andrewducker | You and me. We're in this together.

Link doesn't seem to be working....

fixed.

I don't suppose John plans to sit in a few movie theatres, practicing his free spe(a)ch by shouting "Fire!" on occasion. >_>

Wow what alot of moaning! And 'they called it a "badge"', well damn, and on a British plane too, it was a badge, and presumably airlines are entitled to as much if not more right to refuse admission as a pub.

I posted a longer response in my livejournal (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/119490.html), but the short version is:

What a dickhead.

If you read the article, he discusses how the meaning of the "Suspected Terrorist" button is that in a culture where all citizens are being treated as criminals, everyone is a suspected terrorist. This is a valid political statement to make and as such, the airline was no more justified in using it to prevent him from flying than it would have been in using a "peace" button.

I did read the article.

Try reading my response to it, and you'll see why I think he was being a dickhead.

Yes, I did read your response. I really don't see any difference between denying someone the right to use a plane ticket they've paid for because of a button they're wearing, or because they appear to be Middle Eastern. In either case, their presence might make someone on the plane uncomfortable.

Hah! Caught you. You haven't read the article yourself, have you? Because if you had, you would have spotted a number of things that made this dickhead's situation decidedly different from a pilot refusing to fly a passenger who looks Middle Eastern.

1. The dickhead was asked by a flight attendent, to remove the badge he was wearing. (Despite use of emotive words like "loomed" and "demanded", in fact I suspect the Cabin Service Director asked the dickhead perfectly politely: you don't normally get to be a senior flight attendent with BA if you're in the habit of being rude to dickheads.) The dickhead refused.

In case you've missed something, this is already different from a member of the cabin staff complaining about someone who "looks Middle Eastern": being asked to take off a badge is rather different from being told the colour of your skin is scary.

2. The dickhead was then asked by the Captain to remove the badge. It doesn't sound like the Captain was particularly polite, but then the captain of a plane is not trained to be polite, but to fly the plane.

Please note, this is again different from being told that the Captain is made uncomfortable by someone of your ethnic origin. There's nothing anyone can do about their ethnic origin, nor should they wish to: but anyone can decide to wear, or not to wear, a badge.

3. Since the dickhead had refused, twice, to remove a badge that the Captain felt might cause alarm/despondency among the other passengers (of course, this is just my guess (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/119490.html#cutid1) why the dickhead was asked to remove his badge in the first place, but I've flown wearing political badges in the past and never had any trouble), the dickhead was asked to leave the plane.

This is the only point where there was any resemblance to your scenario about someone who looks as if they're from the Middle East being asked to leave the plane. It's an absolute rule that the captain of a plane has the right to refuse to fly if he thinks that the weather, the plane itself, or one of the passengers, may constitute a risk to the flight. And while this rule may sometimes be exercised arbitrarily (though I think not in this dickhead's instance) I like flying, I like feeling safe in the air, and I'm quite happy with the rule that says an experienced pilot who is flying the plane, not the airline company, not any individual passenger, gets to decide whether or not it's safe to fly.

4. After the dickhead (and his poor girlfriend) left the plane, the airline company offered to let them fly on the next available flight, if he checked his badge into his hold luggage. The badge wasn't confiscated, he was just told he couldn't wear it aboard the plane, and because he'd been a dickhead (see points 1 and 2) his handluggage would be searched to make sure he didn't just end up causing another 300-passenger plane to be delayed.

Again, this is rather different from being told "because of your ethnic origin, we're not letting you fly". It's a badge. If it was supposed to be a political statement, so what? If he'd been reading from the Green Party manifesto in a loud clear voice all the while the plane was preparing to take off, and had refused to stop because it was a "political statement" and he thought he had a right to free speech regardless of how it might be disturbing the other passengers, and I was in the seat behind him, I would have asked to have him kicked off! Or gagged.

So, next time: when you want to comment on something, read it first. Read it carefully. Pay attention. [Removed gratuitous insult, with apologies and regrets.] Please.

Your excessive use of the word dickhead proves that you are not very imaginative with your insults. Otherwise all you've made clear is your very subjective opinion and your slavish need to satisfy someone in power.

And I read the article, every word, several times, before you decide to arbitrarily decide another person didn't read the article.

Your excessive use of the word dickhead proves that you are not very imaginative with your insults.

Oh, I can be more imaginative. I just didn't think John Gilmore deserved any exercise of my imagination.

Otherwise all you've made clear is your very subjective opinion

Er, yes. My subjective opinion is that John Gilmore was wrong. John Gilmore's subjective opinion is that he was right.

and your slavish need to satisfy someone in power.

