United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why
-
@pie_flavor said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@polygeekery Yup. Pissed me off to no end when the flight attendant insisted until I gave in that my backpack was too large to fit under the seat in front of me and I had to put it in the overhead bin, and then found that I was unable to retrieve my laptop from it in-flight.
I call bullshit. I have flown many times with many airlines and not once was that a restriction for me... Except maybe when the seat belt light was on or you were blocking people in the aisle. If you were not allowed to get your laptop it was because:
a.) You were doing so when it wasn't level flight.
b.) You were doing it in such a way you were a nuisance, such as blocking the beverage service or taking your sweet time ruffling through your belongings.
c.) You had the misfortune of flying with a power hungry ass of an attendant who makes up arbitrary rules.
-
@luhmann said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
If you're crapping out lipstick then I think we may have some questions for you.
like ...
did you have for lunchI ask my dog that question all the time.
-
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@pie_flavor said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
It also usually gets me free drinks.
Virgin America has those too.
YMBNH. No, their alcoholic drinks are definitely not free, either (for non-first class).
TBF he's like 12 so he wouldn't get alcoholic drinks anyway.
-
Hey guys, this United Airlines advertisement makes me feel very safe flying on their airships.
-
@the_quiet_one said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@pie_flavor said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@polygeekery Yup. Pissed me off to no end when the flight attendant insisted until I gave in that my backpack was too large to fit under the seat in front of me and I had to put it in the overhead bin, and then found that I was unable to retrieve my laptop from it in-flight.
I call bullshit. I have flown many times with many airlines and not once was that a restriction for me... Except maybe when the seat belt light was on or you were blocking people in the aisle. If you were not allowed to get your laptop it was because:
a.) You were doing so when it wasn't level flight.
b.) You were doing it in such a way you were a nuisance, such as blocking the beverage service or taking your sweet time ruffling through your belongings.
c.) You had the misfortune of flying with a power hungry ass of an attendant who makes up arbitrary rules.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@pie_flavor I was not on that plane, I don't know what exactly went down there, but I see two possibilities:
- The passenger put the dog into the overhead bin on her own, without the knowledge of the flight crew. This version seems to be unlikely.
- The passenger did what she was told by the flight attendant, because she trusted that the FA knows best what is the proper and safe way of transporting an animal on a plane. This is the more likely chain of events.
Are you saying that the passenger did not believe the FA but obeyed anyway? (How do you know?)
- The flight attendant was not aware that there was an animal in the container. The passenger did not tell the flight attendant that there was an animal in the container because she assumed the flight attendant knew already.
This is the story United are going with. It doesn't sound that far-fetched to be honest.
-
@deadfast That's what I called version 1 (do you have problems comprehending written text, or is my English so bad?). It's the story United is going with. But you all are forgetting that the story was originally published on social media by other passengers of the flight. Both the airline and the dog owner of course have a motivation to blame somebody else, these are testimonies from other people. And they support version 2.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1681985361861804&id=100001510687550 (quote: "They assured the safety of the family's pet so wearily, the mother agreed." - so kindly fuck you, @pie_flavor , I knew I read the detailed story somewhere but couldn't remember.)
A Dog Died on United Airlines. This Passenger's Brilliant Social Strategy Is Why It Went Viral
"She was crying. Her daughter was crying. It was the worst feeling.”
-
One slightly off-topic footnote. In other discussions here, I noticed your (plural) tendency to blame victims - be it school shootings (a staple of modern American culture), health problems, rape, or this new UA fuck-up. It seems to be a distinctly American thing and this guy tries to explain why that is. I'm not an expert on history so I can't judge whether he's correct about the explanation, but the diagnosis seems to be spot-on. Maybe you should read it and think about it when you have the time.
https://eand.co/why-is-america-the-worlds-most-uniquely-cruel-society-f67afc5c6b9a
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
do you have problems comprehending written text, or is my English so bad?
Your English is fine and so is my comprehension of written text. I can't comprehend something that isn't there though:
The passenger put the dog into the overhead bin on her own, without the knowledge of the flight crew.
