Passengers who refuse to use headphones can now be kicked off United flights
cnn.com
cnn.com
I never been in a flight, or train across Europe where passengers showed just lack of respect for the others.
The only ones pumping anything loud, on trains or busses, usually get quickly pointed down by other passengers, personal or security.
Ah, and then there are the rebellious kids or gangs, as the other exception, which usually don't take flights anyway.
Very rarely does anybody call them out or otherwise try to reign it in, because you're as likely as not to be physically attacked and in America, the odds of bystanders coming to your rescue are... Not zero, but not great.
On the other hand I did get a chewing out from an older guy for having a conversation with friends on a train once, so some people take it perhaps a bit too serious.
Motivated in large part as a response to society saying fuck them. I'm not defending assholes being assholes, but I think what we have been seeing in the US over the last 5 or 10 years is classic collapse of the social contract stuff. The less a society cares about its people the less its people will care about the rest of society.
Yes, because people have always felt like outsiders in relation to society. My point was that this sort of public misbehaving is getting worse because social cohesion is getting even worse. Not everyone with grievances against society will respond this way, but as more people have grievances against society, more people will respond in a manner like this.
What I did not know is that he was one of the producers for Voyage Home. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0857130/
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/I_Hate_You
> According to the movie credits, the song was performed by the obscure band Edge of Etiquette. (Edge of Etiquette was, indeed, so obscure that it is rather difficult to find anything more about them than their having performed this particular song.) The punk on the bus who flipped Kirk "the bird" was played by Star Trek IV associate producer Kirk Thatcher. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia, 4th ed., vol. 1, p. 354, Edge of Etiquette was a pseudonym for Thatcher.
> Thatcher also wrote the lyrics for the song to music written by Mark Mangini. A game card, from the Star Trek Customizable Card Game released by Decipher, excerpted the lyrics of the song. Thatcher had complained that the new wave music previously considered would not have been an accurate representation of what a 1980s punk would listen to, and offered to write "I Hate You" instead.
This links to https://www.wired.com/2016/09/punk-star-trek-iv-vulcan-nerve... ( https://web.archive.org/web/20161222223425/https://www.wired... ... ghads, their "you must log in" blocker even worked through the wayback machine ... use reader mode)
> But portraying “Punk on the Bus” would turn out to be Thatcher’s most lasting contribution to The Voyage Home. He and Nimoy had grown chummy during filming, so when the filmmakers were looking to cast the punk, Thatcher lobbied the director to get the role. “I told him, ‘Look, I used to have a mohawk, and I’ll dress the part—you won’t recognize me,'” Thatcher says. “Leonard said, ‘Huh, really,’ in that deep, basso profondo way. I couldn’t tell if he thought it was a stupid idea.”
> ...
> The song itself came later. Paramount Pictures had a music-licensing deal that gave it to access to songs by new-wave artists like Duran Duran, but none of those bands seemed like a good fit for Thatcher’s snarling character. “I said, ‘Leonard, that’s not punk. I could write you a punk song and it will cost you nothing. I’ll do it for [a few hundred dollars],'” says Thatcher. He wrote out the nihilistic lyrics, which he brought to his friend (and future Mad Max: Fury Road Oscar winner) Mark Mangini, a sound editor who came up with the song’s snotty, simple guitar riff. Thatcher himself sang vocals, and the whole tune was recorded on a weekend night, in a hallway that would provide the necessarily shitty sound.
> “My idea of punk at the time was the Dead Kennedys, Germs, Black Flag—real West Coast hardcore punk, that real raw sound,” Thatcher says. “I also wanted a Sex Pistols ‘God Save the Queen’ vibe, which is why I did the British accent.”
> As for Nimoy’s response? “He came by, heard it, and said, ‘OK. That’s very punk.'”
I'm not sure it's contempt they're expressing, or if they're expressing anything at all. There really are people who enjoy and defend it, too; "it's just a guy playing music, mind your own business." Truly alien.
If you ask such person to stop it is implied they expect you to back that up with violence and you've already consented to a battle.
More like you've already admitted cowardice, which makes you fair game. If it's the music that upsets you, come at me with louder speakers!
Regardless, no punishment is too harsh, this should be considered the equivalent of lighting up a cigarette on a plane.
There are angry people playing dominance games on one hand, and on the other people who simply don't care what anybody else wants and will do what they can get away with. There's no difference in intelligence between the two, but only the first type can actually be reasoned with. The second type will only pretend to be reasonable until the person that they're intimidated by leaves the room.