*grins* I can't think of any appropriate response to this comment. *grins some more*

And I read the article, every word, several times, before you decide to arbitrarily decide another person didn't read the article.

No, no, wouldn't dream of it, unless you try to make an argument that demonstrates that you haven't read the article...

With all due respect, your use of the word "dickhead" adds nothing to your argument and leads me to think that your position is based on emotion. I don't care to continue this discussion -- adieu.

Isn't it fascinating how some phrases are used to mean precisely the opposite? "With all due respect" is one of them. :-)

I take it that you can't think of any rebuttal to my argument, since your only means of defense was to (1) complain that I'd called John Gilmore a dickhead throughout (2) suggest that my position was based on emotion (yes, and so was Gilmore's) and (3) say goodbye.

'Bye.

If I cared to, I could think of plenty of rebuttals to your argument. However, I've had my share of LiveJournal arguments with people who think that infantile name-calling is a good mode of argument, and I've rarely if ever gotten anything out of them.

*laughs* Any port in a storm...

What about long hair? That's easy enough to change -- unlike skin color.

Or what about a turban? That's trivial to remove.

It's my view that people ought not to be denied service because of their political statements. It's true that someone might be scared by a button that says "suspected terrorist", but that's true on a bus too -- there's nothing sacrosanct about an airplane. Anyway, he asked people around him (after the furor started) if they minded him wearing the button. They didn't.

What about long hair? That's easy enough to change -- unlike skin color. Or what about a turban? That's trivial to remove.

Now you're just being silly. I made a specific point about a specific badge that specifically said "Suspected Terrorist". I explained (in my own livejournal, which I provided a link to) that I didn't intend this to apply to all badges. If you really think removing a badge with a threatening message on it is the equivalent in difficulty of getting a haircut, you must superglue your badges to your skin: and if you think that removing a religiously-required item of clothing is equivalent to removing a badge, then you must be a religious bigot. I don't, and I'm not, and I suspect you're not either: you're just being silly.

It's my view that people ought not to be denied service because of their political statements.

He wasn't denied service because of his political statement in wearing a badge that said "Suspected terrorist" all the way through check-in. He was denied service because, on board the plane, he refused a polite request from a member of staff and then from the captain.

It's true that someone might be scared by a button that says "suspected terrorist", but that's true on a bus too -- there's nothing sacrosanct about an airplane.

A bus is not travelling nonstop a mile high in the air for 8 hours. (At least, no bus I ever travelled on was doing so.) That was the particular distinction I was making about a transAtlantic plane flight: and the other one was that far more people are nervous about flying already than are nervous about travelling by bus.

Anyway, he asked people around him (after the furor started) if they minded him wearing the button. They didn't.

Or so he reported. I didn't read him as being particularly reliable or being sensitive to nuance. Not really the point anyway.

I made a specific point about a specific badge that specifically said "Suspected Terrorist".

And I think your specific point is wrong, and tried to determine what lines you were drawing by reading your post. Than I asked questions designed to show how those lines were not actually lines you wanted to draw.

I explained (in my own livejournal, which I provided a link to) that I didn't intend this to apply to all badges.

I read it, and that's how I found this post. I still disagree.

If you really think removing a badge with a threatening message on it is the equivalent in difficulty of getting a haircut, you must superglue your badges to your skin

The message was not threatening. First, nobody was actually threatened by it. Second, it didn't specify any action which Gilmore would take -- instead, it discussed what Gilmore thought other people thought about him.

and if you think that removing a religiously-required item of clothing is equivalent to removing a badge, then you must be a religious bigot.

I think that one's religious beliefs are as fundamental as one's political beliefs. Also, I never said the turban was religiously required -- imagine someone wearing a turban and a button saying "I'm not a Sikh or anything -- turbans are just sexy."

He wasn't denied service because of his political statement in wearing a badge that said "Suspected terrorist" all the way through check-in. He was denied service because, on board the plane, he refused a polite request from a member of staff and then from the captain.

They obviously weren't "requests", if he was kicked off for wearing them, and if he was threatened with federal law enforcement action. And again, this is not the line you actually believe in, because if the member of staff had politely requested that he remove a turban, you would be outraged.

It's true that someone might be scared by a button that says "suspected terrorist", but that's true on a bus too -- there's nothing sacrosanct about an airplane.

A bus is not travelling nonstop a mile high in the air for 8 hours. (At least, no bus I ever travelled on was doing so.) That was the particular distinction I was making about a transAtlantic plane flight

No, but getting off a bus mid-way through can be a major hassle. And it could easily be hours into a bus ride when the button wearer gets up to go to the restroom, and someone further back notices said button.

and the other one was that far more people are nervous about flying already than are nervous about travelling by bus.