This makes it sound like the crew wasn't involved at all. The passenger just showed up, chucked the dog in the overhead locker and then made up the whole story of being forced to put the dog there. It sounded like you were building a strawman just to immediately tear it down:
This version seems to be unlikely.
Indeed it did.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
In other discussions here, I noticed your (plural) tendency to blame victims - be it school shootings (a staple of modern American culture), health problems, rape, or this new UA fuck-up.
Who's? I don't ever remember anyone here doing anything anywhere near blaming the victims of school shootings, unless you somehow conflate some people's opposition to restricting firearms ownership as such. Same for the victims of rape. You're being melodramatic.
-
@deadfast said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
This makes it sound like the crew wasn't involved at all. The passenger just showed up, chucked the dog in the overhead locker and then made up the whole story of being forced to put the dog there. It sounded like you were building a strawman just to immediately tear it down:
So what are you saying happened? That the flight attendant made the passenger put a bag into the overhead bin, but didn't know there was an animal inside and the passenger argued against it but did not tell her about the dog?
Anyway, since there are two eyewitness accounts, I think we know quite well what happened and it's irrelevant to argue about it.Who's? I don't ever remember anyone here doing anything anywhere near blaming the victims of school shootings, unless you somehow conflate some people's opposition to restricting firearms ownership as such. Same for the victims of rape. You're being melodramatic.
I think those my comment was addressed at will know.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I think those my comment was addressed at will know.
I bet they dont.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
So what are you saying happened?
I don't know what happened which is why I don't want to jump to conclusions.
That the flight attendant made the passenger put a bag into the overhead bin, but didn't know there was an animal inside and the passenger argued against it but did not tell her about the dog?
Yes, that is one possibility. This is also what United claim had happened. I recently had the opportunity to experience the joy of American domestic air travel for the first time. It was a clusterfuck. If my limited experience is in any way indicative of what went on on that United flight then this "misunderstanding" explanation seems entirely possible.
Seriously, do you people ever use more than one door for boarding?
Anyway, since there are two eyewitness accounts, I think we know quite well what happened and it's irrelevant to argue about it.
Eyewitness accounts are notorious for being unreliable. There is also the fact that one of the eyewitnesses spins things on social media for a living.
I think those my comment was addressed at will know.
I'm not sure why you're being so coy. I'd like to at least know if you meant me.
-
@Deadfast Whereas a company in damage control mode or the person suspected of being at fault (be it the flight attendant or the passenger) are completely credible sources?
I'm not sure why you're being so coy. I'd like to at least know if you meant me.
I still don't fully understand what your stance is here. If you don't want to jump to conclusions, that's fine. If your first instinct is to trust UA's version of events and your first thought after hearing the story was "Hmm, I bet the pet owner must be at fault", then yes, I meant you. But primarily I meant other people, based not only on this thread.
Ask yourself some simple questions. Do you believe that everything bad that happens to you is a direct or indirect consequence of your actions, life choices, or not taking enough precautions? If a woman gets raped, is it her fault for dressing provocatively and getting drunk? If you get sick and can't pay the medical bills because you can't afford health insurance, is it your fault because you should have worked harder to have more money? If you fly and the airline loses your luggage, is it your fault because you could have taken a 15-hour drive instead (according to @Polygeekery logic)?
-
@lukfi I am not above going to Finland to burn your goddamn house down.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Whereas a company in damage control mode or the person suspected of being at fault (be it the flight attendant or the passenger) are completely credible sources?
No. That is one of the first things I said.
I still don't fully understand what your stance is here. If you don't want to jump to conclusions, that's fine.
I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer. My stance is that we simply do not have enough information to 'convict' United of willfully killing a dog.
f your first instinct is to trust UA's version of events and your first thought after hearing the story was "Hmm, I bet the pet owner must be at fault", then yes, I meant you. But primarily I meant other people, based not only on this thread.
OK, so I guess I'm safe then and I'll just let the "other people" infer you're talking about them and let them defend themselves.
Do you believe that everything bad that happens to you is a direct or indirect consequence of your actions, life choices, or not taking enough precautions? If a woman gets raped, is it her fault for dressing provocatively and getting drunk?