Everybody says "social cues," but as you said, the people who "don't get social cues" also don't seem to "get" direct requests or orders.
There are a couple of us who have actually seen someone call them out that are warning folks here what commonly happens. I saw someone get attacked with a knife, another commenter here had a gun pulled on him when they asked them to stop. It isn't about the loud music itself, it's that they're openly saying they are king shit, that no one is willing to challenge them, and broadcasting their eagerness to deliver violence upon anyone that might.
The other side of this is that they often do it on places you can't easily escape, like a train car with stops only every 5 minutes. This gives them a very long time to go to town on anyone that might challenges them. Something I've seen with my own eyes when they were asked to tone down the music.
I'm well aware of the types you're talking about, but in my experience this has largely changed. It used to be that these sorts were the most common offenders. But now it's just, well, everyone and anyone. For instance I don't think the little, old lady in front of me on the bus the other day was challenging people to violence.
I though the discussion here was about people not using their headphones on airplanes.
On topic (and discussed already on HN): https://github.com/Pankajtanwarbanna/stfu
Okay this is ridiculous. One is a fire hazard and the other is not. Do you really need the hyperbole here?
This is actually a really good response though. Because the act of having a device blaring demonstrates contempt for everyone one around them. It's hard to act in a hateful way to someone who just offered you something for free.
Yes, because there's been a recent push to more heavily punish good Samaritans than perpetrators. When good men get metaphorically crucified for helping, they stop helping.
If that seems like a common sense outcome of such policies, you're right. But as we've seen time and again, common sense is not a flower that grows in everyone's garden.
Some places and cultures just have different norms.
Take a wild guess what happens when you allow an influx of people from those cultures and norms into a country with opposing norms, with poor frameworks and resources for assimilation?
So on a crowded bus you've normally got 1 or 2. Behavior is actually much better on airplanes, usually (maybe 1-2 in ~150 passenger plane), and I have never seen someone who did not silence their phone after being asked politely by the attendant.
And so yes, I've definitely seen and experienced people watching inane tiktoks on speaker in subway or bus or airplane. It's the epitome of complete lack of empathy or self awareness to me, but I guess that's the way culture is going.
Don't take functionality away because of a few bad actors. That'd be like getting rid of drones because a few people are assholes.
Put rules in place to correct the bad behavior. Kicking them off planes seems fair.
With the old phones you could reasonably tilt your head and raise your shoulder to hold the handset in place so you could do something that required two hands while talking/listening, like looking up something in a book or taking notes.
Smartphones are smaller than the old handsets and much flatter. I can pinch mine between my shoulder and head but I've got to raise my should pretty high and do some other contortions to get my head tilted enough making it much more awkward to do anything with my hands. Also that phone is small enough that it is pretty well covered in that position by the side of my face and my shoulder, so I'm not sure the mic could pick up much.
Landline telephones mostly had handsets that looked like the top photo here [1]. When held with a hand they were positioned as shown in the second photo there.
Because of its thickness and length you only had to tilt your head and/or raise you should a little to hold it hands free with the speaker end right at the ear and the mic end still near the mouth.
If you were taking a call while standing for example and needed to write something down in a notebook that was no problem.
But if you're in public, and using a smartphone, headphones are always an option. There s absolutely no reason why anyone needs to use speakerphone in public if they're just one person.
I told him that phone speakers "make me gassy" and then he turned it off.
Still annoying?
If so, is the problem usually the loudness of the speakerphone, or the loudness of the person who is there? I've noticed some people talk louder when on speakerphone than when on regular phone (and some people talk louder on regular phone than when talking to someone in person).
Back before mobile phones there was a tendency for people to talk louder on the phone at first, but after being reminded a few times that just because the other person is far away doesn't mean you have to shout most people learned to talk at normal volume.
I wonder if loud talkers don't get that feedback now? With old phone handsets there was pretty much only one position for them, so the mic was about the same distance from the mouth for all speakers. Talk to loud and it would be annoying on the receiving end.
But with modern phones there are a variety of positions people hold them in, which can lead to quite different mic positions. My understanding is that they do a lot more automatic gain control and other processing to try to keep the level the same despite all those different positions. Perhaps this means that the person on the other end doesn't know you are talking loud and so unless someone on your end tells you to keep it down you might never realize you are a loud phone talker.
Naturally it is extremely rude. If two people have a conversation in public both pay attention to the surroundings and feedback to change their volume tone and topics. If you put someone on speaker without introducing everyone present then they should hang up on you.
