Comment by cmurf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmurf | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think this is milquetoast logic. You acknowledge the airlines' mistakes, and then with exactly zero logic you shift the burden of consequence entirely to the victim.

Shit airline policy, shit airline decision making prior to boarding to avoid an altercation, shit airline decision making after the boarding process by being too cheap to bribe literally anyone off the plane, shit airline decision to have a "random" person forcibly removed. Yeah that's all bad but in the end it was the passengers fault for what happened? Ummm, yeah, that's shit logic. How did you just get from Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E to conclusion Z with no dots connected?

I also call bullshit on "the computer" picking someone randomly to be removed. I will eat my hat if the computer really has a random function for this purpose, rather than one based on seniority (miles status) or yet another shit decision on part of the airline shifting a personal choice to that of the computer, i.e. lying.

I'm glad this guy stuck to his decision. Even better there's video for his future lawsuit. The only thing they understand is money. And he should take as much of their money as his lawyer can possibly extract out of the airline. It's the only way airline employes who made bad decisions at literally every step along this sequence will make adjustments. Had he merely complied, it would have secured the policies as just and reasonable in the eyes of the airline, even though they aren't just or reasonable.

> and then with exactly zero logic you shift the burden of consequence entirely to the victim.

When did mattsfrey say anything of the sort? Seems to me that he said that, essentially, the passenger made a bad situation worse. And I think that his claim is objectively true. The passenger would not leave the plane, even when told to do so by the police. Does that lead to physical force? In the real world, yes, it does. Does the passenger bear some (not all!) responsibility for that? Yes, he does.

Absolutely not. The airline made a bad situation worse by refusing to offer adequate compensation, and they made it even worse by introducing violence. This man saw that he was being wronged, and he refused to allow them to wrong him without some type of protest. If he had left and said, 'Well, this isn't right,' nothing would have come of it. He would have received no justice. Now, there's a good chance that he'll be adequately compensated for his trouble, and United will be adequately shamed/penalized by would-be customers.

Yes, choosing an action you know will directly result in a certain outcome makes you responsible for experiencing that outcome. Logic seems pretty simple to me

No, you can't expect the outcome is to be violently assaulted while doing no harm.

Only in a fascist state.

In every single functioning state, you do what the police tell you or they use violence to coerce you. This is basically what defines the existence of a 'state', the alternative is anarchy.

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

The alternative is not anarchy. Peaceful resistance is a valid way to protest something that is wrong.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Reply on news.ycombinator.com