However, one does not have a responsibility to make people less nervous -- especially where such nervousness is truly misplaced, as it is in this case.

I wrote:Anyway, he asked people around him (after the furor started) if they minded him wearing the button. They didn't.

Yonmei replied: Or so he reported. I didn't read him as being particularly reliable or being sensitive to nuance.

One of those people could easily have come forward by now if they disagreed. And he is almost certainly reliable, because it would be too easy and too politically expensive for him to be proven wrong.

Not really the point anyway.

So, you admit that it doesn't matter if people are nervous or not -- that the issue is whether airlines have the right to choose what messages people wear on their planes.

Than I asked questions designed to show how those lines were not actually lines you wanted to draw.

Indeed. This is a common tactic among debaters: I made a statement about A: you offered situations B and C that you claimed were the same as A, though in fact they were not, and the standard follow-up is: "Well, you don't agree with B and C, so how can you agree with A, because A B and C are the same." To which the only possible response is: the lines you drew are a completely different shape from the lines I was drawing.

They obviously weren't "requests", if he was kicked off for wearing them, and if he was threatened with federal law enforcement action.

This is where being an American is a disadvantage to you. The BA staff were all British. The BA staff asked him politely (twice) to put the badge in his pocket. When he refused the Captain's request, he was asked to leave the plane. That is the sole limit of the Captain's authority. The BA staff had no power to threaten him with federal law enforcement action: that must have been American airport staff. God knows why they bothered.

And again, this is not the line you actually believe in, because if the member of staff had politely requested that he remove a turban, you would be outraged.

Except that I disagreed that a turban is identical with a badge. You see where drawing the wrong lines can lead you?

No, but getting off a bus mid-way through can be a major hassle. And it could easily be hours into a bus ride when the button wearer gets up to go to the restroom, and someone further back notices said button.

True - I was thinking of British buses, rather than American buses. There is less distance between towns/cities in the UK than in the US, and getting off a bus midway in a journey might be a hassle but wouldn't be a disaster.

I made a statement about A: you offered situations B and C that you claimed were the same as A, though in fact they were not, and the standard follow-up is: "Well, you don't agree with B and C, so how can you agree with A, because A B and C are the same." To which the only possible response is: the lines you drew are a completely different shape from the lines I was drawing.

I tried to read the lines from your words -- you said
There's nothing anyone can do about their ethnic origin, nor should they wish to: but anyone can decide to wear, or not to wear, a badge.

This said to me that the issue was whether or not it was a "choice" (certainly a line I've heard before...)

The BA staff had no power to threaten him with federal law enforcement action: that must have been American airport staff. God knows why they bothered.

Gilmore said that the Captain did this. I see no reason to disbelieve him -- it must have sounded as absurd to him as it does to you.

I said: And again, this is not the line you actually believe in, because if the member of staff had politely requested that he remove a turban, you would be outraged.

yonmei replied:Except that I disagreed that a turban is identical with a badge. You see where drawing the wrong lines can lead you?

I think you are changing your lines -- you said that the issue was not one of the content of Gilmore's action, but of his refusal to obey a polite request. I pointed out that you think the content is important, since you would think differently of a polite request to remove a turban.

True - I was thinking of British buses, rather than American buses. There is less distance between towns/cities in the UK than in the US, and getting off a bus midway in a journey might be a hassle but wouldn't be a disaster.

I can certainly think of many cases in which it might be a disaster -- if the person was being met, or was on the way to a wedding or to catch a plane, or to see a dying relative....

However, one does not have a responsibility to make people less nervous -- especially where such nervousness is truly misplaced, as it is in this case.

John Gilmore had no responsibility to make people less nervous. As he clearly felt. The BA staff did have a responsibility to make people less nervous, and carried this responsibility out.

One of those people could easily have come forward by now if they disagreed.

Well, that would depend on any of them having heard anything about this incident. I'd never heard of it till Andrew posted the link: I google-newsed on it and got nothing, and I googled on it and got few hits, and those mostly on libertarian websites or small US news sites. If it had made major headline news, you'd have a point. I doubt if any of the other people travelling on the plane even knew John Gilmore's name.

And he is almost certainly reliable, because it would be too easy and too politically expensive for him to be proven wrong.

That's a feeble argument. Sorry, but it is. To argue that so-and-so wouldn't lie because it would be "too politically expensive" when he was found out, would mean that George W. Bush would never have lied about uranium sales from Niger, for a topical example.

