The world's most difficult countries to travel through

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Mike, Jun 17, 2011.

  1. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Agreed. The current procedures have obviously dampened traffic. But certainly not to the point where the airlines can't continue with them. Otherwise the proper chains would get pulled in Washington, etc. and you 'd see faster changes.
     
  2. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    What you see on FT, what you describe as nasty, arrogant, rude, is probably as stated in some folks, people being what they are. Yet there is perhaps more to the story. Could it not also be that folks have been pushed over the edge, beside themselves, if you will. Many of us have, within the limits of typical human virtue, spent a lifetime endeavoring to do the right thing. We've raised families and the heartaches that comes from that from illness, death, what have you. The long lonely nights spent securing a future for your kids. Teaching them right from wrong, teaching them what is special about this country, what its history was, and so forth. In all of this, the government did what its role was and it deserved the support we gave it in taxes. It did its limited role and left us alone, as it was intended to.

    Then in the October surprise of last year, the government stabbed us all in the back by demanding our families to allow government agents to look under their clothing and to allow not just frisking, but wholesale rubbing down of buttocks, breasts, and genital areas as a condition of flight. For many of us who grew up valuing the Constitution, this constituted THE supreme act of betrayal, and a perhaps unhealable breach. It was and it remains a personal violation. It was and remains something we completely, fully, and forever reject and hate.

    What would you expect as a reaction to this? Anger, hatred, yes, but directed at whom? That is the problem. Pistole? Napolitano? A couple of zeros. If they were gone, Obama would replace them with clones. TSA agents.? They are certainly more immediately available. Some of them carry out the policy, some of them do the peeping, some of them do the groping over sexual and private areas. Honestly, how WOULD you expect us to react to those folks groping us and strip searching us under these conditions? Hence much of the anger, hatred and heat directed their way since that time, and for some, this continues unabated, and for those of us having to deal with this, yes that flares up still.

    Yet in all this, there seems to be a growing recognition that hating these folks solves nothing nor is it just. Not every TSA worker does those things, not every TSA workers does those things in an objectionable manner. And there are those, like TsaDude on FT, who have come to question their own position as well.

    We need to continue working on this issue, knowing that the visual strip searches and the unreasonable physical sex grope searches are coming to an end. Texas is only the beginning.
     
    FriendlySkies and LeapingFrogs like this.
  3. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    Well said, nachtnebel.

    And to head off the usual response, we don't care if it stops WEI. We don't care if it foils terrorist plots. We don't care if it saves American lives. We have no suggestions as to what other ways TSA can accomplish these ends because We The People no longer want them to be accomplished - at least not by TSA and not by any organization operating under TSA-penned regulations. Scope-n-grope, the "October surprise" as Nachtnebel so cleverly puts it, is unethical and disgusting. And every last TSO who goes along with it is an unethical and disgusting subhuman lifeform, no exceptions, "but" nothing.
     
    barbell likes this.
  4. mozgytog

    mozgytog Founding Member

    If I saw a TSO whose gums were on fire, I'd piss in his mouth... just so he'd have to suffer the horror of having severe facial burns and having drunk piss.
     
    barbell likes this.
  5. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Little risk there, they don't move fast enough to fan the flames.

    I suppose at some point I'm going to have to do something with the profanity filter. In the meantime, I'd encourage people to think twice about whether it's really necessary to express yourself.
     
  6. mozgytog

    mozgytog Founding Member

    Can't say I'm highly in favor of a profanity filter, but it's your site.
     
  7. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    Unfortunately, while profanity can serve as a great release for frustration, it does compromise the legitimacy of a statement, particularly when placed in writing. I tend to have a foul mouth and have struggled to choose my words carefully, particularly when arguing a point.

    I've been on a few blogs where profanity laced rants against TSA were posted and have to admit that the writers come across as less than credible. Of course the definition of profanity varies depending on the individual but for me is restricted mostly to the Carlin's seven words you can't say on TV.

    Maybe if there is a need for a profanity filter there should be a list of banned words so the writer knows what they are in advance and should be as limited a possible.
     
  8. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I'm willing to publish the list of banned words, if it comes to that. In the meantime, I'm trying to keep the official "rules" to an absolute minimum. I'd rather encourage people to be a bit more eloquent in their discourse and hope that it usually works.
     
