| HN Mirror

  > 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?

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.

  > 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?

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.

f33d5173 10 days ago

> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

"Freedom from consequences" is fundamentally what freedom is. Such a stupid slogan.

I honestly wish you perfect freedom to do whatever, whenever, wherever along with perfect lack of consequences of your actions for the rest of the universe....

  > Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Sure, but if you punch someone in the face for a political statement then you go to jail for assault. Full stop.

Your scenarios are nowhere near the one we're talking about. It's a WiFi device name. Do you know the SSIDs of your neighbors? When's the last time you checked?

It's not the equivalent of someone shouting or even talking loudly. You have to actively do things to see that device name. It is, without action on your part, invisible.

The scenario is closer to walking up to someone, asking what their shirt says, and then getting mad. This isn't someone getting in your face. You won't even know who owns the device!

You can simply connect to the plane's WiFi and then continue ignoring the names of all the other devices on the plane. You don't even have to connect to the plane's WiFi!

You're being absurd. Come on. It is so fucking easy to go about your life without ever knowing the device name of any person sitting on your plane. It's also incredibly easy to just let it go and move on with your life. Why are you letting such a dumb thing consume your mind and make you so angry? Why are you trying so hard to defend people who are actively looking to fight?

> Your scenarios are nowhere near the one we're talking about. It's a WiFi device name.

You can choose to make your SSID openly visible or not. It is "shouting" into the wifi space. And it was clearly visible in this case!

But see all other reasons in my previous statement why a Captain of a plane might choose to shut down "contentious" statements.

IE it is nothing to do with the statement itself. It is the time and place. Feel free to fight for a cause anywhere else.

throw1234567891 10 days 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 10 days 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.

  > 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.