So, you admit that it doesn't matter if people are nervous or not -- that the issue is whether airlines have the right to choose what messages people wear on their planes.

No. The issue is whether or not cabin crew have a right to decide, before take-off, if one passenger is likely to make the rest nervous. If they make their judgement based on bigoted grounds of race or religion, I'd be the first to protest.

If they make their judgement on grounds that later look unreasonable, but not bigoted, they can then argue about whether or not it looked unreasonable in the few minutes they had to make that judgement. It's like umpires at sports matches: their decision is always final even if later proved wrong by frame-by-frame inspection of the visual record, because a game becomes unworkable if an umpire's decision can be appealled against the camera's while the game is being played. Similiarly, the staff on an aeroplane, especially the captain, get to make final decisions and are required to make them fast: delays mean they lose their take-off window and 400 passengers are further delayed, rather than just 1. (Or two.) I back an experienced flight attendant's judgement about what is likely to make other passengers nervous against an individual passenger who thinks he has the right to read out loud from the Anarchist Handbook (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879471646/ref=ase_bridgebooks/002-7622304-5304021?v=glance&s=books) because that's a political statement and therefore sacrosanct.

John Gilmore had no responsibility to make people less nervous. As he clearly felt. The BA staff did have a responsibility to make people less nervous, and carried this responsibility out.

... but not at the cost of freedom ...

I said:One of those people could easily have come forward by now if they disagreed.

Yonmei replied:Well, that would depend on any of them having heard anything about this incident. I'd never heard of it till Andrew posted the link: I google-newsed on it and got nothing, and I googled on it and got few hits, and those mostly on libertarian websites or small US news sites. If it had made major headline news, you'd have a point. I doubt if any of the other people travelling on the plane even knew John Gilmore's name.

It was on the daypop top 40, for what that's worth. Anyway, he didn't know how big a story it would be when he wrote the post to politechbot.

That's a feeble argument. Sorry, but it is. To argue that so-and-so wouldn't lie because it would be "too politically expensive" when he was found out, would mean that George W. Bush would never have lied about uranium sales from Niger, for a topical example.

It's a strong argument when there's no evidence that Gilmore lied other than your wishful thinking. If you want to doubt the whole article, fine -- maybe he made the whole thing up. Maybe Joey Skaggs made the whole thing up -- but you're trying to change the facts to suit your argument by selectively believing and disbelieving Gilmore.

No. The issue is whether or not cabin crew have a right to decide, before take-off, if one passenger is likely to make the rest nervous. If they make their judgement based on bigoted grounds of race or religion, I'd be the first to protest.

IMO, politics is right up there with race and religion. And this was clearly a political statement.

It's like umpires at sports matches

Except that sports are just a game -- air travel is a necessity for international business. If an umpire makes a bad call, oh well. If a captain makes a bad call, someone is potentially stuck miles from home (although in this case it happened that Gilmore wasn't, although I don't know about the person he was flying with).

their decision is always final even if later proved wrong by frame-by-frame inspection of the visual record, because a game becomes unworkable if an umpire's decision can be appealled against the camera's while the game is being played.

Do you think that air travel would be unworkable if people were allowed to wear whatever buttons they liked (excluding those constituting "true threats" (sorry for being American here, but I happen to think this standard is justifiable without reference to the rest of US law)).

Similiarly, the staff on an aeroplane, especially the captain, get to make final decisions and are required to make them fast: delays mean they lose their take-off window and 400 passengers are further delayed, rather than just 1. (Or two.)

In fact, by driving back to get Gilmore off, passengers *were* delayed.

I back an experienced flight attendant's judgement about what is likely to make other passengers nervous against an individual passenger who thinks he has the right to read out loud from the Anarchist Handbook because that's a political statement and therefore sacrosanct.

Reading aloud is clearly a different case -- you wouldn't let someone read aloud from the bible or Harry Potter or Dr. Seuss or anything else. I back an individual's decision to choose what political messages to display (modulo the usual libel/true threat/fighting words stuff).

Well, now that I've caught up with all this, I have to say that although

yonmei expresses himself rather strongly, I agree with his sentiment.

What this guy did wasn't big, and wasn't clever. Free speech doesn't, never has, and never will give people the right to say whatever they want whenever they want. I can't stand in the street at midnight, and shout insults at my neighbours at the top of my voice. Free speech isn't about being able to act like a moron. It's about being able to express your uncensored views in an approriate forum. A serial rapist has the right to discuss his belief that all women are there for him to sexually pleasure himself - he doesn't have the right to do this in a room full of rape victims. I realise, as usual, I'm being extreme here - but see the point. There's a time and a place.

