5 ms·

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

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?
      - _carbyau_ 5mo ago
        I think the point here is the captain is responsible for an isolated pocket of humanity in a cabin. That captain is to take that cabin way up in the air, move it a lot, and get it back down safely. And not all of the risks are about moving the cabin. Many of the risks are within the cabin and while some dickhead getting uppity at the pub will get collared by the police, it is a totally different problem while in the air. So, while in the cabin, don't try to fuck around and find out. No one wants to find out anything. They just want to get to the other end of the trip.
        godelski 5mo ago
        > I think the point here is I think the point is you're punishing the wrong person. Punish the dickhead getting upset over the easy to ignore and not that provocative of a thing. Don't police functioning adults, police dysfunctional adults. Why is this even a contentious statement?
        _carbyau_ 5mo ago
        We fundamentally agree about who is in the right and the wrong. The issue is timing and consequences. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Consider: Person makes loud free speech statement - which though perfectly legal - is contentious. Person B gets upset and uses their freedom of speech to shout back. At the pub: Everyone else is uncomfortable and just want to get on with their day. But they can leave. Usually they at least make space. The pub can ask the talkers to leave - either one or both, as it is their private property. And if violence occurs Bouncer/Police drag away the violent person without much likelihood of harm to others. On the plane: Everyone else is uncomfortable and just want to get on with their day. But they cannot leave! They cannot make space! There may be elderly next to kids of varying ages. There is no bouncer, police is even worse for business and affects everyone on the plane just wanting to get to their destination. Tight constraints mean physical violence is likely to hurt someone unrelated to the conflict. And so Captains clamp down on contentious statements ASAP to make sure it doesn't escalate that far. You are allowed to make contentious statements, and they are allowed to ask you to leave, because the plane is not public property. Nobody wants to fly next to the loud nervous talker. Or the crying baby. But people understand these actions are not by choice and so there is tolerance. Contentious/provocative statements though? That's a choice. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. It is better for everyone involved if the desire to spout views is simply delayed until the flight is over.
    - throw1234567891 5mo ago
      Define crazy. Because you sound crazy to me. The point of view depends on where you sit. Some other people maybe want to put you in prison, for your „craziness“. Care for what you wish.
    - close04 5mo ago
      > I will assume that those people are already stressed and will probably act even less rational than they normally would They turned what most passengers considered at most tasteless into a real threat worthy of returning to base. How can this possibly help with the stress? If this was to reduce stress, it was disproportionate and backfired in a major way. Why are airlines adding to every part of that stress but drawing the line at a device's BT name? Everything about flying is getting worse. The process of buying the tickets full of shady practices and dark patters, the check-in, the boarding process, the cabin luggage getting smaller for the same type of ticket, the ever more cramped seats, the removal of the old amenities like free food or snacks. They are all getting more terrible and adding stress. From what I can tell from my own ticket purchases with the same airlines in the past, the prices kept up with inflation over the past decades but the services have fallen far behind.
      - godelski 5mo ago
        > Why are airlines adding to every part of that stress but drawing the line at a device's BT name? Serving alcohol: no problem! Tacky device name: oh no! Someone might be offended and start a fight! We can't let that happen!!!! This is so many levels of absurd and it's incredible how many people are defending crazy people. I never thought it would be contentious to claim that we should punish people for being tacky just because they might trigger people that are institutional amounts of crazy. I mean if the real concern is that a fight might break out, well I sure know a bigger "social lubricant" than a tiny protest that most people are never ever going to see.
barbazoo 5mo ago
Even more you have to actively seek it out to even see it. These people are looking for ways to get triggered.
- godelski 5mo ago
  It really seems like people in the threads are doing the exact same thing. The only argument they are making is that you shouldn't be allowed to make you're device's name <Something Politically Tacky> because... it might make unstable and irrational people upset. Why the fuck are we protecting unstable and irrational people? Punish them? What is so difficult about this? Seriously
  - mrguyorama 5mo ago
    Or hell, help them, get them the therapy they need, or counseling they require to understand that they have to live and let live most of the time.
    - godelski 5mo ago
      [dead]
  - anigbrowl 5mo ago
    It certainly does. My original comment was a suggestion that you don't lean on your rights when boarding a plane and wanting to broadcast your personality (not your politics specifically), because it's not your space and treating others as your captive audience is inconsiderate. You've posted 16 times in this subthread and seem unable to accept any other point of view than complete agreement.
dzhiurgis 5mo ago
Do people get kicked out for offensive t-shirts and tattoos? How about bad cologne, good cologne, bad BO, or just for being so ugly that it's offensive?
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- godelski 5mo ago
  > Do people get kicked out for offensive t-shirts Actually this did happen recently. And it didn't go over so well either... for the airlines. It's something that never should have happened in the first place. (I'm agreeing with you, but stupid shit does happen and we should stop enabling people to act so dumb) https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024/10/21/marine-corps-veteran-allegedly-kicked-off-flight-for-her-t-shirt/ https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024...