    FriendlySkies and AngryMiller like this.
  9. AngryMiller

    AngryMiller Original Member

    We're all adults here and I would hope that we would behave like adults. You can say the same thing without using profanity - it just takes more fancy words to do it.:)
     
    barbell likes this.
  10. mozgytog

    mozgytog Founding Member

    The larger point of Carlin's 'Seven Dirty Words' bit has apparently been lost to a lot of people. The point of that wasn't just to shock and awe people by saying bad words, it was that it's ridiculous to consider a finite list of certain words to be 'bad' while others which convey exactly the same meaning are acceptable. There's no logic to it, nor is there any logic to the idea that using so-called profanity means that a person is less intelligent. I would actually argue the opposite: deliberately limiting your vocabulary to exclude certain words based upon a purely arbitrarily assigned moral value that fluctuates greatly over time is a linguistically stunted approach.

    I also find it ironic that it was 'piss' that got a reaction ... from people who routinely refer to John Pistole as 'Pissy'. But there again is the point that it's completely arbitrary, illogical, and meaningless to call one of those words 'bad' and yet the other is totally acceptable.

    ETA: I would rather see a logical, cogent argument presented with attention to grammar, spelling and punctuation that contains so-called profanity than someone who doesn't use 'naughty words' but can't be bothered to write in complete sentences. To me it is poor grammar and spelling that detract from credibility, not the choice of words.
     
  11. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    I'm with mozgytog. Aside from my occasional tendency to be one profane mothafucka', it's as I said to Dovster in the Who, What, Where thread - TSA flares tempers and people need an outlet for that.

    On the one hand, speaking as a FM and someone who wants this forum to succeed so that people can help make TSA fail, I understand the need to be "presentable" and look good. On the other hand, many of us know of other forums where people leave in frustration because they feel that their anger is invalidated or illegitimized by their being told that they're somehow in the wrong for expressing it.

    As mozgytog said, ultimately it's Mike's site, but we did agree as a group that free speech would be a cornerstone of the community and one of the greatest tests of one's commitment to the principle of free speech is willingness to defend that speech one finds distasteful.

    I'll break out "poopyhead," "rascal" and "dag-nabbit" if need be, but for my part, I'd just as soon have people take responsibility for their own words.
     
  12. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    It's not just the word that was used but the context in which it was that did not come off very well:

    Ask yourself how this statement appears to others. Is it intellectual or thuggish? What will best convert readers to your way of thinking?

    Free speech in the sense of being able to discuss any related subject without fear of being suspended for calling your molester or groper a molester groper, of being able to discuss any aspect of the subject that involves politics without having it closed or shipped off to an OMNI-like gulag, not being shut down because your topic is "theoretical", etc. -- yes. Overdoing the vulgarity -- no.

    We spell that :poop:head here.
     
  13. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    Agreed. However, the true expression of freedom is most effectively exercised when tempered with responsible, measured response and action. I swear with the best of 'em. Heck, I studied American literature in the South, so I count O'Connor, Hemingway, Faulkner, and Twain among my influences and heroes. I think, especially in today's world though, if a well-constructed argument can be made without the use of profanity it will stand out even moreso.

    I still agree with mozgytog's sentiments, though.
     
  14. mozgytog

    mozgytog Founding Member

    Would it have been better if I said pee? How about tinkle? Or perhaps make water? Micturate?

    They all mean the same thing, after all. Is it more intellectual to talk about urinating in someone's mouth? I think not, but then, if I were trying to be intellectual I wouldn't have referred to spending a penny on flaming gums at all. I was going for a particular meaning with a particular punch and I knew exactly which word would most effectively and efficiently convey the meaning I intended.

    You own the site, and if you so choose can force everyone to express themselves in the manner you choose so long as they are here regardless of my preference for unfettered free expression, but I find it rather interesting that it's not expressions about joyfully celebrating the violent deaths of TSA employees that bothers you, not the fact that I referred to wanting to see them suffer horrible facial burns that is offensive... it's that I used a naughty word while saying it.
     
  15. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    You're jumping to some very wrong conclusions there.

    It was the general concept of urinating in his face in addition to the specific vocabulary. The sum total of what was expressed left more than a bit to be desired.

    Words mean things. "Unfettered free expression" isn't going to do us much good if it drives potential members & readers away.

    Also keep in mind that when you've dehumanized them completely, you're down at their level, perhaps lower.

    What amazes me the most is you would spend so much time rationalizing/arguing about it rather than focusing on ways to express yourself that will reach a broader spectrum of people.
     

Share This Page