3 ms·

> they have no way to leave Not only do the people have no way to leave, the owner of the place also has no practical way to make people leave, like they would

by steve1977 5mo ago

> they have no way to leave Not only do the people have no way to leave, the owner of the place also has no practical way to make people leave, like they would for example in a restaurant. At least once the plane is in the air. And the captain has to ensure the safety not only of the flying machine but also of the cabin. So I can absolutely understand the move here and the need to forbid everything that could incite violence in the cabin.

vkou 5mo ago
Will the captain likewise call the FBI if some knuckledragging mouth breather with three ex-wives and a flag tattoo on his groin has an access point called 'Make Murucuh Great Again'? That would make me uncomfortable on the flight, and it's also one-hundred percent a political statement. One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans, and many more people outside of it.
- steve1977 5mo ago
  If the captain thinks it poses a risk to his plane, why not?
  - no-name-here 5mo ago
    I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? Or in what way is it a risk to the plane? If passenger(s) are wearing a super pro or anti Biden or Trump shirt or Bluetooth/SSID name, is that a risk to the plane, as what if there are other people on the plane who feel strongly in the other direction? But if someone really is OK with pilots turning around flights because of such shirts, etc., then wouldn't the better solution for airlines be to ban clothing, stickers, military uniforms, etc., that have countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans, etc. on them? As if someone believes that turning around planes over it is reasonable, better to address that 'problem' even before taking off and costing large amounts of money and time for hundreds of others, instead of based on the whim(?) of a pilot hours into a flight.
    - steve1977 5mo ago
      > I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? That is up to the captain to decide.
      - no-name-here 5mo ago
        But as the GP comment asked: 1. In what way is it a risk to the plane? Or is the idea that we should not attempt to evaluate whether pilot's decisions are objective and reasonable? Is there some objective rule being used? (Or if an objective rule can't be stated, is it more like the pilot's feelings or mood about the passenger(s) at any particular moment?) 2. But if someone believes it's reasonable for pilots to turn planes around based on whether someone is wearing a pro or anti Biden/Trump shirt, etc. wouldn't the better solution for airlines to just proactively ban clothing, stickers, etc. with countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans, etc. rather than having pilots turn around planes midflight based on a whim(?), costing hundreds of people large amounts of time and money?
        steve1977 5mo ago
        > wouldn't the better solution for airlines to just proactively ban clothing, stickers, etc. with countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html Rule 21 Refusal of Transport Part H: Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to: 5. Passengers who are barefoot, not properly clothed, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene or offensive;
        no-name-here 5mo ago
        Is the point here that clothing containing a pro or anti Biden or Trump, or have a countries' flag, or be a US military uniform, should "pose a risk to his plane", and so airlines should be proactively banning such things from being allowed onboard? Or how does it answer the grandparent and great-grandparent's comments questions about why such thing should "pose a risk to his plane"?
  - vkou 5mo ago
    1. Does the pilot need anything but his personal biases to claim that poses a risk to the plane? 2. Because any rational person understands that we need to coexist in a society with a spectrum of political opinion, and that a fucking access point name doesn't cross the boundary between safe and dangerous to society. 3. Because doing it for one and not the other is obviously biased and arbitrary and demonstrates that it's not an actual danger to the plane, it's just some asshole with a bad day choosing to exercise his authority over someone whose politics he dislikes. To severe consequences to both that person and everyone else on board the plane. That's not a society you want to strive for.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
- lmm 5mo ago
  > One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans No it isn't. You can read that implication into it, but it's not "actively hostile" in the way that an "F... X" statement is, for any X, and it's a sign of how slanted the discourse is that you would consider them equivalent.
godelski 5mo ago
Anyone willing to start a fight over a tacky WiFi name should be committed. Seriously, what an insane thing to do. It's such an easy thing to not be bothered by. It sits in the background, invisible, and you're... just letting it live rent free in your head? There's so many more annoying things to flying than someone's dumb personal hotspot name. Can we just recognize how crazy of a scenario this is?
- steve1977 5mo ago
  People are not rational. Or at least one cannot assume they are when it comes to safety. People start actual fights over small groups of other people, that neither of them know personally, who are chasing after a ball on a pitch.
  - godelski 5mo ago
    So what's your argument? We all act crazy because crazy people might exist? That's just as crazy as being afraid of terrorists. Why would you let the crazy people run the world. If they're that crazy you put them in a hospital because clearly they need help
    - steve1977 5mo ago
      The argument is that if I'm responsible for the safety of a very heterogenous group of people in the cabin of my airplane, I will assume that those people are already stressed and will probably act even less rational than they normally would. And that's all that matters in that moment. > If they're that crazy you put them in a hospital because clearly they need help Oh believe me, I would if I could...
      - godelski 5mo ago
        > Oh believe me, I would if I could... Then let's stop letting this be acceptable behavior? I mean aren't you just enabling crazy people by defending them?