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?
    - _carbyau_ 5mo ago
      I think the point here is the captain is responsible for an isolated pocket of humanity in a cabin. That captain is to take that cabin way up in the air, move it a lot, and get it back down safely. And not all of the risks are about moving the cabin. Many of the risks are within the cabin and while some dickhead getting uppity at the pub will get collared by the police, it is a totally different problem while in the air. So, while in the cabin, don't try to fuck around and find out. No one wants to find out anything. They just want to get to the other end of the trip.
      - godelski 5mo ago
        > I think the point here is I think the point is you're punishing the wrong person. Punish the dickhead getting upset over the easy to ignore and not that provocative of a thing. Don't police functioning adults, police dysfunctional adults. Why is this even a contentious statement?
        _carbyau_ 5mo ago
        We fundamentally agree about who is in the right and the wrong. The issue is timing and consequences. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Consider: Person makes loud free speech statement - which though perfectly legal - is contentious. Person B gets upset and uses their freedom of speech to shout back. At the pub: Everyone else is uncomfortable and just want to get on with their day. But they can leave. Usually they at least make space. The pub can ask the talkers to leave - either one or both, as it is their private property. And if violence occurs Bouncer/Police drag away the violent person without much likelihood of harm to others. On the plane: Everyone else is uncomfortable and just want to get on with their day. But they cannot leave! They cannot make space! There may be elderly next to kids of varying ages. There is no bouncer, police is even worse for business and affects everyone on the plane just wanting to get to their destination. Tight constraints mean physical violence is likely to hurt someone unrelated to the conflict. And so Captains clamp down on contentious statements ASAP to make sure it doesn't escalate that far. You are allowed to make contentious statements, and they are allowed to ask you to leave, because the plane is not public property. Nobody wants to fly next to the loud nervous talker. Or the crying baby. But people understand these actions are not by choice and so there is tolerance. Contentious/provocative statements though? That's a choice. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. It is better for everyone involved if the desire to spout views is simply delayed until the flight is over.
  - throw1234567891 5mo ago
    Define crazy. Because you sound crazy to me. The point of view depends on where you sit. Some other people maybe want to put you in prison, for your „craziness“. Care for what you wish.
  - close04 5mo ago
    > I will assume that those people are already stressed and will probably act even less rational than they normally would They turned what most passengers considered at most tasteless into a real threat worthy of returning to base. How can this possibly help with the stress? If this was to reduce stress, it was disproportionate and backfired in a major way. Why are airlines adding to every part of that stress but drawing the line at a device's BT name? Everything about flying is getting worse. The process of buying the tickets full of shady practices and dark patters, the check-in, the boarding process, the cabin luggage getting smaller for the same type of ticket, the ever more cramped seats, the removal of the old amenities like free food or snacks. They are all getting more terrible and adding stress. From what I can tell from my own ticket purchases with the same airlines in the past, the prices kept up with inflation over the past decades but the services have fallen far behind.
    - godelski 5mo ago
      > Why are airlines adding to every part of that stress but drawing the line at a device's BT name? Serving alcohol: no problem! Tacky device name: oh no! Someone might be offended and start a fight! We can't let that happen!!!! This is so many levels of absurd and it's incredible how many people are defending crazy people. I never thought it would be contentious to claim that we should punish people for being tacky just because they might trigger people that are institutional amounts of crazy. I mean if the real concern is that a fight might break out, well I sure know a bigger "social lubricant" than a tiny protest that most people are never ever going to see.

barbazoo 5mo ago

Even more you have to actively seek it out to even see it. These people are looking for ways to get triggered.

godelski 5mo ago
It really seems like people in the threads are doing the exact same thing. The only argument they are making is that you shouldn't be allowed to make you're device's name <Something Politically Tacky> because... it might make unstable and irrational people upset. Why the fuck are we protecting unstable and irrational people? Punish them? What is so difficult about this? Seriously
- mrguyorama 5mo ago
  Or hell, help them, get them the therapy they need, or counseling they require to understand that they have to live and let live most of the time.
  - godelski 5mo ago
    [dead]
- anigbrowl 5mo ago
  It certainly does. My original comment was a suggestion that you don't lean on your rights when boarding a plane and wanting to broadcast your personality (not your politics specifically), because it's not your space and treating others as your captive audience is inconsiderate. You've posted 16 times in this subthread and seem unable to accept any other point of view than complete agreement.

dzhiurgis 5mo ago

Do people get kicked out for offensive t-shirts and tattoos? How about bad cologne, good cologne, bad BO, or just for being so ugly that it's offensive?

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
godelski 5mo ago
> Do people get kicked out for offensive t-shirts Actually this did happen recently. And it didn't go over so well either... for the airlines. It's something that never should have happened in the first place. (I'm agreeing with you, but stupid shit does happen and we should stop enabling people to act so dumb) https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024/10/21/marine-corps-veteran-allegedly-kicked-off-flight-for-her-t-shirt/ https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024...