No. Sometimes shit can just happen and there is nothing you can do. However, I also believe that one should take as many precautions as he or she can to avoid putting themselves in harm's way. I don't consider your dress choices to be relevant there. I would, however, strongly suggest avoiding dark alleys at 2 am while drunk. I know I do.
If you get sick and can't pay the medical bills because you can't afford health insurance, is it your fault because you should have worked harder to have more money?
If you truly cannot afford health insurance then no, I would not. If you cannot afford health insurance as a result of poor financial planning (e.g. spending all of your money on non-essential stuff like a new TV) then yes.
If you fly and the airline loses your luggage, is it your fault because you could have taken a 15-hour drive instead (according to @Polygeekery logic)?
If you put something irreplaceable into checked luggage then I would say you made a poor choice. Checked luggage is notorious for getting lost. Put it into your carry-on and don't let your eyes off it. If that is not an option (too large/heavy) then transporting it yourself would be the safest option, followed by a courier service with proper tracking. I would still hold the airline responsible for losing the luggage however.
-
@deadfast said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
However, I also believe that one should take as many precautions as he or she can to avoid putting themselves in harm's way. I don't consider your dress choices to be relevant there. I would, however, strongly suggest avoiding dark alleys at 2 am while drunk. I know I do.
Oh, and before this gets misconstrued into my being a horrible person, should somebody - god forbid - get raped at 2 am in a dark alley while drunk, I'm not going to in any way use the circumstances to try to excuse the shithead attacker. If somebody asks me how to protect against this happening to them, I will still point out that they should chose a different way of getting home.
-
Anybody experienced in perusing the NTSB site around? I would think it would at least be a reportable incident (I would call it an accident myself, but not sure whether the value ascribed to pets by law crosses the threshold for that) and reports from NTSB investigation are public, so they might have something verified there.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
In other discussions here, I noticed your (plural) tendency to blame victims - be it school shootings (a staple of modern American culture), health problems, rape, or this new UA fuck-up.
Huh?
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Maybe you should read it and think about it when you have the time.
OK...
It has little, if any, functioning healthcare, education, transport, media, no safety nets, no stability, security. The middle class is collapsing, and life expectancy is falling.
Huh? Yes, white males seem to be doing poorly in terms of life expectancy, but the rest of this makes me question if I should waste any more time on anything this guy writes.
Let me throw that into relief. Scandinavians are the happiest, longest-lived, and most prosperous people in the world because they do not punish one another constantly — but lift one another up. But Americans do not believe this reality. The underlying sentiment that unites America’s manifold problems is a myth of cruelty.
I've read a bit about Americans who have gone and experienced Scandinavian countries and they talk about how the culture really hates individual exceptionalism. Basically, the tall nail gets hammered down. That seems kind of cruel to me, actually.
I find his "punching down" metaphor interesting. I would agree that the sort of waves of (peaceful, i.e., not a literal invasion) immigration and assimilation hadn't really happened any where else and there have certainly been a lot of challenges and problems and injustice as people worked (and continue to work) through it.
The premise of the article is just a giant non sequitur:
Punching down has become a national institution, a norm, and a way of life. School shootings? Can’t ban guns — let the kids have “active shooter drills”. We are punching all the way down to our little five years olds. Life expectancy falling? Can’t have healthcare — let them self-medicate with opioids. We are punching down to the poorest. Education cost a fortune? Too bad, take out debt. We are punching down to our young people. I could give you endless examples. But perhaps you get the point by now.
Yeah, the point is that you are a very sloppy thinker.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
One slightly off-topic footnote. In other discussions here, I noticed your (plural) tendency to blame victims - be it school shootings (a staple of modern American culture), health problems, rape, or this new UA fuck-up. It seems to be a distinctly American thing and this guy tries to explain why that is. I'm not an expert on history so I can't judge whether he's correct about the explanation, but the diagnosis seems to be spot-on. Maybe you should read it and think about it when you have the time.
https://eand.co/why-is-america-the-worlds-most-uniquely-cruel-society-f67afc5c6b9a
What a load of tripe. How can you give this article one iota of credibility? It is all bullshit.
