[Nition]

I'd like to think most people would act more civilized initially in that situation. In fact the most civilized thing to do would have been to simply follow the rules in the first place, knowing that most passengers will believe they must be important.

[AnimalMuppet]

I think that's his point. The jerk can be him. It can be you. It can be me. We are all of us able to be like this, able to be controlled by the "primitive mind", able to engage in power games.

And I differ a bit with your reasoning. Follow the rules because most passengers believe they must be important? Not because, say, the airline thinks they must be important?

[capableweb]

For sure, everyone likes to think themselves and most people act decently 100% of the time and never irrationally. But then sometimes, everyone acts irrationally, for one reason or another.

[Ygg2]

Why? The rule is absolutely stupid, and pointless. It's about as meaningful to airplane security as TSA. In other words, none at all.

I mean if rules say you need to report your fellow Uighurs, you should follow them because other will?

[Nition]

Because it's likely to cause discomfort and negative attention from the other passengers who will worry it could jeopardize their flight, and not using your phone for a little while isn't a big deal. It's not so much about following a rule or not, as just being socially responsible.

[darkerside]

Pantomiming the lie isn't being socially responsible

[Ygg2]

So, if everyone does it, it's ok?

If everyone reports on their fellow Jew/Uighur, you should follow along? I mean not doing so might cause distress to your neighbor.

I'm not interested in this particular case, but in general.

[nubbins]

I agree, if it actually mattered then flight attendants would check for cell connections as rigorously as they do seatbelts. Even if you've never flown basic logic will tell you on a flight of 100+ people not everyone remembered to switch off their device. Trying to rat on your fellow passenger is the real offense here. Maybe I'm the jerk here but do we have to regulate our behavior to make nosy neighbors comfortable?

[homonculus1]

The argument goes that you have to regulate your behavior to assuage someone else's feelings, for the sake of getting along. This is a very good thing to do in many cases but the same argument still gets used even when other people's feelings are completely irrational. Why can't we sometimes just tell other people to get a handle on their feelings so as not to impose unnecessarily on my behavior?

At some point we have to put a cap on how much we value other people's feelings. There are neurotic personality types that by nature literally make up asinine things to worry about, and you'd have to run an infinite treadmill conforming to their nonsense. Empathy is an important value but its not an idol to be worshipped, and it should not be a rhetorical superweapon.