are you not applying that standard to United as well? Note that, if we accept that violence is acceptable to remove a noncompliant passenger, then violence was chosen (at least as a potential outcome) the moment that United decided to remove people involuntarily. Why do you insist that "it is" childish behavior from a professional adult, exclusively and ignore the behavior of the airline, which brought violence into a situation that did not call for it? This is why I don't say that you're wrong, but that you are being extremely one-sided. You continue to attack the passenger's behavior while ignoring or outright justifying the airline's behavior. The passenger should have complied, and the airline should never have put themselves in a position where they might have needed to threaten force. Do you not agree? If you do agree, then understand that people focus more on the airline for some really good reasons, namely that they started it, and they wield all of the power. We place more responsibility on entities which start something than those who merely respond, and more responsibility on entities with power than those without.

mikeash 10y ago

You focus entirely on what happened after the law arrived, and ignore the circumstances that led up to it. I completely agree that once they say, "get out or we'll take you out," you should get out peacefully, and pursue any remedy afterwards. However, I also contend that in a case like this, where the passenger was not any sort of threat, it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. The idea of preserving civility by preferring nonviolent responses says that the passenger should have left peacefully, and that United never should have tried to force him off. This is what I mean by "applying them only to one side." Both parties were in the wrong, but you're giving the one with all the power (and the one that started it) a free pass, and focusing all of your criticism on the customer.

masondixon 10y ago
> I completely agree that once they say, "get out or we'll take you out," you should get out peacefully, and pursue any remedy afterwards. Cool :) > and that United never should have tried to force him off. But once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property, you must carry this out. There were three other passengers who left peacefully, and to ask another passenger to leave because someone refused would have set a precedent. I really don't see United with any other choice. Its their private property and they need to be able to do as they please. If they break the law, then they get punished. But its their private property. > Both parties were in the wrong, but you're giving the one with all the power (and the one that started it) a free pass, and focusing all of your criticism on the customer. I don't see United in the wrong. Its their private property and they can do as they wish. I would have done exactly the same in the situation. I would never allow a passenger to stay on the plane when they are ordered off of it.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Why do you begin the analysis with "once you have decided someone needs to leave your private property"? Where United went wrong was deciding that they must force someone off the plane, rather than coming to a mutual agreement with someone to leave the plane. Once they've decided to do this then, yes, they need to follow through. But they didn't have to make that decision, and they shouldn't have. By taking the decision as a given and only talking about what happened afterwards, you're ignoring the whole problem.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    We can both say what we think both parties should have done, but this is entirely subjective and would come down to ideological differences and feelings. > Where United went wrong This is where we can find some truth to the matter. What does wrong mean here. Each side could have averted this event. And each side lost something from this event. Dr - Lost his dignity, became a celebrity with his face plastered around the world (good and bad - i.e. some people like myself think he is an idiot), physical injury, mental anguish, etc. United - Share price, reputation, had to apologise, may lose customers, etc. For both sides there are lots of negatives. United clearly had more to lose (tangible shareholder value and reputation) so they should have not created the situation. I wish more people would look at this for what it is, which is childish behaviour from a professional adult, and just move on, but alas in today's world it seems that every event is being filmed and ready to go viral, so perhaps the next video we see will be me sitting on a plane that is being delayed hours while someone is being coddled and sweet talked to get off a plane they are being bumped from. This Dr may miss his appointments with his patients, but what about all the other hundred passengers who will be late or miss their connections.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Wrong in this case means using violence when it was not necessary. This seems to be the standard that you're using to condemn the passenger. Why are you not applying that standard to United as well? Note that, if we accept that violence is acceptable to remove a noncompliant passenger, then violence was chosen (at least as a potential outcome) the moment that United decided to remove people involuntarily. Why do you insist that "it is" childish behavior from a professional adult, exclusively and ignore the behavior of the airline, which brought violence into a situation that did not call for it? This is why I don't say that you're wrong, but that you are being extremely one-sided. You continue to attack the passenger's behavior while ignoring or outright justifying the airline's behavior. The passenger should have complied, and the airline should never have put themselves in a position where they might have needed to threaten force. Do you not agree? If you do agree, then understand that people focus more on the airline for some really good reasons, namely that they started it, and they wield all of the power. We place more responsibility on entities which start something than those who merely respond, and more responsibility on entities with power than those without.