Let's take this little nugget for example:
The problem is this. A society of people punching one another down must collapse. What else could it do? It cannot rise, can it? If I am punching you down, and I am punching the next person down below me, how can anyone ever lift anyone up? But without lifting one another up, a society cannot grow in quantity or quality of life. This, too, is what happened to Soviet Russia.
So the central thesis of this article is that America was founded on "punching down", but neglects that if that were the case then it all came from Europe to begin with, but whatever.
So we are all punching down, and have all throughout history, so we cannot rise and must collapse? Uhmmmmm,
does he think we have done over the past 242 years? We have risen. We have risen to the top of the world as its largest and most influential superpower. By a long shot. He disproves his own assertions. Sort of. I mean, either he is wrong about this whole "punching down", which I believe he is. Or, "punching down" is exactly how you rise to the top.The entire article is rubbish. I cannot believe that is on a website that charges for more than 3 articles per month. If you honestly think that this article has any merit at all then I believe you are the one who needs to give some things some thought when you have time.
-
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I've read a bit about Americans who have gone and experienced Scandinavian countries and they talk about how the culture really hates individual exceptionalism. Basically, the tall nail gets hammered down. That seems kind of cruel to me, actually.
In general, this is a misinterpretation. In the scandinavian countries it's generally frowned upon when people toot their own horn, even when as rampantly successful as the late Kamprad of IKEA fame. It's perfectly well to be exeptional, and individual. Just don't go tooting that there horn about how exceptionally individual you are. Let your actions and accomplishments do the talking instead.
-
@carnage I can see why those could be confused by Americans, who have a very boastful culture as a country
-
@Deadfast All of that sounds entirely reasonable, so I'd say we have no quarrel.
@polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
So the central thesis of this article is that America was founded on "punching down", but neglects that if that were the case then it all came from Europe to begin with, but whatever.
Not necessarily. The social dynamic in America was different because of the immigration waves.
So we are all punching down, and have all throughout history, so we cannot rise and must collapse? Uhmmmmm,
does he think we have done over the past 242 years? We have risen. We have risen to the top of the world as its largest and most influential superpower. By a long shot. He disproves his own assertions. Sort of. I mean, either he is wrong about this whole "punching down", which I believe he is. Or, "punching down" is exactly how you rise to the top.I believe that's another viewpoint to look at the same thing. The same people who moved to America from Europe were the enterprising ones who took responsibility for themselves and had the ambition to get a better life for themselves than the previous generations in Europe. This is still partly true today (I think I mentioned this point in the discussion about immigration). The article explores the downside of this. Saying that American society must collapse, well, that's needlessly dramatic, I'll give you that. But I think the American society is facing some problems (many of them not unique to your country, but faced at the same time by other countries) and many people are refusing to see it (again, same in other countries).
The entire article is rubbish. I cannot believe that is on a website that charges for more than 3 articles per month. If you honestly think that this article has any merit at all then I believe you are the one who needs to give some things some thought when you have time.
It's a kind of article you have to read with an open mind. To me it sounds like you skimmed through it, decided it disagrees with your long-held viewpoints… and reacted like a bigoted hillbilly.
@lukfi I am not above going to Finland to burn your goddamn house down.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
It's a kind of article you have to read with an open mind.
How do you go from "punching down" to "can't have guns?" It seems like those really silly chains of free association, but with the stuff from the middle left out. Like this old joke:
Q: Why are firetrucks red?
A: Because they have eight wheels and four people on them, and four plus eight makes twelve, and there are twelve inches in a foot, and one foot is a ruler, and Queen Elizabeth was a ruler, and Queen Elizabeth was also a ship, and the ship sailed the seas, and there were fish in the seas, and fish have fins, and the Finns fought the Russians, and the Russians are red, and fire trucks are always “Russian" around.
-
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I've read a bit about Americans who have gone and experienced Scandinavian countries and they talk about how the culture really hates individual exceptionalism. Basically, the tall nail gets hammered down. That seems kind of cruel to me, actually.
Because you're American. Cultures are just different in different places. The real thing that determines 'happiest country' is whether everyone believes the same thing - those tend to be the least diverse countries of all.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
It's a kind of article you have to read with an open mind. To me it sounds like you skimmed through it, decided it disagrees with your long-held viewpoints… and reacted like a bigoted hillbilly.
