>* The best interaction I ever had with the TSA was when I came upon a pair openly wearing their uniforms around a grocery store, so I was able to call them fascist child molesters right to their faces.*
I'm no fan of the TSA, but do you think that was productive?
Maybe direct your ire at the people at the top who make these policies instead.
There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example.
First, and more clearcut, I don't think ire should be limited. Those who voluntarily participate in enforcing the current system are not exempt from the fallout of their choices any more than much of HN would suggest engineers be exempt from the ethical decisions of our employment. Look recently, people are saying Microsoft employees should quit because MS sells office products to ICE. If that's the line in the sand we're drawing, "working directly for the TSA" seems pretty well and truly over it. (Full disclosure, I'm actually not sold on this "hard" stance, but TSA seems more of a slam dunk than office products in terms of complicity, and if I regardless put myself in the eyes of someone who DOES believe this stance...)
There's a fair discussion about "was the way you confronted them that of a professional adult" but at the end of the day, I'm finding it hard to honestly be too upset at the language used outside of a very token "tsk tsk". TSA has not had a history of treating my wife and I respectfully so it's difficult to reciprocate, and can even see the argument that by adding social friction to working there you erode their ability to push policies like this if workers go "wait this may be a bad idea that may make people really angry at us." ESPECIALLY now that there's no real legal recourse outside of petitioning congress.
(An anecdote: I was very sick going through security recently, extremely sleep deprived and falling over without support, they pulled us over to secondary screening and refused to let me sit down while they were checking my bags, ended up vomiting into a trashcan while the agent gave me lip. Turns out all this was over a pair of nail clippers the wife forgot she had packed... and on the RETURN trip.)
> Turns out all this was over a pair of nail clippers the wife forgot she had packed...
Nail clippers are not allowed now!? I fly with nail clippers all the time (including to/from the US) and have never had an issue. Looking at the TSA site, nail clippers are explicitly permitted as well [1]. Was the agent actively looking to hassle you?
To be precise: These were the type that look like "tiny curved scissors" with a ~half inch long tip that curves along the end of the finger, not the "squeeze to close" types. [0] (From my googling, maybe "eyebrow trimmers"? I have no idea. In either case, a hilariously impractical weapon, I can see how someone might construe it as "real scissors" if I'm being very generous, but the way we were handled was unacceptable.)
I think you may be underestimating the number of agents who have been thrown up on. (And the number who have had to call for cleanups for vomit that did not land on them, and medical personnel for the ill traveler, is even larger.) The thing is though, that's what they signed up for. If they can't handle vomit, they should look for another job.
From a certain point of view, it's better for the TSA agent to be soiled with vomit than it is to allow a potentially contagious passenger on what may be a very long flight.
Actually, I made no estimations at all. In this person's scenario, I would have simply enjoyed throwing up on them.
It's the little things. As he stated, the agent wouldn't let him sit down and it was over a pair of nail clippers. Perhaps the vomit wouldn't have made them blink at all, doesn't mean I wouldn't get some form of enjoyment out of it. Sounds like the agent was being a prick. Are we surprised?
I'm no slave to civility by any means, but I am mindful that screaming at a couple off duty agents trying to shop, who I've had no prior interaction with, probably does not help my cause ;-)
I didn't "scream", but stated. They ended up making the scene, I did not. We've all got pent up frustration, but when dealing with thugs they're inevitably going to try to escalate - so you need to remain calm.
I do think it is useful to influence what is perceived as being the general consensus. Both generally for public opinion, and specifically to undermine the organization's morale. In fact, that's also what my comment was doing here - given that courts have no problem continuing to bless this fascism, it's about the only hope we've got.
How much of the support for say the Iraq war was due to simple herd consensus - that feeling that you expect any arbitrary person to be in general support of it, and thus talking about it will likely just lead to an irreconcilable argument? "Support the troops" is a motte-and-bailey setup.
So you simply stated, in a polite way "Excuse me, but I'd just like to note that, in my estimate, you two are fascist child molesters. This concludes my political statement of opinion. Good day."? I'm just having trouble imagining how you politely call someone a fascist child molester.
There is a difference between exercising your freedom of speech and the social justice warrior crusading that the parent commenter is advocating.
Nobody is above criticism, that much is certain, but we shouldn't cross the River Styx into a world where random acts of violence is the preferred method of political expression.
"There is a difference between exercising your freedom of speech and the social justice warrior crusading that the parent commenter is advocating."
Tell us, what exactly is that difference? What's the difference between going up to Scott Pruitt (when he was the EPA director) and telling him what an awful job he's doing, and when Trump tweets out a gif showing him performing wrestling moves on a personified CNN? Or when he calls journalists the "enemies of the people"?
"Nobody is above criticism, that much is certain, but we shouldn't cross the River Styx into a world where random acts of violence is the preferred method of political expression."
And where the hell is violence being done? Last I saw, the calls for violence have been from the Trump camp.
It's a slippery slope to "politically-motivated acts of violence" in this country. Boom. A direct, slippery, direct path. We better watch out. Yelling at a bad person eating in a Mexican restaurant could be the new Fort Sumter.
Anyway, gotta jet and get home. Probably gonna walk past the only abortion clinic within 500 miles that has bulletproof glass windows and got firebomed for like the 30th time last week and over the past 20 years by right-wing terrorists. This is normal and not strange at all. I do it every day I'm not working from home.
The powerful political actors realized they could just physically intimidate and impede their opponents with gangs. No one that believes in a functioning society should support politically motivated violence of any kind.
Politics in this context clearly means internal politics but there are many different causes of war. Many wars have been fought in self-defense, for example to challenge a foreign invasion.
> There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example.
No there hasn't. It just makes everyone think these are petulant children. They ask for respect and equality of others but don't wish to give it to anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology.
I'm no fan of the TSA, but do you think that was productive?
Maybe direct your ire at the people at the top who make these policies instead.
There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example.