Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldpie | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand the equivalence between "someone who's making me wait in line for hours in order to have all my shit taken out of my bags and re-packed by myself in order to perform provably[1] no useful service to anyone" and "someone who checks me out at the grocery store."

One is actively making my day worse to no useful purpose, so I treat them like the dirt that they are. The other is performing a valuable service which I appreciate and thank accordingly.

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-u...

View on HN

> One is actively making my day worse to no useful purpose, so I treat them like the dirt that they are.

You're making two mistakes here. One, you're assuming that all TSA agents are evil jerks who only took the job so they can fulfill their life's goal of fucking with coldpie. I'll counter that the vast majority of TSA employees are regular people like you'd find in any entry level position. Maybe they hate their job, or maybe they feel they are doing their part in keeping America safe (whether they believe the security theater bullshit they're fed, or not). Either way, they are human beings just like you. You are no better than they are, and vice versa. You are putting yourself on a pedestal and looking down on them as if they are subhuman. That is textbook sociopath.

Two, you are equating policy set by their superiors with the entry level agents themselves. They have absolutely no say in what they are forced to do, yet they are the ones you're taking it all out on. You're quite simply barking up the wrong tree.

If you want anyone to take you seriously rather than thinking you're a raving lunatic, you should direct your ire towards the policy makers. Work the political angle, because you're fighting a losing battle on the ground. Making one of thousands of employees feel like shit does absolutely nothing for your claimed cause, and only serves to feed your own selfish need to feel superior (which I strongly suspect is your actual motive, whether you realize it or not).

> You are putting yourself on a pedestal and looking down on them as if they are subhuman.

No. I am angry at people for mistreating me to no one's benefit.

> They have absolutely no say in what they are forced to do, yet they are the ones you're taking it all out on. You're quite simply barking up the wrong tree.

Do you believe that being paid removes all culpability for your actions? Suppose I found someone to pay me to break the windows in your house[1] every day. Would you treat me with kindness and thank me for my service, while writing a letter to my benefactor asking him politely to stop paying me to break your windows?

[1] Ignore the legality of this action. If that's a sticking point for you, replace it with some other legal-but-annoying behavior, whatever.

> No. I am angry at people for mistreating me to no one's benefit.

I'd say you're angry at the system (and rightfully so!), and taking it out on the ones who are just trying to feed their families. You're quite literally cutting off the nose to spite the face.

And I still maintain that you are yourself just as sadistic and hateful as the system you bemoan, if not more so.

So you think that getting paid relieves you of all culpability for your actions. I don't agree.

> So you think that getting paid relieves you of all culpability for your actions.

Not at all, and you know very well I never said that. Since you're so keen on putting words in my mouth to reach an erroneous conclusion, I'm just going to stop here.

You were asked the question twice[1][2] and ignored it both times, so I was trying to pin down an answer. I'm trying to find where our disagreement lies.

1) We agree that the TSA agents' actions should make me angry.

2) We agree that the TSA agents themselves are culpable for their actions.

3) Therefor, it makes sense for me to be angry at the TSA agents.

4) I think our disagreement lies here, where I think I am allowed to retaliate (within the bounds of the law, obviously) against those who upset me, while you think I'm not.

You were couching your argument in terms of "they're just doing their jobs; be angry at the policy makers, not at those who carry out the policy," which made me think the disagreement was in (2) above. But your reply here makes me think the disagreement is in (4).

I understand the viewpoint that one should always turn the other cheek to one's oppressors. I don't subscribe to it myself. If they're going to harass and anger me and waste my time, I really don't have any problems returning the favor.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10801547

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10801549

Reply on news.ycombinator.com