It seems like you read through it, it fit your preconceptions and fit us in to a box for you to hate and your confirmation bias kicked in.
Whatever. You do you.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
In other discussions here, I noticed your (plural) tendency to blame victims
There is a difference between blaming a victim and telling them that they can do things to help protect themselves. A person can choose to be proactive and protect themselves to the best of their ability or not. That is their choice, but when they take no action to protect themselves and bad things happen you are not going to get as much sympathy as you would if you had done what you could to protect yourself and still drew the short straw.
It seems to be a distinctly American thing and this guy tries to explain why that is.
No, that article is utter trash. He has some very jaded views on history and society. For that matter (even though he tries and note his way around it) he ignores the massive amount of cruelty in the rest of the world. He even notes Rwanda as not having problems like the US. Except for the genocide, child soldiers, actual rape culture, child slave trade and probably more. But yeah, they have universal healthcare so they are doing better than the US. What a complete and utter load of fucking shit.
I'm not an expert on history so I can't judge whether he's correct about the explanation, but the diagnosis seems to be spot-on.
His history is factually incorrect and a grossly shallow analysis. For instance he says that only the lowest class came to the US. Which is factually incorrect, a large number of nobles came to the US seeking to expand their holdings. It is true that the majority was the lower class, but in that time the vast majority of people were the lower class so that is hardly unexpected.
Further, the diagnosis is only correct if you have a flawed view of US society. We don't have a dominance hierarchy. We are not the rest of the world that has a set class/caste system. That simply does not exist in the US. The vast majority of the conflicts that arose during the tumultuous birth of this nation were long held cultural strife's that lessened (you want to see the worse of it today, look at the communities that are still insular and clinging to their host countries culture) as they became more American.
No question the US has a culture of conflict and the best rising to the top. But do not conflate that with the need to push other people down to achieve that position. The pie is not finite. More people at the top just means more pie, not less.
-
-
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
How do you go from "punching down" to "can't have guns?"
Where did I say that?
However, you can look at some statistics comparing the strictness of gun laws vs. gun violence and they will tell you that more (easy access to) guns doesn't automatically mean more safety.@pie_flavor said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Because you're American. Cultures are just different in different places. The real thing that determines 'happiest country' is whether everyone believes the same thing - those tend to be the least diverse countries of all.
If you're talking about ethnical or religious diversity, it could be of note that a lot of foreigners immigrated to Sweden in the last 1-2 decades. Then you have countries like Poland which is almost 100 % ethnically homogenous and most people are Catholic and I don't think they have the same happiness rating as Northern European countries. It could be a cultural thing, of course.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
If you're talking about ethnical or religious diversity, it could be of note that a lot of foreigners immigrated to Sweden in the last 1-2 decades. Then you have countries like Poland which is almost 100 % ethnically homogenous and most people are Catholic and I don't think they have the same happiness rating as Northern European countries. It could be a cultural thing, of course.
That's not really fair. I mean, sure, they are relatively homogeneous and have similar ideals overall...but they are still Polish and that sort of sucks.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
How do you go from "punching down" to "can't have guns?"
Where did I say that?
It's in the article you told us was so cool.However, you can look at some statistics comparing the strictness of gun laws vs. gun violence and they will tell you that more (easy access to) guns doesn't automatically mean more safety.
However, that has nothing to do with the point. Sorry, I thought you might have read the article at the link you posted.
-
Airlines are one big
- Usually at least 5-7 preboarding groups, which ironically, takes more time and sacrificing convenience than if those groups boarded with their zone (aside from ADA pax).
- Boarding order makes no sense. While the boarding process is usually decently "random", just imagine the worst case of people boarding in ascending seat number, with as many carryons as the plane will take. Get window seats boarded, then middle, then aisle.
- Baggage rules are also counterproductive. Maybe the airline will make some money from checking fees, but getting everybody to check their luggage would make departure decently quicker, and a better turnaround time will increase fares per day on a given plane. Honestly, it should be reversed, and you should be charged for bringing a carryon. This also has the side effect of making the TSA lines quicker since there is less stuff to scan.
I know this is basically Southwest, but others really do need to consider this.