This is silly. Just tell the person you are talking to that they are on speaker.
Assuming the party on the phone has been informed and the volume is not excessive, having a conversation on speaker is equivalent to having a physical conversation in person.
The last time I had an uncle blast his Doujin feed at full volume next to me, I suggested he lower the volume, he didn't care, so I blasted my own feed at louder volume. He got it then. Sadly people a few rows back did the same on the next train...
They said “walk out into traffic.” That’s rude. You should wait for a signal or a break in the flow so nobody has to brake for you.
Assuming there is no paint on the road an (unmarked) crosswalk may still exist [1] and drivers are supposed to yield to a pedestrian in a marked or unmarked crosswalk [2].
[1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
[2]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
Legally there is a crosswalk regardless of if it's painted or not see [1]. I get this wasn't on the drivers test but it's still in the law.
There were some complaints about not everybody living in California. It's a law in your state too; I'm not going to find it for you.
[1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
Pretty clear parent meant people who cross against the light / mid-block when there is a crossing 50ft away / stepping in front of the one car on the road when they could look up for one second and step out behind that car etc. in other words the people who put off 'main character' vibes.
No wonder pedestrian deaths are up so much the past few years
But when there’s a designated crossing area, it’s the responsibility of traffic to stop. Pedestrians should not stand and wait at the intersection for a break in traffic because it’s a confusing signal to drivers. If you’re standing at a designated crosswalk you need to be either signaling your intent to cross or moving away from the crosswalk
People jay walk when there's no traffic all the time, that's totally fine. This is a totally different act of passive aggression.
This is the speed walking equivalent of picking up pennies in front of a steam roller. Saves a min here and then until you pay for it big time.
Even Switzerland is dirty because cigarette buts are everywhere. It's just that some % of the population are inconsiderate assholes and only heavy enforcement works vs than. Unfortunately this is something our current society is not willing to do.
> usually get quickly pointed down by other passengers, personnel or security
I’ve never, not once, heard a member of staff ask someone to use headphones on transport.
I've heard a lot of Cocomelon crap at full volume on planes because I guess parents don't want to have their kids use headphones. I sort of understand it but at the same time I also think it's pretty inconsiderate for the rest of the people on the flight who likely do not want to listen to their kid's awful YouTube show.
In the NYC subway I've seen dozens of people who will blast their terrible music very loudly with a bluetooth speaker. These are full-grown adults. I don't know why they do that, I suspect it would sound better on the train with headphones. Maybe it's some form of evangelism, where they think the music is utterly fantastic that everyone should listen to it.
This was done by my parents when I was a young kid. I wouldn't turn the volume down on my Game Boy on a flight, so my parents took it away from me until I promised to keep the volume down, which I did after that.
In my European travels I’ve definitely seen it. It depends entirely on the region. Europe is a big place. I’ve encountered it in Asian countries too. Again, Asia is huge and diverse.
Not coincidentally, it’s the same in the United States. I’ve never seen this on the local commuter train with people traveling to and from work. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen it on a flight (flight attendants did intervene and request they stop).
Let’s not try to make this into another “America bad” topic because this is not a uniquely American problem.
There are some weirdos amongst us. There were a handful of reports of people singing religious music, in planes while on flight. I haven’t had the pleasure of listening to this, thankfully
I fly every week. There's always ONE F**ING GUY who needs to have Instagram or TikTok going at full blast.
I don't know what changed exactly. It was definitely seen as antisocial behaviour in the past. I'll just leave this clip here of Spock dealing with a noisy punk on a bus.
Rude, loud people usually don’t react kindly when you call them out on their behavior. It’s practically asking for trouble. That may be one reason why many people avoid conflict, even if it bothers them a lot.
I had one person say
>Excuse me, I was having a private conversation
At which point you say "on speakerphone with everyone else able to hear it?"
That is to say, do you really want a federal law passed about this? I vote we go with social shaming. Worked for cigarettes.
My AirPods Pros block noise better actually, but I have after-market foam eartips on them.
Regardless, the problem is less speakerphone music and more shrill child voices and screams. No eartips can block those frequencies well it seems.
Idk, they’re not looking for “a peaceful place” and are using a public space without damaging it. Nobody is forced to use the park at the same time as them. This seems like a difference in preferences which is fine.
James Q. Wilson talked about this problem a long time ago... and why standard neighborhood shaming cannot really police it. Maybe there is an increasingly different set of norms among different generations which is why you have a breakdown in manners and even high school kids from affluent areas hitting "devious licks."
