4 ms·

>You're claiming that because a plane ran into a building 12 years ago, it actually makes sense for an American citizen to kick another American citizen off a p

>You're claiming that because a plane ran into a building 12 years ago, it actually makes sense for an American citizen to kick another American citizen off a plane while lying about it. No, I'm not. I'm claiming that there are words that shouldn't be said on a plane anymore. A building exploding didn't do that. Decisions from organizations and individuals created the catalyst for that change. But, that's a completely different discussion. It's common knowledge whether it's okay or not. I agree: we as a society, should strive to be more open and accepting about using words. But, unfortunately, we're not all there yet. The title is sensationalist and misleading. The photo taking clearly wasn't the problem because the author wasn't removed from the plane after taking the photo, they were removed after they said something they shouldn't have. "Travel Author Irritated After Being Kicked Off a Plane for Claiming 'Not a Terrorist'" is hardly a story, is it?

Amadou 14y ago
Except that, according to the author, he was accused of refusing to stop taking pictures. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it seems reasonable for him to critise the airline based on their words, even if he suspects their words are not truthful.
- ryguytilidie 14y ago
  Not even just according to the author. According to the official reason the airline gave him. I can certainly understand why one might suspect this isn't the real reason, but calling the guy sensationalist for repeating EXACTLY what he was told is pretty insane imo.
ryguytilidie 14y ago
"The title is sensationalist and misleading. The photo taking clearly wasn't the problem because the author wasn't removed from the plane after taking the photo" "Captain: Sir, you are not flying on this flight. Me: Can you tell me why? Captain: My FA tells me she told you to stop taking pictures and you continued to take pictures." I mean, sure, this could be the lie theyre using to cover up the real reason. But when we're two liars deep in the process, its kind of hard to figure out what the truth is. I get that they could have been lying, but calling this sensationalist is infinitely more ridiculous. They told him he was kicked off a plane for taking pictures, he made that his headline, you said he was being sensationalist. How does all that logic connect? "they were removed after they said something they shouldn't have." This is my whole point. The fact that we will literally throw someone off a plane if the word terrorist is said, regardless of the context, is absolutely deplorable. Why shouldn't he have done that? Because he should have assumed he was speaking to a liar who has no ability to understand context? I don't want to have to assume this is the case when i talk to other americans, so maybe we can stop with this bullshit?

Amadou 14y ago

Except that, according to the author, he was accused of refusing to stop taking pictures. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it seems reasonable for him to critise the airline based on their words, even if he suspects their words are not truthful.

ryguytilidie 14y ago
Not even just according to the author. According to the official reason the airline gave him. I can certainly understand why one might suspect this isn't the real reason, but calling the guy sensationalist for repeating EXACTLY what he was told is pretty insane imo.

ryguytilidie 14y ago

"The title is sensationalist and misleading. The photo taking clearly wasn't the problem because the author wasn't removed from the plane after taking the photo" "Captain: Sir, you are not flying on this flight. Me: Can you tell me why? Captain: My FA tells me she told you to stop taking pictures and you continued to take pictures." I mean, sure, this could be the lie theyre using to cover up the real reason. But when we're two liars deep in the process, its kind of hard to figure out what the truth is. I get that they could have been lying, but calling this sensationalist is infinitely more ridiculous. They told him he was kicked off a plane for taking pictures, he made that his headline, you said he was being sensationalist. How does all that logic connect? "they were removed after they said something they shouldn't have." This is my whole point. The fact that we will literally throw someone off a plane if the word terrorist is said, regardless of the context, is absolutely deplorable. Why shouldn't he have done that? Because he should have assumed he was speaking to a liar who has no ability to understand context? I don't want to have to assume this is the case when i talk to other americans, so maybe we can stop with this bullshit?