[austinz]

I agree with you. I think the rule is asinine as well, I'm glad it's dead, and I think we should be pushing back against stupid things. And following rules for rules' sake is a stupid thing.

But I don't think that meaningless platitudes or misogynistic stereotypes are a good justification for entitlement. Someone who's read the literature and understands why there's almost no way consumer electronics can affect a modern airliner's avionics might be more entitled than someone who thrives on 'breaking the rules' and thinks flight attendants are stupid 'ditzes'. What happens when that stupid ditz says something that turns out to be right?

[BlackDeath3]

>Someone who's read the literature and understands why there's almost no way consumer electronics can affect a modern airliner's avionics might be more entitled than someone who thrives on 'breaking the rules' and thinks flight attendants are stupid 'ditzes'.

I'm not really sure that we disagree here, although you seem to suggest that there is some mutual exclusion between people who are informed and people who enjoy breaking stupid rules, which is silly.

>What happens when that stupid ditz says something that turns out to be right?

I don't know, what happens? I didn't suggest that flight attendants are always wrong, nor that stupid people are always wrong (nor that flight attendants are always stupid). Though I think that my issue here is less about being factually correct and more about providing adequate justification for why you're correct.