Because the sanctions employed are subtle, informal, and delicate, not everyone is equally vulnerable to everyone else’s discipline. Furthermore, if there is not a generally shared agreement as to appropriate standards of conduct, these sanctions will be inadequate to correct such deviations as occur. A slight departure from a norm is set right by a casual remark; a commitment to a different norm is very hard to alter, unless, of course, the deviant party is “eager to fit in,” in which case he is not committed to the different norm at all but simply looking for signs as to what the preferred norms may be.You can’t leave a plane. And planes aren’t for recreation. I like quiet parks. But parks aren’t some natural creation, they’re entirely manmade. I’m okay with other people having different thoughts on how to recreate.
> Maybe there is an increasingly different set of norms among different generations
Older people have been complaining about kids with boomboxes and skateboards for generations.
Yes, and the crime spike of the 1960s started with boomers reaching 15-20. You can follow that to cookie monster pajamas in Walmart.
? That does not at all match my experience with parks.
But besides that, I am not sure how it would support your argument.
Bus, sure. On beaches and streets you have the option of moving away. It’s obnoxious. But in the same category as a large group walking slowly.
I was hiking in Zion. Large sign: be quiet, owls are nesting.
Multiple people with those speakers hanging off of their backpack: we don't care.
And even the rangers don't feel empowered to say anything anymore.
Difficult for the airline to do given the myriad of health privacy adjacents.
I got a SARS virus flying to Udon Thani in 2019. We were seated next to two thai guys who were so sick they could barely sit up straight. We offered them help and treats because they looked like they were about to vomit.
Plane lands, next day I'm sick. I was laid up for 2 weeks with fever, the shits, and I had a weird spontaneous cough for over 1 month after I got better.
I bet most of that plane got sick, and it was so damn avoidable.
It'll never happen becasue everything around travel is to hard to reschedule.
Anyway, for those who did not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCZ86O3PO-U
Correct. Kicking someone off during a flight and not giving them a parachute counts as a regular murder...
"Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial"
the first time
Now given that, do you really want to pay the extra cost of flying with 300 parachutes just so mr-full-volume-phone can have one?
Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional [acrobatic] maneuver...
It's perfectly legal for a 787 to carry a few parachutes just for the full-volume passengers.
[1]: https://faraim.org/faa/far/cfr/title-14/part-91/section-91.3...
I mean such a thing I would say equally detracts from the flying experience, so why not also kick those people off?
Edit: not sure why I’m getting downvoted, this is a legitimate question. I genuinely want to hear the justification.
Your comment also presupposes two things: that flatulence is always involuntary and blasting music isn’t. Let’s say I have a form of Tourette’s that forces me to involuntarily blast noise and music and I have medical papers to prove it. Is it okay then?
I would absolutely support it if you could demonstrate that those two things are actually true. My point is: Who gets to decide what’s legitimately an involuntary medical issue and what isn’t, and where is the line that demarcates it? And what is the point of this exercise? It’s to prevent people from forcing everyone else to have a worse experience for their own personal gain, which flatulence is a form of that you could argue, so why is blasting music fundamentally different?
Coming back to the Tourette's example: let's say someone starts shouting cuss words and loudly annoying everyone else "involuntarily". Do they get kicked off the plane? Why or why not? Who decides that? Does the person have to present medical evidence that they have Tourette's to not get kicked off the plane? If so, can they also present medical evidence of a condition that causes them to spontaneously press play on their mobile devices with no headphones and would that be accepted?
I'm obviously not defending the behavior of the loud-music-on-plane-players, or advocating that everyone needs to smell everyone's farts. I'm pointing out that this is something that is arbitrary and weaponizable.
If someone shoots a gun in a crowd is that too an involuntary bodily function? Is the gun not just part of their body? Are you confused by that as well? Where do we draw the limits on what is the human body? Who decides that? If I lay on the ground does the whole earth become my body?
People who cannot figure out how to share use of shared space should lose access to those places.
Arrest them on board, handcuff them and lead them away in handcuffs at the destination. No sympathy from me, especially since the only way the handcuffs route is going to happen is if the passenger in questions ignores the instructions from the flight crew.
I also have to note that on most flights, whether domestic or international, the it's already a criminal offence to ignore an instruction from the flight crew. The airline here did not need to make publish a new rule, they could have simply had the flight crew inform the annoying passenger.