-
@polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
That's not really fair. I mean, sure, they are relatively homogeneous and have similar ideals overall...but they are still Polish and that sort of sucks.
Hence the reason why people in some countries report to be happier than in others must have a different explanation than homogenity of the population.
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
It's in the article you told us was so cool.Yes, guns are mentioned as examples, but it's in no way an article about guns and gun control.
However, that has nothing to do with the point. Sorry, I thought you might have read the article at the link you posted.
It does.From my point of view, the U.S. as a country has a problem with psychologically unfit individuals commiting gun violence, which is not happening anywhere else in the world in such scale. Also you have people who own guns but are not properly educated on how to store and handle them safely and cause harm to themselves or their families. If it was my country, I would consider it wise to seek a solution on the federal level. Like mandatory psych evaluations, background checks, mandatory education and regular tests to renew your license.
An American sees it from another point of view. Yes, it's happening in my country, but it's not MY problem as long as I'm not the one getting shot at. And if somebody is getting shot at, it's not a problem of insufficient laws or regulation, it's exclusively that poor sod's problem and he is solely responsible for being able to defend himself. And it is through this thinking that you arrive at such incomprehensibly dumb ideas like 'elementary school teachers trained to shoot'.
This is just one example of "punching down". The article gives some more. And some of the reactions to the dog death on a UA flight are another.
@sumireko said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
- Get window seats boarded, then middle, then aisle.
- Baggage rules are also counterproductive. Maybe the airline will make some money from checking fees, but getting everybody to check their luggage would make departure decently quicker, and a better turnaround time will increase fares per day on a given plane. Honestly, it should be reversed, and you should be charged for bringing a carryon. This also has the side effect of making the TSA lines quicker since there is less stuff to scan.
I've often wondered about that, too. It would be so much quicker if people in the back of the plane & the window seats boarded first. Sure, not all passengers may be present at the gate when boarding begins, but still.
Baggage rules are . In theory, it makes sense: when you have checked baggage, the airport staff has to load it into the cargo bay of the plane (vs. the cargo bay can be used to carry commercial cargo) and it has to be handled at all layover airports and at the destination - which is work for the airport staff, and therefore costs money. In practice, when everybody brings the largest carry-on allowed, it won't all fit into the overhead bins, so they take your carry-on away at the gate and load it into the cargo bay.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
This is just one example of "punching down".
TDEMSYR. Seriously, how is any of that "punching down?"
-
@boomzilla See, you can't even comprehend the basic idea of the state doing something to protect its citizens. Everything is a personal responsibility and nothing is important enough to be handled at a higher level.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
See, you can't even comprehend the basic idea of the state doing something to protect its citizens.
That is rather fascinating imaginary moral to draw from my post.
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Everything is a personal responsibility and nothing is important enough to be handled at a higher level.
I think you should focus on reading what people actually write and attempt to answer them.
-
I see, you're missing the link to the "punching down" part.
Imagine this: You can afford to have healthcare, a firearm for your protection and a car for your transportation needs. There are other people who either can't afford those things or can't use them because of their health or age. They are therefore at a disadvantage. At this point, a European would say "That's dumb, let's have public healthcare, public transport and sane gun laws". This would remove or strongly mitigate the disadvantage. You say: "I'm not the one with the disadvantage, that puts me at an advantage, so I'm fine with things as they are." This is the punching down. You have climbed a pile and you want to prevent others from climbing it. Or maybe not prevent, but definitely don't make it any easier for them. This is what the article says: the first immigrants have climbed a pile (which was easier for them because there wasn't anybody else up there yet) and since that time they have been "punching down". Now, the rich are punching down the poor and the old are punching down the young. That's the general idea.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
You say: "I'm not the one with the disadvantage, that puts me at an advantage, so I'm fine with things as they are." This is the punching down
Ah, I see. Of course, we spend literal fucktons of money on stuff like healthcare for poor people (both via the government and just by providers not getting paid so charging paying patients more).
Also, denying the "little" guy the ability to defend himself with a firearm seems a lot more like punching down to me. We have other gun control threads, so I don't want to get into that here.
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Now, the rich are punching down the poor and the old are punching down the young. That's the general idea.