vkou 5mo ago

Will the captain likewise call the FBI if some knuckledragging mouth breather with three ex-wives and a flag tattoo on his groin has an access point called 'Make Murucuh Great Again'? That would make me uncomfortable on the flight, and it's also one-hundred percent a political statement. One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans, and many more people outside of it.

steve1977 5mo ago
If the captain thinks it poses a risk to his plane, why not?
- no-name-here 5mo ago
  I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? Or in what way is it a risk to the plane? If passenger(s) are wearing a super pro or anti Biden or Trump shirt or Bluetooth/SSID name, is that a risk to the plane, as what if there are other people on the plane who feel strongly in the other direction? But if someone really is OK with pilots turning around flights because of such shirts, etc., then wouldn't the better solution for airlines be to ban clothing, stickers, military uniforms, etc., that have countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans, etc. on them? As if someone believes that turning around planes over it is reasonable, better to address that 'problem' even before taking off and costing large amounts of money and time for hundreds of others, instead of based on the whim(?) of a pilot hours into a flight.
  - steve1977 5mo ago
    > I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? That is up to the captain to decide.
    - no-name-here 5mo ago
      But as the GP comment asked: 1. In what way is it a risk to the plane? Or is the idea that we should not attempt to evaluate whether pilot's decisions are objective and reasonable? Is there some objective rule being used? (Or if an objective rule can't be stated, is it more like the pilot's feelings or mood about the passenger(s) at any particular moment?) 2. But if someone believes it's reasonable for pilots to turn planes around based on whether someone is wearing a pro or anti Biden/Trump shirt, etc. wouldn't the better solution for airlines to just proactively ban clothing, stickers, etc. with countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans, etc. rather than having pilots turn around planes midflight based on a whim(?), costing hundreds of people large amounts of time and money?
      - steve1977 5mo ago
        > wouldn't the better solution for airlines to just proactively ban clothing, stickers, etc. with countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html Rule 21 Refusal of Transport Part H: Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to: 5. Passengers who are barefoot, not properly clothed, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene or offensive;
        no-name-here 5mo ago
        Is the point here that clothing containing a pro or anti Biden or Trump, or have a countries' flag, or be a US military uniform, should "pose a risk to his plane", and so airlines should be proactively banning such things from being allowed onboard? Or how does it answer the grandparent and great-grandparent's comments questions about why such thing should "pose a risk to his plane"?
- vkou 5mo ago
  1. Does the pilot need anything but his personal biases to claim that poses a risk to the plane? 2. Because any rational person understands that we need to coexist in a society with a spectrum of political opinion, and that a fucking access point name doesn't cross the boundary between safe and dangerous to society. 3. Because doing it for one and not the other is obviously biased and arbitrary and demonstrates that it's not an actual danger to the plane, it's just some asshole with a bad day choosing to exercise his authority over someone whose politics he dislikes. To severe consequences to both that person and everyone else on board the plane. That's not a society you want to strive for.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
lmm 5mo ago
> One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans No it isn't. You can read that implication into it, but it's not "actively hostile" in the way that an "F... X" statement is, for any X, and it's a sign of how slanted the discourse is that you would consider them equivalent.

godelski 5mo ago

Anyone willing to start a fight over a tacky WiFi name should be committed. Seriously, what an insane thing to do. It's such an easy thing to not be bothered by. It sits in the background, invisible, and you're... just letting it live rent free in your head? There's so many more annoying things to flying than someone's dumb personal hotspot name. Can we just recognize how crazy of a scenario this is?

steve1977 5mo ago
People are not rational. Or at least one cannot assume they are when it comes to safety. People start actual fights over small groups of other people, that neither of them know personally, who are chasing after a ball on a pitch.
- godelski 5mo ago
  So what's your argument? We all act crazy because crazy people might exist? That's just as crazy as being afraid of terrorists. Why would you let the crazy people run the world. If they're that crazy you put them in a hospital because clearly they need help
  - steve1977 5mo ago
    The argument is that if I'm responsible for the safety of a very heterogenous group of people in the cabin of my airplane, I will assume that those people are already stressed and will probably act even less rational than they normally would. And that's all that matters in that moment. > If they're that crazy you put them in a hospital because clearly they need help Oh believe me, I would if I could...
    - godelski 5mo ago
      > Oh believe me, I would if I could... Then let's stop letting this be acceptable behavior? I mean aren't you just enabling crazy people by defending them?