Comment by randomdrake | Hacker News Reader

Comment by randomdrake | Hacker News Reader

>"I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card [offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even aware of my blog."

(emphasis added)

Reacting to a command given by a flight attendant with anything along the lines of "Whoa, sorry. I hope you don't think I'm a terrorist," is a terrible decision. Even if you're not, saying it will immediately make them wonder if you are.

Don't think of a pink elephant. How's that mental image of a pink elephant looking?

Terrorist. Bomb. Threat. 9/11. These are things you don't go saying on airplanes, these days, unless you're expecting some sort of discomfort from anyone within earshot. This is especially true for someone in charge of ensuring the safety of people aboard the flight.

I don't think the traveler would have been removed from the plane if they would have just complied and not mentioned such a charged word.

I mean, this is the problem right here. You're claiming that because a plane ran into a building 12 years ago, it actually makes sense for an American citizen to kick another American citizen off a plane while lying about it. How about we get back to being rational sensible human beings who understand context and can have a thought process beyond "If I hear the word terrorist, that person is a terrorist and I need to call homeland security" /roboticthinking

I get that it is a bad idea to say terrorist on a plane, but if after 12 years, we still are unable to understand context here, people should be getting fired, especially if they need to lie to justify their bizarre, made up fears.

>You're claiming that because a plane ran into a building 12 years ago, it actually makes sense for an American citizen to kick another American citizen off a plane while lying about it.

No, I'm not. I'm claiming that there are words that shouldn't be said on a plane anymore. A building exploding didn't do that. Decisions from organizations and individuals created the catalyst for that change. But, that's a completely different discussion.

It's common knowledge whether it's okay or not. I agree: we as a society, should strive to be more open and accepting about using words. But, unfortunately, we're not all there yet.

The title is sensationalist and misleading. The photo taking clearly wasn't the problem because the author wasn't removed from the plane after taking the photo, they were removed after they said something they shouldn't have.

"Travel Author Irritated After Being Kicked Off a Plane for Claiming 'Not a Terrorist'" is hardly a story, is it?

Except that, according to the author, he was accused of refusing to stop taking pictures. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it seems reasonable for him to critise the airline based on their words, even if he suspects their words are not truthful.

Not even just according to the author. According to the official reason the airline gave him. I can certainly understand why one might suspect this isn't the real reason, but calling the guy sensationalist for repeating EXACTLY what he was told is pretty insane imo.

"The title is sensationalist and misleading. The photo taking clearly wasn't the problem because the author wasn't removed from the plane after taking the photo"

"Captain: Sir, you are not flying on this flight.

Me: Can you tell me why?

Captain: My FA tells me she told you to stop taking pictures and you continued to take pictures."

I mean, sure, this could be the lie theyre using to cover up the real reason. But when we're two liars deep in the process, its kind of hard to figure out what the truth is. I get that they could have been lying, but calling this sensationalist is infinitely more ridiculous. They told him he was kicked off a plane for taking pictures, he made that his headline, you said he was being sensationalist. How does all that logic connect?

"they were removed after they said something they shouldn't have."

This is my whole point. The fact that we will literally throw someone off a plane if the word terrorist is said, regardless of the context, is absolutely deplorable. Why shouldn't he have done that? Because he should have assumed he was speaking to a liar who has no ability to understand context? I don't want to have to assume this is the case when i talk to other americans, so maybe we can stop with this bullshit?

While I agree that it is in your best interest to not say "terrorist", it's absurd that by uttering the word you could be kicked off a flight. People need to use some common sense. What happens if I accidentally use the word "bomb" when talking about how I did on my last test? Am I off the plane too?

This has got to stop. Maybe every passenger should walk on the plane saying, "Hello, I'm not a terrorist". Of course if you are, feel free to disclose that fact as well.

>"Hello, I'm not a terrorist"

I'm afraid that under no circumstances would this be a good idea. It reminds me of the phrase

"John F. Kennedy was not a homosexual"

from Chip Morningstar's essay How To Deconstruct Almost Anything [1]. To present an example of deconstruction Morningstar deconstructs the phrase thus:

"It is not generally claimed that John F. Kennedy was a homosexual. Since it is not an issue, why would anyone choose to explicitly declare that he was not a homosexual unless they wanted to make it an issue? Clearly, the reader is left with a question, a lingering doubt which had not previously been there. If the text had instead simply asked, "Was John F. Kennedy a homosexual?", the reader would simply answer, "No." and forget the matter. If it had simply declared, "John F. Kennedy was a homosexual.", it would have left the reader begging for further justification or argument to support the proposition. Phrasing it as a negative declaration, however, introduces the question in the reader's mind, exploiting society's homophobia to attack the reputation of the fallen President. What's more, the form makes it appear as if there is ongoing debate, further legitimizing the reader's entertainment of the question. Thus the text can be read as questioning the very assertion that it is making."

Shift the above text to the present tense and replace "John F. Kennedy" with "the passenger" and "homosexual" with "terrorist" as needed.

[1] http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html

Airports and airplanes have become pure fascist territory where we must act, look, and speak in a scared, deferential way to authority. It should be every American's worst nightmare. But instead we get pragmatic arguments about why we should comply. This is how we lose our freedoms. Fuck that.

Not the issue though right? It about the FA telling a lie. She could have said "you know what, I don't feel safe after he uttered that word, I want him off" but she made up a lie.

I dare speculate she made up lies like that before, and they worked and the stories didn't end up on NBC. But not this time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com