If this guy has a grievance with the U.S. government's policy, then he should take it up with them. He should decorate his home, his car, and his person, with whatever political statements he'd like to make - that's his right. However, BA did nothing wrong. Effectively, they said "we have a duty to protect our crew and our passengers, and to save any confusion, if you wish to travel with us, we request that you don't wear an inflammatory badge." Because, and let's be honest here, that's what it is.

He had plenty of choices - remove it, don't travel with BA, don't travel at all. Fact is, nobody has the right to do whatever they want wherever they want. He can do what he likes in his own house. BA reserve the right, and I fully support them, to enforce their own rules on thier planes. Just as pubs in the UK ban football shirts for fear of violence, I think BA were right to take precautionary steps. What if there had been a hard-line nutcase on the plane, who thought this guy was dangerous? Or worse, a relative of a victim of 9/11, who wouldn't see the funny side of what is, let's face it, a rather serious issue. This guy showed zero concern, and rather a lot of contempt, for his fellow passengers. Even if it had just started an argument between passengers with strong feelings, that could have been very serious on a passenger flight.

Bottom line - if he wants to make a policital statement, he should choose a more appropriate venue. Personally, I think he's using BA for personal exposure, and exacerbated events to get as much effect out of them as he can. Which, if it's the best he can do, doesn't make him worth anything more than the government's own spin.

(deleted comment)

Er, my general sexist outlook?

Actually, in honesty, I think it was just the user icon. Looks like a bloke to me. Didn't mean nothin' by it....

And I'm not looking to argue (honest!), but why do you disagree? Just curious.

Yeah, the user icon is... a woman with short hair. A lesbian, to be slightly more precise (Mo from Dykes To Watch Out For). So, it is pretty much sexism, yeah.

I disagree because I don't think what the guy did was extreme enough to justify a breach of his right to wear what he wants. It wasn't offensive, and it didn't give reasonable fear that he was going to harm other people (what terrorist have you ever heard of who wore an "I'm a terrorist" badge?).

Yes, it could have been seen by a relative of a 9/11 victim, but that was no more likely on the plane that walking along the street. And, really, a lot of things offend and upset a lot of people. People are allowed to be offensive and insensitive.

As for "what if it had started a fight?", I have absolutely zero patience with the argument that there are excuses for people to start physical fights (not to defend themselves, but to start physical fights). There are people who don't think they should have to share plane space with, say, Muslims. Should the Muslim passengers remove outward insignia of their religion, in case they're blamed for starting a fight? Either we have social boundaries (e.g. "physical violence is wrong"), or we don't.

Yes, the guy (who sounds like an arrogant and rather racist arsehole) didn't show a great deal of concern for his fellow passengers. But, that's not a condition of carriage. If it was, then the wanker who shot his seat back into my face last week, or the person who spent an hour regaling me with reasons why young women such as myself shouldn't travel alone when I was on a train once, would get booted. But if we're going to start having "being a nice, sensitive person" be a condition of service provision, then that should be debated and made public and subjected to appropriate scrutiny.

It means that about 60% of the population will never fly again...

It means that about 60% of the population will never fly again...

And wouldn't that be great? :-) Both ecologically and socially...

Oh, :P

Argument-twisting witch. Yes, it would, but I'm not sure that's the best criterion, not least because I might not qualify.

Yes, it would, but I'm not sure that's the best criterion, not least because I might not qualify.

Hmmm... I dunno. Let's say everyone gets one free trip (past their 16th birthday, it would be unfair to penalise children) on each form of transport available to them. If they cause trouble on that trip, they can be banned. (Trouble could include "unreasonably reporting others" - so that a racist who reports a Middle Eastern type for "flying while Muslim" would get banned for being a troublemaker.) You can appeal an unreasonable banning. A banning wears off after 5 years. If you get banned 3 times, though, it never wears off....

Okay, so it wouldn't really work.... This is what amused me about an earlier poster's comment: so far from having "a slavish compulsion to obey" I actually want to be World Dictator.

But you make good points (as usual) and now I'm not sure whether I'm right any more. Need to go away and think about this some more.

Not socially as far as I'm concerned. The ability to move long distances has allowed numerous people I know to make contact with people that they are far more socially suited to than the people in their local area.

Distributed societies are great, but being able to meet the distributed people is even better.

There are other methods of travelling long-distance to meet friends that don't entail the same kind of environmental destructiveness as regular air travel.

You said Both ecologically and socially...

and you'll get not argument from me on the ecological side of things. Just on the social...

There are other methods of travelling long-distance to meet friends that don't entail the same kind of environmental destructiveness as regular air travel.