Well, I suppose I can at least see where the guy is coming from, even if I still heartily disagree and think that he's not really thinking stuff through.
-
@lukfi It seems you fail to understand the entire argument against public healthcare. It's not that you can afford it so no one else should. It's because just because you can afford it doesn't mean that you should also be paying for everyone else's. But public healthcare is paid for by the government and therefore comes out of your tax dollars, which get increased to pay for public healthcare. Meanwhile, the argument against what you consider to be 'sane' gun laws is very different - (a) the gun laws would not have stopped the shooting they're being made in the wake of, or any other for that matter; (b) the gun laws are an emotive response because something involving children made the news, even though the incident is a drop in the bucket compared to gun crime in general; and (c) the liberals do very clearly want to take all guns and view taking only some of the guns as a 'compromise'.
-
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Ah, I see. Of course, we spend literal fucktons of money on stuff like healthcare for poor people (both via the government and just by providers not getting paid so charging paying patients more).
That's interesting. My country also spends a fuckton of money on healthcare, but everybody is insured and nobody has to cook meth to pay medical bills. According to sources I've found, what goes into healthcare in my country from compulsory insurance and taxes comes out to about 7 % of GDP, and if you add what people buy themselves (mainly drugs), about 8 % or slightly over. U.S. GDP is supposed to be about $18.6 trillion and total healthcare spending $3.3 trillion (in 2016), which is about 18 %. That doesn't seem right to me. This paper from 2004 says 14 %, though, so it seems to be correct.
Also, denying the "little" guy the ability to defend himself with a firearm seems a lot more like punching down to me. We have other gun control threads, so I don't want to get into that here.
Me neither, since the "punching down" phenomenon is not really about guns, or even primarily about guns. But your comment shows this mentality beautifully. If it was near-impossible for a psychologically unstable person to obtain a gun, the little guy would not need to defend himself. (You can argue that regulation is not 100 %, but a gunfight is 50 %). But you put the responsibility onto the little guy anyway. No matter that the little guy may in fact be a school pupil.
@pie_flavor said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@lukfi It's because just because you can afford it doesn't mean that you should also be paying for everyone else's. But public healthcare is paid for by the government and therefore comes out of your tax dollars, which get increased to pay for public healthcare.
That's actually the idea of public healthcare. When you're making money, you also pay for those who don't, and when you're too young or too old to work, the others pay for you.
Meanwhile, the argument against what you consider to be 'sane' gun laws is very different - (a) the gun laws would not have stopped the shooting they're being made in the wake of, or any other for that matter;
Then how do you explain that in countries with strict gun laws, such shootings and accidents that are commonplace in America are not happening? (I googled 'little kid plays with gun shoots his sibling' and Jesus fuck, I thought it was like one freak accident two years ago, I had no idea there were so many.
ExclusivelyMostly in the U.S., of course. One was from South Africa.)
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@pie_flavor said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@lukfi It's because just because you can afford it doesn't mean that you should also be paying for everyone else's. But public healthcare is paid for by the government and therefore comes out of your tax dollars, which get increased to pay for public healthcare.
That's actually the idea of public healthcare. When you're making money, you also pay for those who don't, and when you're too young or too old to work, the others pay for you.
Yes, that's what I just said. We don't like that. I shouldn't have to pay for you, you should have to pay for you.
Meanwhile, the argument against what you consider to be 'sane' gun laws is very different - (a) the gun laws would not have stopped the shooting they're being made in the wake of, or any other for that matter;
Then how do you explain that in countries with strict gun laws, such shootings and accidents that are commonplace in America are not happening? (I googled 'little kid plays with gun shoots his sibling' and Jesus fuck, I thought it was like one freak accident two years ago, I had no idea there were so many.
ExclusivelyMostly in the U.S., of course. One was from South Africa.)Unless you have some fetish about guns, generally the reason you're against shootings is because you're against violent crime in general and shootings are the easiest one you can shake a stick at because you have something to villify. If you look at those countries with strict gun laws? Violent crime is up. And even if it's decreasing, it's decreasing at a slower rate than it was before the laws were enacted. Meanwhile, child accidents happen all the time with dangerous things. Kids stick forks in sockets. Kids see what happens if they jump down the stairs. Kids have a whale of a time with the chemicals under the sink. Is that really the only thing you can come up with against guns?
