I didn’t even realize I was doing that until you pointed it out! Isn’t the sequel always worse than the first?
1 Like
That shift right there has me very worried, the threshold for authority to intercede is nonexistent.
If you see something, say something; or just make some shit up!
5 Likes
“Ma’am, that guy in the white cowboy hat with the southern accent is making me uncomfortable.”
7 Likes
Is this some sort of inverted thoughtcrime?
I think that it works like normal authoritarianism. Like how in the US people are compelled to do what an LEO says NOT because of their knowledge of the law, but because of who they are in their role as an “authority figure”. A civically minded society seems more likely to encourage clear rules, and push for education and understanding of those rules. Authoritarians don’t care what the rules actually may be, the important thing is that “I am the boss”. Obscure and shifting rules make maintaining that role and avoiding accountability easier.
Sadly, I think that this trend also probably arose largely as a subversive concession to liberalism, because moving the focus to the feelings of the victim sounds far more empathetic! But in practice it is used to obscure accountability of the public and government alike. It deprecates the importance of evidence and more deeply hides systemic injustice.
3 Likes
Giving us George Zimmerman.
Which isn’t to say that some people don’t dog whistle their threats very carefully.
4 Likes
True. For better or worse, I doubt if anyone can effectively legislate away and enforce against general creepiness. Sometimes the best I can hope for is just to not let my buttons get pushed by people’s implications. When they try to provoke I don’t give them the satisfaction.
Fine, I’ll take off the hat.
10 Likes
removing the hat fixes the accent?
8 Likes
Creepiness yes. But many “not making a legally actionable threat” go beyond creepy.
Leaving us with the Zimnerman’s being cleared to murder someone who was purportedly perceived to be a threat or someone being able to shoot some kid on their property in the back while they’re running away with no legal consequence.
But somewhat slightly less than direct threats being A-OK. The dividing line here is quite often gender.
2 Likes
Without taking away from your point, on an airplane the way the flight crew feels is entirely relevant.
Now, maybe some folks need to not be flight crew anymore because they feel unsafe around perfectly normal paying customers who keep suing the airline over justifiable concerns of prejudice, but the judgement of flight crew on a plane really does need to remain, in the name of safety, sacrosanct. The solution here is more tolerant and better trained personnel, not a change in the political microclimate of the airplane.
3 Likes
Funny how some merely existing is perceived as a threat, innit? Not the Boss H’s of the world 'natch.
4 Likes
Trayvon Martin wasn’t on Zimmerman’s property. Zimmerman was Neighborhood Watch, of a sort.
First, thanks for checking on that.
I’ve no problem with private policies prohibiting photography. But the attendant exaggerated the domain of AA’s policy just a tad in calling it ‘federal law’. And that degree of exaggeration suggests a person who is either incredibly insecure about the limited power of their appointed role or prejudiced towards whomever they use this line. In this case, both.
5 Likes
I wasn’t referring to Zimmerman after the or - a different case. In Texas, I think.
1 Like
You’re not allowed to fly on the airline of Trump’s America. Trump’s America uses private jets.
2 Likes
9 Likes
Well, seeing that the customer service rep offered them a $200 voucher, I think that’s enough information for me to understand that what the flight attendant did was wrong (and even AA believes this, too).
If you’re waiting for a comment from the airline admitting guilt, don’t hold your breath. I don’t think that I’ve ever heard of any airline doing this.
8 Likes
It’s a magical hat.
4 Likes
I preferred that corny Samuel L. Jackson flick Sheikhs on a Plane.
8 Likes