OK.

First off, I agree, the airline over-reacted. I think, if cooler heads had prevailed, they could have allowed him to travel, and nothing would have came of it. However, you mention 'condition of carraige'. One of those, is, frankly, that you comply with the captain's wishes. This guy could have, easily, and didn't. I have no sympathy for him at that point. He'd made his statement, and could have saved everyone on the plane, including himself, a lot of grief by accepting that he had, and complying with request. When he didn't, he lost any respect from me he may have gained for making the statement in the first place.

Your 'what if it started a fight' statement is correct. And I agree. However, the captain has to make a judgement call. However poorly he makes it, he has that right - the safety of the plane must come first. Again, to comply with his judgement call wouldn't have cost anything.

Lastly, I made a mistake re Yonmei. That's not sexist, it's a mistake. This may seem silly, but I genuinely don't appreciate you labelling me as sexist, when you know nothing about me. I interpreted an unclear image, and the impression it gave me - last I heard, that was what art was about. I reserve the right to have poor judgement/artisitic sense, without being labelled a derogatory term.

Sure, a mistake, but mistakes aren't necessarily random. And you brought up the word "sexist", not me.

Like

yonmei herself said, people use all kinds of icons. Should I point out to you that I'm neither Asian nor as pretty as Shefali Shetty, who appears in this one?

Should I point out to you that it doesn't matter?

That yonmei's sex has no bearing on her argument?

That one word of type doesn't deserve this much attention, when it was a mistake?

That innocent until proven guilty is still a pretty good rule of thumb?

That the 'sexist' comment was obviously sarcasm?

That you could just have given me a chance?

That your labelling of me probably annoyed me far more than my temporary mistaken idea of yonmei's sex annoyed her? (I assume she found it more amusing than anything else. Well, I would have.)

That your labelling of me is exactly the sort of thing that would have pissed you off, if I'd have labelled you?

Especially if it had been based on a single, random comment.

Bizarrely enough, I haven't been bitten by a radioactive spider, and I rarely wear red (it clashed with my skin). I *get* the whole user icons don't have to be anything like the user. It was an association - a mistaken one.

You know what? Forget it. Choose to label based on one mistake. Have your perception of me. Knock yourself out.

Er, my general sexist outlook?

Damn,

brandnewgun jumped the gun: I was wondering whether to correct you in your mistaken apprehension, leave it be for the time being for the genderfuckedness of it all, point out to you that if you don't know the gender of the person you are referring to, you ought to avoid using a gender-specific pronoun, or surrealistically post about fish and giraffes and laugh maniacally. Hadn't made up my mind.

I'd also point out that plenty of people use icons on livejournal that do not relate to their gender, so even if you'd thought my Mo icon was a bloke, that still doesn't mean I am.

Agreed - but see above - it was just an impression the icon gave me. Maybe I shouldn't have went with that, but I don't think I need to be hung out to dry because of it.

Or are people not entitled to make mistakes any more?

Agreed - but see above - it was just an impression the icon gave me. Maybe I shouldn't have went with that, but I don't think I need to be hung out to dry because of it.

Oh boy, if you think this is being hung out to dry... :-)

No, I accept that this is an honest/sexist mistake, and one that I'm used to in real life. If I got pissed off every time someone looked at me and concluded "Tall, short hair, no make-up, must be a bloke" I'd spend too much time being pissed off about that. It would get boring. So I don't. I just mutter about people who see but do not observe.

Or are people not entitled to make mistakes any more?

Fah. Of course people make mistakes. I certainly do. We live in a sexist, heterosexist, racist, patriarchal culture: you have to consciously decide that you will not be taken in by the culture's lies, and no one ever turns round and rises up perfectly free of cultural assumptions overnight. Making mistakes is totally forgiveable: you admit you made a mistake, you apologise if the mistake was offensive, you resolve not to make that mistake again, you move on. But entitled to make mistakes is kind of an odd way of putting it, isn't it?

It reminds me of a story I read on IBM's intranet, about 13 years ago. A big American hardware company had made a contract with a Japanese manufacturer to supply widgets. (I've heard this story several times since then, and the name of the hardware company always varies depending on the employer of the person telling it. At IBM, it was Hewlett-Packard.) The American company wasn't sure of the Japanese company's quality standards, so they laid down explicitly in their contract that they wanted 94% perfection on the production run: no more than 6% of the widgets provided could be defective, or they would cancel the contract. The first shipping of the widgets, 200 of them, arrived. At the top of the shipping crate there was a note attached to a package of 12 widgets separated off from the rest. The note said "We're not sure why you wanted 6% defective widgets, but we produced them for you anyway."