There are arguments against guns that I generally hit a wall of 'we'll have to agree to disagree' on. These are not those arguments. These are the arguments of an uneducated person whose sole gun knowledge comes from Hollywood and CNN.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Me neither, since the "punching down" phenomenon is not really about guns, or even primarily about guns. But your comment shows this mentality beautifully. If it was near-impossible for a psychologically unstable person to obtain a gun, the little guy would not need to defend himself.
So if we got rid of guns then murder, robbery, rape and other violent crimes would completely go away? Entirely? 100%
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Me neither, since the "punching down" phenomenon is not really about guns, or even primarily about guns. But your comment shows this mentality beautifully. If it was near-impossible for a psychologically unstable person to obtain a gun, the little guy would not need to defend himself. (You can argue that regulation is not 100 %, but a gunfight is 50 %). But you put the responsibility onto the little guy anyway. No matter that the little guy may in fact be a school pupil.
No, that's just your straw man that's doing that.
-
@sumireko said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
- Boarding order makes no sense. While the boarding process is usually decently "random", just imagine the worst case of people boarding in ascending seat number, with as many carryons as the plane will take. Get window seats boarded, then middle, then aisle.
I am almost convinced at this point that they make the boarding process as lengthened as possible to give the crew enough time for pre flight without having a bunch of passengers sitting idly twiddling their thumbs for 20 minutes getting antsy.
-
@sumireko said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Baggage rules are also counterproductive. Maybe the airline will make some money from checking fees, but getting everybody to check their luggage would make departure decently quicker, and a better turnaround time will increase fares per day on a given plane. Honestly, it should be reversed, and you should be charged for bringing a carryon.
Airlines would first need to fix their broken baggage check system that frequently results in lost or damaged luggage.
-
@unperverted-vixen said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Airlines would first need to fix their broken baggage check system that frequently results in lost or damaged luggage.
Several years ago we were going to Sanibel Island for vacation. I tell my wife I will drop her off with the luggage at the curbside baggage check and I will take our boy and go park our car. I come back and she tells me she has bad news. Right as my bag was going on the conveyor belt she saw it was tagged for Miama or Ft Lauderdale or some other city in FL. They were unable to fix the problem before my bag made it to the plane.
I spent the first two days of vacation without my bag. That was horrible. In Florida in an oceanfront condo with a pool and I had no trunks, no shorts, no laptop, no cell phone charger, no DVDs for the boy, no toothbrush, etc.
I had to go to the local WalMart and buy clothes, toiletries, chargers, everything.
I hate checking bags.
-
@polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
So if we got rid of guns then murder, robbery, rape and other violent crimes would completely go away? Entirely? 100%
Right now every adult U.S. citizen can go to a shop and buy a gun for self-defense. Have violent crimes gone away?
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
No, that's just your straw man that's doing that.
Maybe we could stop the discussion there. The article I posted claims that the U. S. has a cruel, punching-down culture. What you said so far about guns and what @pie_flavor said about healthcare ("you should have to pay for you") is proof that the article is on to something.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Right now every adult U.S. citizen can go to a shop and buy a gun for self-defense. Have violent crimes gone away?
So you admit you were spouting bullshit?
Got it.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Maybe we could stop the discussion there. The article I posted claims that the U. S. has a cruel, punching-down culture. What you said so far about guns and what @pie_flavor said about healthcare ("you should have to pay for you") is proof that the article is on to something.
No.
-
@lukfi said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
So if we got rid of guns then murder, robbery, rape and other violent crimes would completely go away? Entirely? 100%
Right now every adult U.S. citizen can go to a shop and buy a gun for self-defense. Have violent crimes gone away?
Let's ignore that you're wrong for a moment to note that as gun ownership goes up, violent crime goes down.
@boomzilla said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
No, that's just your straw man that's doing that.
Maybe we could stop the discussion there. The article I posted claims that the U. S. has a cruel, punching-down culture. What you said so far about guns and what @pie_flavor said about healthcare ("you should have to pay for you") is proof that the article is on to something.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