The American company thought 94% was a high standard of perfection. The Japanese company's standards were 100% perfection.

People do make mistakes. Always. And an honest mistake, honestly acknowledged, should never be a problem. But entitled to make mistakes? I don't know if that's the way I'd put it.

I don't think people are entitled to mistakes.

I do think they're entitled to understanding and forgiveness.

(insofar as people are entitled to anything)

This no no way relates to any of the rest of this discussion, it's just an observation triggered by the wording.

Reasonable.

How about, "entitled to a genuine mistake"?

Or, better yet, "reserve the right to be mistaken about something, sometime, somewhere, and given the freedom to have that mistake corrected, and go on living life quite happily without it being blown out of proportion, or being unfairly labelled".

Either way, I am sorry - obviously. And that's sorry I made the mistake, especially if it caused the offense, not sorry about it just because it's now caused me to be annoyed/upset. Yay - you're female. Now I know that, I look at your argument in a whole different light. ;+)

*sigh*

That was a joke. Just in case.

I'm a bloke. I think like a bloke. I occasionally make mistakes, which is definitely like a bloke. I am, however, not sexist. Dumb, occasionally, maybe. But not sexist.

I really am running out of the will to participate in LJ any more. Is there any reason why we ("we", being people in general) can't just discuss a topic without jumping down each other's throats?

How about, "entitled to a genuine mistake"?

No. No one's entitled to make mistakes. As Andrew says above, people are entitled to forgiveness and understanding, not mistakes.

Admitting that you sometimes make sexist mistakes is not a big deal. You graciously apologised, and thank you. There is a distinction between admitting "I sometimes make sexist mistakes" and "I'm a sexist", and what makes me uncomfortable is your apparent insistence that you're bygod entitled to make sexist mistakes. Which may not be what you're saying.

"Everyone makes mistakes" (which is perfectly true) is not the same thing as "Everyone is entitled to make mistakes" (which isn't universally true). Entitlement is a function of privilege. When a man claims he's entitled to make mistakes, when the specific mistake he made was a sexist one, this to me doesn't look like an admission of responsibility/request for understanding/forgiveness (an appropriate reaction for someone who's made a mistake) but a declaration of male privilege. This may not be the impression you're trying to give, but it is the impression you are successfully giving me.

I really am running out of the will to participate in LJ any more. Is there any reason why we ("we", being people in general) can't just discuss a topic without jumping down each other's throats?

Actually, this is one of the things I like about an online environment: it's possible to explore every avenue of an argument at your own pace.

mis·take ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-stk) n.

An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness.
A misconception or misunderstanding.

v. mis·took, mis·tak·en, mis·tak·ing, mis·takes
v. tr.
To understand wrongly; misinterpret: mistook my politeness for friendliness.
To recognize or identify incorrectly: He mistook her for her sister.

I was going to ignore this (God knows I should, it's making me ill), but no, I can't. People ARE entitled to mistakes. As much as your are entitled to anything else, you are entitled to be flawed. It's what makes us both unique, and human. People aren't entitled to misconceptions that aren't mistakes, perhaps - that's a different argument. As for being sorry, or contrite for a mistake, or learning from it, that's a moral obligation. However, inasmuch as I have never met a perfect human being (unless you plan on holding yourself up in that regard?), I think we are entitled to make mistakes. Our flaws, our imperfection, give us that right. I don't believe anyone is entitled not to expect me to make mistakes. I am not perfect, and have never claimed to be. I claim the right to make mistakes - it's part of my genetic imperfection. I claim the moral right to learn from my mistakes, and apologise for them. But no one, no where, is going to tell me I cannot make a mistake, that I don't have the right to be mistaken.

I'm sorry this is making you ill, and I think we're just plunging along completely misunderstanding each other.

I don't believe anyone is entitled not to expect me to make mistakes.

I agree. There is no entitlement involved in making mistakes or not making them. As you say, making mistakes is part of being imperfect. But arguing that no one is entitled to expect other people not to make mistakes is - in my view - a completely different thing from claiming that you are entitled to make mistakes. There is no "entitlement". There is only - or should be - understanding and forgiveness. I don't accept either that you're entitled to expect me not to make mistakes, or that I'm entitled to make mistakes, or the other way round - just that we should all accept that people do mistakes, everyone does, and this is why we all need to understand and forgive other people's mistakes as well as our own.

Excuse my confusion, but I just cannot see the mistake as being 'sexist' in any way. The gender of the participants had no bearing whatsoever on the topic in discussion, and nobody was making any sexist assumptions as far as I could see.

Personally, I don't care if people think I'm a man, woman, flying fish or an alien, unless we are in some context in which it could possibly have any bearing. I don't usually stand for/approve of any stereotyping (whilst admitting that certain parts of certain stereotypes may indeed be true for certain individuals, that doesn't make the whole package valid) [but I do hate those folsk who take any opportunity to go on about gender/sexism/prejudice 'issues' at the drop of a hat when it's not really relevant :-) ]

Personlly, I kind of though yonmei's icon looked like Harry Potter and so didn't pay it much heed (it seems tobe a popular theme in many places, and so says no more to me about theposter than the fact tnat mine looks like a Southpark character [for the record, I;m not the world's greatest SP fan, the image just ticked me)

magent sometimes uses a hilarious SP icon, which you should look out for. It's especially fitting, as she actually has a chainsaw.

And while I know you're not specifically supporting anyone here, I appreciate the viewpoint. You said what I would like to have said far better than I could have.

Personally, I don't care if people think I'm a man, woman, flying fish or an alien

Well, you would think that, you're a guy. :->

Sarcasm intended.

Damn, I thought I had you all convinced on the flying fish front....

I wrote a long post. But I think, given the biting unpleasantness of some of these comments I won't post it.

We don't live in a free society.

It's foolish to think that we do, or act as if we do.

And the person who was right was the captain. Kicking someone off a flight for being in an ethnic group you're worried about -is- wrong.

The air crew weren't wrong in this situation.

And the writer contradicts himself within the article. That says a lot.

How is this meaningfully different from yelling "Fire!" (OK, "Suspected fire!") in a crowded theater, the archetypical example of disallowed speech?

And in any case, isn't that plane the private property of the airline? (Yes, I know that airlines are heavily-regulated, bailed out by tax dollars, etc.) If a restaurant, theater or pub can eject a patron for disturbing other customers with their "free speech", why can't an airplane?

How is this meaningfully different from yelling "Fire!"

It's more the equivalent of wearing a T-shirt that said "Fire".

i.e. not at all likely to actually cause a problem with anyone whatsoever.

He says he never considered that it would cause a problem with the people on the plane, and that aftr the problem was raised he checked with the people around him and they all said that there wasn't a problem.

If he'd stood up halfway through the flight and said "I have a bomb in my shoes!" or attempted to carry on something which resembled a bomb, I'd understand it. But I really can't understand how a badge with the words "suspected terrorist" on it could be in any way directly linked to actual terrorism or cause anyone to think that the person was a terrorist.

See my comment, for how the badge could possibly have caused trouble, or have been misconstrued.

As for what he says regarding the people around him, I'm not sure how much I believe of that. His entire piece sounds like he was trying to exact maximum effect out of what would have been a minor affair, had he complied with their wishes.

"It's more the equivalent of wearing a T-shirt that said "Fire"."

Hardly.

I think it's exactly an analog of that.

Your argument about there being a hard-line nutcase on the plane seems odd. If you have nutcases on the plane you have problems anyway. You might as well say that people shouldn't wear Red on planes because some psychopaths are set off by vibrant colours.

What she said.... ||
||
||
\/

It's more the equivalent of wearing a T-shirt that said "Fire".

Actually, it's more the equivalent of wearing a t-shirt that says "Arsonist".

Oh, I would. I am good at morally pigheaded (comes of lots of practice at pigheaded!)

Well, you would say that, you're a flying fish.

ah, see - some people can see through my icon to my true self :-)

There's just something ineluctably exocoetidae about you.

I'm impressed if you just knew that without looking it up!

Hey, that must have the same root as they used to come up with 'Exocet'.

I'd have to be a Long Tom - They apparently kill a few fishermen a year in Oz by hurtling out of the water and impaling them through the eye (or similar). I saw some and they are cool!

I'm impressed if you just knew that without looking it up!

Well, no. :-)

Hey, that must have the same root as they used to come up with 'Exocet'.

Exactly the same root. "Exocet" is French for "flying fish".

I'd have to be a Long Tom - They apparently kill a few fishermen a year in Oz by hurtling out of the water and impaling them through the eye (or similar). I saw some and they are cool!

So you're not just a flying fish, you're a scary flying fish!

I've known Kirsty for over 10 years now and that's probably the best description I've heard.

naturellment!

You and me. We're in this together.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

part 2

Re: part 2

no subject

Re:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

on the other hand ...

Re: on the other hand ...

Re: on the other hand ...

Re: on the other hand ...

Re: on the other hand ...

Re: on the other hand ...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject