We can never be too safe! (Update – Passenger banned for life)

How deplorable!

How deplorable!

We can never be too safe from awful speech. You know, speech with which we disagree. That kind.

This douchebag got on a flight and went on a 45 second triumphant rant about Trump.

“We got some Hillary bitches on here,” the man yelled. “Come on, baby. Trump!”

He then kept yelling, telling everyone that Trump is "president of every one of y'all" and if they don't like it, "too bad." The video is here.

Clearly the most dramatic reaction on the plane was an eye roll. One woman sarcastically said "we can't hear you."

Later, a flight attendant took Mr. Douchebag off the plane and told him that he wasn't allowed to act that way.

It seems to me that the Delta crew handled it just fine.

"Sir, don't be a dick on the flight anymore, or we wont let you fly."

"Ok, I won't"

There were no further outbursts.

Well, ok, there were. All over social media. This was a sign to the leadership of the National Association of Crybabies that this was the beginning of the concentration camps in America. This was their sign that The Deplorables were coming for them. You know, the same kind of hysteria that we saw when a guy whose middle name is "Hussein" came into office to take their guns and put them in FEMA camps.

People flipping the fuck out over nothing.

And, Delta couldn't leave well enough alone.

"We are sorry to our customers who experienced this disruption. We have followed up with the teams involved and all agree that this customer should not have been allowed to continue on the flight. Our responsibility for ensuring all customers feel safe and comfortable with Delta includes requiring civil behavior from everyone. The behavior we see in this video does not square with our training or culture and follow up will continue so we can better ensure our employees will know they will be fully supported to make the right decisions when these issues arise." (Delta Statement) (emphasis added)

I'm ok with most of the statement. Fine, you have to give everyone a tummy rub. And yeah, Mr. Douche was disruptive for 45 seconds. That's a fuck of a lot less than the stupid piece of shit who always winds up stopping the plane from boarding because she doesn't think the laws of physics apply to her suitcase — and then she looks at me like I'm gonna help her. See Rule 8.

Pre-flight screaming doesn't really bother me. Maybe because I live in Vegas, and most of the time I'm flying home after a long work week somewhere else, I'm sitting there while the Vegas-bound revelers pour themselves down the aisle after their celebratory pre-game at the terminal. You think this guy was obnoxious? Have you ever seen a bachelorette party pour itself onto a Vegas-bound plane? How about every guy in an Ed Hardy shirt who gets on a plane bound for Vegas or Miami? How about any flight leaving Miami for Boston for the Patriots kick the shit out of the Dolphins in an away game.

I was "that guy" once — on my way from Fort Myers to Houston for Super Bowl XXXVIII. I stumbled on the plane dressed in a Steve Grogan jersey and a velvet pimp suit and ran up and down the aisle screaming "I'M THE MOTHERFUCKIN PATRIOTS PIMP BABY!" The flight attendants gave me "the talk" too. Fucking fascists.

Where were we?

Right, so obnoxious shit on the plane. Big fuckin deal. I deserved the "sir, you need to behave in this little metal tube" talk when I was playing Patriots Pimp. So did Deplorable Dan. But that's the end of it.

Remember when we got all pissed off during the Bush years when people got kicked off of planes for wearing anti-Bush statements on their shirts? (like here) How about when someone found an upside down flag offensive? Black lives matter button kerfuffle?

In flight assholes are a problem. But, really? Would this be an issue if he got on the plane and screamed "FUCK THE DALLAS COWBOYS!" or "YANKEES SUCK!" So what's the problem here? That he called his political opponents "Hillary Bitches?" So fucking what? How about if he got on board and yelled "NOT MY FUCKING PRESIDENT?" Or how about if he started chanting "BLACK LIVES MATTER?"

I'm not defending the guy. Deplorable and Douchey Dan was out of line. I'm willing to bet that I would hate him. I base that on very little — just my own coastal elite asshole stereotyping. Between his clothes, his accent, and his "yeah, y'all" shit, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like him. I think what he had to say was fucking retarded. Had he been seated next to me and tried to give me a high five, I'd have responded with "don't touch me, I don't want to catch fuckheaditis."

But, the flight attendant handled it the right way. Delta should maybe have issued a statement — even the one it issued, minus the bolded part. His behavior was douchey, but hardly as bad as 90% of the prole trash motherfuckers who don't know how to behave on a plane. I'll take him over half the seat mates I've had in the past year.

UPDATE: And now, to prove how politically correct they are, Delta has banned Mr. Douche for life from Delta flights. Let that sink in. He said one offensive thing, one time, on a flight and now for the rest of his life he can't fly Delta.

And right now, I'm sure some sanctimonious fucking turdsucker will bob their head and say "well, serves him right." How about you order some shut-the-fuck-up as your in flight beverage? Really? Because if you think this "serves him right," then I can guarantee you that you have had your share of dumb shit to say, scream, whine, shout in your day.

I might not agree with Mr. Douche, but the only difference between him and anyone boarding a Friday night Vegas-bound flight in an Affliction shirt is that he shouted a political view that certain crybabies find offensive.

Well fuck you. I find your face offensive.

delta-flight

Last 5 posts by Randazza

Comments

  1. Dan says

    I'll take him over half the seat mates I've had in the past year.

    Really? Jesus, what airlines do you fly?? I've never personally witnessed behavior this bad on a plane. I love plane freakout videos but I never see anything like it in real life. The most interesting thing I've ever seen a drunk guy do on a plane is drool on the floor while asleep.

    So far I've only seen two kinds of outbursts on planes: anxiety attacks (shaking and crying, occasional praying or hyperventilating; usually only the seatmate has to deal with this) and happy freakouts (like your pimp suit escapade; usually this involves high-fives and making people laugh until fascist flight attendants make them sit down).

    Politics aside, cursing out your fellow passengers seems like an off-the-plane level offense…just from a customer satisfaction point of view. Try the "Hillary bitches" schtick in a Chili's, I bet they throw you out too.

  2. Michael 2 says

    Something about your style of writing leaves me chuckling for a long time remembering all the nice guys I've encountered on long flights where you lean as far away as you can and turn on the air jet full blast.

  3. says

    Marc:

    From what I can tell, they didn't kick him off the flight, but after reviewing the video concluded that they should have.

    I'm OK with a business like Delta kicking out loud, unruly passengers like this dude or you, in the exercise of prudence and how they'd like to run their private business.

  4. Dan says

    Marc, you are way off the marc here by focusing on the politics. Drop the "Hillary" stuff, and screaming "bitches" at a bunch of quietly seated passengers is still thrown-off-the-plane bad behavior. I assume a lifetime ban is standard in these situations. He absolutely deserved it… he hasn't had his rights taken away from him, he just has to fly Continental from now on because Delta won't have him. Act like an asshole and people don't want to deal with you.

    Well fuck you. I find your face offensive.

    Eloquent as ever… next time wipe your sniveling nose before you call someone else a crybaby or you just look ridiculous.

  5. says

    Exactly. They didn't kick him off the flight. He sat his ass down, and didn't do anything else.

    Had they kicked him off this flight for being unruly, I wouldn't have found any reason to write a poast. But, I think this has more to do with the content of his speech than with his asshole conduct. And sure, it is a private airline — they can just pass a rule that says "you can only fly Delta if you have a blue bucket on your head." Or hell, they can even say "no flying Delta unless you voted for Hillary Clinton" if they want. But, given that this seems to be a content-based decision, I have a problem with it. Yes, the First Amendment is not in play — but if we're going to get pissed off if someone gets kicked off a flight for wearing a "Meet the Fuckers" T-shirt (I was so pissed off) then I need to stick up for Mr. Douche and call out Delta here… because next time, it might be one of "the good guys" getting booted from a flight — probably on SouthWest.

  6. arity says

    They always say "Well you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre" and "free speech isn't consequence free speech" but you can't shout anything in a crowded theatre so maybe it's more a matter of location than content, and shouldn't the consequences be proportional and consistent? In other words, I hope they start handing out lifetime bans to bachelorettes and jocks in the interest of fair and equitable consequences as per their right to mete them out on their own private property.

  7. anonnymoose says

    How does Delta's decision to permaban Mr. Douche interact with their common carrier obligations? Given the facts of the matter, would this decision withstand scrutiny as long as there was at least one airline that hadn't permabanned the man? Or am I just dreadfully misinformed on what it means to be a common carrier?

  8. says

    I hope they start handing out lifetime bans to bachelorettes and jocks in the interest of fair and equitable consequences as per their right to mete them out on their own private property.

    Thats my point. While a private business has every legal right to engage in content-based discrimination, I still don't think it is the right thing to do.

  9. Malakyp says

    If Douchebag McDoucherson wanted to sue Delta, on the grounds that his ban was an abrogation of the airline's common carrier non-discrimination obligations, what would his chances of success be? I know that the non-discrimination requirement has a "compelling reason" exception; is there anything like a legal standard that such exceptions are held to?

  10. arity says

    Oh I know what your point is, and I fully agree. But that was an attempt at comedy on my part. No dice, I suppose.

  11. Keith says

    This seems to me like exactly the kind of reaction we should want and praise: Delta is meeting his speech with their speech. He exercised his speech by yelling and screaming on their plane, people on social media and what not exercised their speech by bitching and moaning, Delta exercised their speech by choosing not to engage in commerce with the guy anymore. Everyone exercised their free speech, nobody resorted to thuggishness, frivolous lawsuits, or so on; nobody called the government to come be the big bad muscly nanny that protected their feelings.

    It seems like everything worked out fine. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responses to that speech or economic consequences of that speech. This guy said and did things people found obnoxious, people criticized that speech, Delta exercised their speech by denying future service, now you're expressing your outrage through critical speech: the system works.

  12. Jim the Flight Attendant says

    I work for a major airline I'm willing to bet that when Delta contacted this yammering nut bag, he mistreated the person on the phone and a decision was made to ban him. Perhaps he did something else to a Delta employee off of the plane and it was discovered later in the internal investigation.

    Airlines are generally rather tolerant of generally sober pax who have a brief outburst and remain behaved for the duration of the flight and little more action is taken beyond a scolding by the flight attendant or the captain. I have seen far worse on legacy airlines such as couples fighting – sometimes so loud it can be heard far ahead of them, pax elbow fighting over armrest space or loudly arguing because some yahoo wants to put his gnarly bare feet on the bulkhead or in close proximity to others and very little happens.

    It's hard to believe that this guy was banned for life for simply shooting his mouth off. Something else had to happen.

  13. Dorothy M. says

    Oh, I wish I had been there. Could have had great fun. I would have launched into a rendition of "Oh say can you see all the bed bugs on me" and then ad libbed from there something like, "I stayed at a Trump hotel and that is where I picked them up." I could belt that out way louder than Billy Bob's dribble. Anyhoo, he perfectly exemplifies the typical Trump supporter — white, male and really, really stupid.

  14. OrderoftheQuaff says

    OVER HERE! I must be a Hillary bitch, because I voted for her. You gotta problem with that? Come over here, where I can reach you if I want, and tell me about it! The next thing you know, it's mano a mano in the air-o, and I play ruff. The innocent woman with the prosthetic arm in row 31? I will wrench it right off her shoulder and bludgeon you with it until you go down, stay down and stop moving.

    That's why we have different rules on planes, which are not part of the "public square". When the heat gets too hot in the square, you can run away headlong into the burbs. Where you gonna run in business class if I'm coming after you with a prosthetic arm and homicidal intent?

    He got banned from Delta for life, and now retarded bloggers are wasting electrons bemoaning his fate. I was banned for life from a Toyota dealership once, for which I wreaked a baroque, nay, rococo vengeance. Turned out there were other Toyota dealerships in California that were happy to see my ugly face, and my money, and I'm sure there are other airlines as of this precise moment in time (looks at watch).

    As a Patriots Pimp, you're surely aware that your team achieved its prominence through cheating. Now this isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing, but it's apart from, say, the 49ers who owe their heritage of success to good ownership and coaching, good coordination between the QB and the various WRs, RBs and TEs, good blocking on the O-line and good D. You mentioned the Miami Dolphins, which brought up a memory. Long before your team was stealing signs and deflating footballs, there was the snowplow.

    The 49ers will eventually return to greatness the same way they got there the first time; they need to address glaring deficiencies at just two positions which unfortunately can't be filled through the draft or free agency: owner and general manager. Your team might eke out another ring. Have you considered the possibility that because Tom Brady and Donald Trump are both married to models, if they cross-inseminated each other's wives, they might found an uberrace?

  15. Summerlin-to-Henderson says

    We're from Las Vegas, you philistine. A native calling our city "Vegas" is sacrilege, and you should feel bad.

  16. Shetland E Ferus says

    Listen to an obnoxious rant for 45 seconds and get a FREE FLIGHT. That is an awesome deal!

  17. C says

    > Because if you think this "serves him right," then I can guarantee you that you have had your share of dumb shit to say, scream, whine, shout in your day.

    Not on fucking public transportation!

  18. DRJlaw says

    People flipping the fuck out over nothing.

    In flight assholes are a problem.

    No shit, Sherlock

    While a private business has every legal right to engage in content-based discrimination, I still don't think it is the right thing to do.

    Sorry, I don't buy the premise that this is content-based. This is intentional-asshole based. Not even an alcoholic crutch for an excuse.

    Well fuck you. I find your face offensive.

    “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

  19. Castaigne says

    UPDATE: And now, to prove how politically correct they are, Delta has banned Mr. Douche for life from Delta flights. Let that sink in. He said one offensive thing, one time, on a flight and now for the rest of his life he can't fly Delta.

    Private company. They obviously decided to fire the customer. I can't say I have a problem with that as I believe private companies have the right to this sort of thing.

    If we don't want Delta to do this, we need to make it illegal. If It's Legal, It's Legit.

    Thats my point. While a private business has every legal right to engage in content-based discrimination, I still don't think it is the right thing to do.

    I disagree entirely. What's right is what's legal is where I stand. If it was wrong, evil, morally incorrect, then it should be made illegal.

  20. Nate077 says

    As if this is entirely a matter of someone being punished for disagreeable speech.

    Airplanes present a unique case in that hundreds of people (some of them already nervous due to the very human sensation of fear of heights and flying) have no ability to walk away from or otherwise contest whatever someone else is saying. That's the usual remedy, and by circumstance it's unavailable.

    Maybe they should have banned you for your own personal assholery. I was actually in Vegas that same year, rooting for the other side, and I lost a fair bit of money. After the game ended I had no end of people who felt that the most important thing they could do in that moment was come up to my face and scream about how much of a chump I was.

    Now that's fine, because I'm an adult and I know enough to not get into the weeds with jerks like that. What surprised me about it though was that I was a perfect stranger to these people, and the only thing that they could possibly know about me was that I had just lost something without knowing how much I might have lost. Yet they thought it would be a great idea to play that angle up.

    How this relates to the airlines, is that this guy on the Delta flight took it upon himself to be an obnoxious jerk about a delicate topic to a captive audience. In Vegas, after losing, I could walk away from those types, and I did. But up in a metal canister in the sky, social harmony can't be preserved by distance because there is no distance to gain.

    In such circumstances courtesy is the only measure that can guarantee the peaceable coexistence of strangers temporarily forced together. That guy on the Delta flight went into a plane with the intent of getting a rise out of someone, and I'm glad he's banned for it.

    Back in the day on the high seas, the captain could have done much worse.

  21. MDT says

    I disagree entirely. What's right is what's legal is where I stand. If it was wrong, evil, morally incorrect, then it should be made illegal.

    May I respectfully suggest you go pull your head out of your nether region? I suggest you get a doctor to do it, it seems fairly firmly emplaced.

    If you believe that, you are, in my personal opinion, an Idiot (Capital I). Always assume laws are going to be enforced by the person you least trust to have your life in their hands. Your statement that something morally incorrect should be illegal is stupid because you assume you are the person who gets to decide what is moral and what isn't.

  22. Castaigne says

    @MDT:

    Your statement that something morally incorrect should be illegal is stupid because you assume you are the person who gets to decide what is moral and what isn't.

    I don't assume that at all. Don't see where you get that from, either, as I didn't say that I was the moral arbiter.

    If Randazza thinks what the Delta did was morally wrong, then he should see about making it illegal for Delta to do it. If it's legal, then as far as I'm concerned, it's morally right and thus legitimate.

  23. ketchup says

    If one disagrees strongly with Delta exercising their right to not do business with a loud-mouth, then you can exercise your right to not do business with Delta. Advocate a boycott, even.
    I'm guessing Delta has determined the number of people who would stop doing business with because they banned the loudmouth was likely much less than the number of people who would stop doing business with them if they did not deal with him harshly. Its a pretty easy decision from a business perspective. I personally think a permanent ban for one rant is excessive, but I am not going to avoid Delta over it.

  24. TradeGeek says

    This is why I wouldn't hire a free speech attorney to handle my company's PR.

    It went viral. He loudly and obnoxiously called half the female population of the country bitches.

    I totally agree with the ban. I wouldn't want that asswhipe anywhere near my customers. Especially in a confined environment. There are no free speech or political issues here. He was an asshole and the video went viral. Delta needs to react and a lifetime ban was the strongest action they could take. Who are they going to offend by banning him?

    Besides Mr. Randazza

  25. Encinal says

    @Ken

    I'm OK with a business like Delta kicking out loud, unruly passengers like this dude or you, in the exercise of prudence and how they'd like to run their private business.

    "Private business" isn't an entirely apt descriptor.

    @Keith

    Delta exercised their speech by choosing not to engage in commerce with the guy anymore.

    Banning someone isn't "speech".

    @Summerlin-to-Henderson

    We're from Las Vegas, you philistine. A native calling our city "Vegas" is sacrilege, and you should feel bad.

    The tourism board didn't seem to have a problem with "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas".

  26. DoctorX says

    @TradeGeek: I do not know him, but I suspect if you hired him as a PR consultant/attorney he will give you advice based on the actual law as well as what makes customers happy–which can have nothing to do with the law.

    Now, he may, unlike the first part of his rant written for a bit of shock and humor, more calmly recommend just leaving well enough alone. Since it "went viral," and nerves are raw over the election, as the CEO/Owner/The Boss® you may suggest he offer a more proactive solution. If he disagrees with you, you fire him. In all seriousness, what would be interesting is a serious response from him concerning what Delta should do as a company rather than what We as a Society should allow/tolerate/behave and all of that.

    I do not disagree with you. "Human actions have consequences" which change over time. What was tolerated before the Interwebz, cell phone video cameras, political correctness, and the hip hop, is not now, as you know.

    Best not to behave as a douche on private property.

  27. David Nieporent says

    Would this be an issue if he got on the plane and screamed … "YANKEES SUCK!"

    Uh, no, because he'd deserve the Nobel Prize for that.

    I think it's called "speaking truth to power" or something.

  28. SJE says

    I wouldn't go so far as to ascribe Delta's actions to very special snowflake PC culture. He was a disruptive douche, who had the misfortune to be recorded on video. Delta then has to decide: ban or tolerate. The decision to ban doesnt seem overly harsh. if I was Delta, I could see how banning him says that if you too are going be Mr. Douche, you too would be banned. We are seeing a lot more obnoxious behavior, and sending the message by banning one douche is better than the hundreds of over-whiny emails they are going to get if they didnt. Now, if it was a lifetime ban on all airlines, thats another story.

  29. Bob Becker says

    Sorry you have such bad luck on flights R. I rarely have an annoying seatmate. (Think maybe it could be you that's the problem? Just a suggestion… ) In any case, you might try flyng Southwest. You meet a better class of people

  30. Noah Callaway says

    If any of my clients behaved in that way in the course of business, I would fire them and refuse to do business with them ever again.

  31. Danny Lampley says

    No. Fuck you! That guy was lucky he didn't get a punch in the teeth. And that you defend this behavior is no surprise as you yourself confess to having on at least one occasion been "that guy." I'm getting tired of people confusing "political correctness" with not being a complete asshole.

  32. Ed2 says

    "Truth to power"? What a sick joke. The guy figuratively rubbed his filthy tongue all over a bunch of captive passengers. What are the odds the guy who calls that "Truth to Power" is just like him?

    The idea that the reaction was content-based is just more whiny special pleading from the delicate flowers of BLM (Boorish Louts Matter). The fact of the matter is, he was menacing people who didn't even know he existed moments earlier. He shouted, used gratuitous profanity, and directed it at a specific target group he expected to be on the plane. And, to repeat what someone wrote before, it was inside a plane, where normal avenues of escape are unavailable.

    Given that, these were inflammatory fighting words. Any reasonable person could consider him a true threat to their safety under the circumstances. Especially women. And that was while he was still on the ground and sober. What would he be like with a few drinks in him at 30,000 feet? You want to find out? I don't. I'm a 60 yr old white male white-knuckle flier. I don't care if he had substituted Trump, Bush or Reagan for Hillary. Having a person on the flight who was known to be given to random unhinged outbursts is inherently terrifying. Having one or more people on board who don't take the threat seriously does not negate the quite legitimate and normal fear felt by most. And the dismissal of his menacing behavior by people not on that flight isn't worth a bucket of spit in my book.

    If he simply wanted to let everyone know he was happy Trump won, he could have said as much without vituperation. But he chose to menace strangers on a plane. And some people, while disingenuously accusing others of condemning him for the content, suspiciously rush to excuse him because of that same content. To hell with him, and anyone who can't see the difference between ordinary speech and menacing people on a plane.

    I'd have kicked him off the flight and warned him he'd be banned if he ever repeated his performance.

    Mark, save your ire for those who report and get kicked off planes people whose only crime was speaking a foreign tongue while not white. Your gallantry is wasted on menacing louts.

    But the real story here is, once again, what miserable poor winners right-wingers really are.

  33. Sinij says

    I have here in my hand a list of 205 State Department employees that were known to the Delta Airlines as being Trump Supporters and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.

  34. Fidel's Carcass says

    But I thought the Left was opposed to discrimination by private businesses? Or is it okay to discriminate against those who commit wrongthink?

    Good article btw, Marc.

  35. says

    Actually, if I'm reading Delta's corporate statement correctly, after it does CYA for the flight attendants, Randazza, no, it then says, in effect, they did NOT handle it right.

  36. Allen says

    There's one on every flight, and they are usually seated next to me. That's OK though, compared to what the airlines and TSA do to me. 9 times out of 10 I get the extra special question and answer period, plus the back room. I know why I'm on a list I just don't know what they call it.

    I call myself fortunate just to make my scheduled flight. The TSA will screw your day up a lot more than some mouthy passenger.

  37. Fidel's Carcass says

    And right now, I'm sure some sanctimonious fucking turdsucker will bob their head and say "well, serves him right."

    The "turdsucker" evidently being roughly 80% of the Popehat commentariat.

  38. M B says

    Absolutely not! This isn't about speech, it's about actions – on a plane. He didn't just yell 'woo!' or something – he tried to pick a fight on an airplane. It's not what he tried to pick a fight about, but that he tried to pick a fight. What happens if next time, someone decides to take him up on that? Now we've got a fucking fist fight at 20,000 feet – ain't nobody got time for that! What if it was a Muslim screaming "Alluhu Akbar, bitches! You want a piece of me? C'mon!" They'd ban his ass too. If you did this in a restaurant or a bar they'd probably ban you as well.

    Don't pick fights on planes.

  39. DaveL says

    This isn't about speech, it's about actions – on a plane. He didn't just yell 'woo!' or something – he tried to pick a fight on an airplane.

    Ah, so now speech isn't speech if you find it offensive – it's actions. Perhaps you ought to think that idea through a little longer than it took to type out.

  40. Grey Ghost says

    The first 92 comments are missing the point. Yes, it was "throw him off the plane" behavior. But it was not "ban for life" behavior. That's a jerk move on Delta's part.

  41. says

    You are right, of course. And if you circulated a petition or something like that I would, grudgingly, sign it. But it still made me happy to read about it, because I like it when the assholes I don't like get the hammer.

    (I get angry when the assholes I DO like get the hammer.)

    It's not a fair reaction, just an honest one.

  42. Sami says

    They're a private company. They have every right to decide that this guy is an annoying douchebag they don't want to deal with and he can go fuck himself in perpetuity.

    Anyone who has a problem with that has every right not to fly Delta ever.

    I don't have a problem with this.

  43. Ed2 says

    "Guess what? We know. He flew. No incident."

    Would you have wanted to bet your life on it beforehand after his unhinged pre-flight outburst? I would not, and neither would a lot of people on that plane. That was the point I was making.

    What if he were Arabic and shouted "Damn white America! Allahu Akbar"?

    But back to your response which amounts to "since he didn't go berserk on the flight, I'm vindicated." Well, what if he had? Would you be singing a different tune now?

    Maybe it is time for you to gain some understanding, and dare I say some sympathy, for those who have a normal sense of fear for that kind of thing – you know – being targeted, on a plane, by a rightwing nutjob who sounds like he just came from a Trump rally where he just coldcocked a protester. Or were you unaware those kind of things have been happening? There's context here that you are ignoring.

    One of the tests I apply to behavior to determine if it can be tolerated in public is this: what if someone else (or everyone else) did it? In this case, if even a second person did this, a melee would have probably ensued. So what you are essentially telling us is that everyone must tolerate this because it's just one guy, but don't you respond. His bad behavior is just free speech. But if someone responds in kind, that's a problem. So the first one to act badly wins (successfully intimidates a plane of people) because he gets a pass so long as no one responds. But if anyone does respond, then who should be held responsible for what follows?

  44. Czernobog says

    Last time I flew my seatmate was a really attractive, friendly young woman who turned out to be some sort of born-again christian fundamentalist on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

    Lucky, or unlucky?

  45. princessartemis says

    Exactly… imagine if Delta had refused to bake him a fucking cake.

    That was my first thought, too. But Delta doesn't have the institutional power that a tiny mom and pop baker does, so they're allowed to do things the truly powerful aren't. It's not like travel is a Constitutionally guaranteed right the way having cake is.

    @Ed2, If someone openly supported Clinton on a plane, the other passengers would be right to fear an impending riot?

  46. Wang-Lo says

    Mr. Douche was not permabanned for ranting on a Delta plane. Mr. Douche was permabanned for ranting on a Delta plane on the internet.

    There can be no doubt that if Mr. Douche's performance had not been recorded on video, or if the video had not gone viral on the net, or if the post had not identified Delta as the rant venue, then Mr. Douche would still be welcome on Delta flights anytime he wished.

    But, since Delta does not want to ban video cameras on their airplanes, and cannot ban posting videos on the net, and will not change the airline's name, their PR theater moves are somewhat constrained. A loud, public, and widely advertised permaban is their least expensive option.

    The rules of civilization have always dictated that what is acceptable behavior in private (e.g. simply extracting from Mr. Douche a promise to behave henceforth) may be deplorable in public (e.g. a video posted where a million pearl clutchers can view it). What is new in our modern world is that you can no longer rely on knowing when you are in public.

  47. Malakyp says

    It's not like travel is a Constitutionally guaranteed right…

    The right to travel is Constitutionally guaranteed, but the right to travel in any specific means, much less by any specific carrier, is not (although common carrier obligations may apply).

  48. DRJlaw says

    [Wang-Lo]

    What is new in our modern world is that you can no longer rely on knowing when you are in public.

    If anyone ever thought that behavior on a 100 passenger Boeing 717 operated by a major airline was anything other than "in public," they were in dire need of having their head examined.

    [Randazza]

    Clearly the most dramatic reaction on the plane was an eye roll.

    If only because most passengers have learned that causing any sort of disturbance on an aircraft earns one a short return trip to the gate, an unpleasant conversation with the constabulary, and the fun of a last minute rebooking on a later flight.

    [Wang-Lo]

    There can be no doubt that if Mr. Douche's performance had not been recorded on video, or if the video had not gone viral on the net, or if the post had not identified Delta as the rant venue, then Mr. Douche would still be welcome on Delta flights anytime he wished.

    There certainly can be doubt. It's one thing to be told that a passenger was being an ass and another to see exactly how the passenger was being an ass — whether live or on video. Delta's statement said:

    "However, if our colleagues had witnessed firsthand what was shown in the video, there is no question they would have removed him from the aircraft."

    Thus this appears to have been the usual "well I didn't see it so there's not much that I can do" reaction. What is new in our modern world is that people can no longer reliably hide from the consequences of their behavior via the "their word versus mine/he-said-she-said" trope. Others can offer reliable proof of what happened to people who didn't happen to be there (like the proprietor). And as groups of people get tired of that crap, they can lobby for consequences.

    Well, serves him right. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Randazza can decide whether the prizes are appropriate when it's his game, and others can decide whether the prizes are appropriate when it's theirs.

  49. says

    Would you have wanted to bet your life on it beforehand after his unhinged pre-flight outburst? I would not, and neither would a lot of people on that plane. That was the point I was making.

    What if he were Arabic and shouted "Damn white America! Allahu Akbar"?

    But back to your response which amounts to "since he didn't go berserk on the flight, I'm vindicated." Well, what if he had? Would you be singing a different tune now?

    I wouldn't give a shit what he yelled. If he was an asshole, but got taken off the plane, got a lecture, then sat down for the flight and didn't bother anyone else again (which is what happened) then I don't need to pre-determine that he can not take the next flight

    When Southwest Airlines banned people for speech that I liked, I thought Southwest was a bunch of douches. They used the same rationale. Now that it is speech I don't like, I refuse to change polarity just because some fucking crybabies don't like this guy's speech and lie that they "don't feel safe."

    Frankly, had they booted him from the flight at that time I would have understood. What bothers me is that after he proved that he could make the flight without acting like an ignoramus, Delta then determined that he couldn't take another flight — not even in a year, two, or ten.

  50. DRJlaw says

    When Southwest Airlines banned people for speech that I liked, I thought Southwest was a bunch of douches. They used the same rationale. Now that it is speech I don't like, I refuse to change polarity just because some fucking crybabies don't like this guy's speech and lie that they "don't feel safe."

    Again, I don't buy the premise that the decision was content-based. Whether he challenged half of a plane full of people over politics, gender, sports teams, or being corporate sheep, that challenge was within the spectrum of behavior that can earn one a lifetime ban from an airline.

    Also, frankly, the irony of a first amendment proponent telling anyone to "order some shut-the-fuck-up as your in flight beverage" at the end of a rant concerning whether this consequence was appropriate is priceless. Do as I say, not as I do…

  51. Dragoness Eclectic says

    They're a private company.

    Yes and no. U.S. airlines are highly regulated, considered common carriers, and often have regional monopolies. For example, if you are permabanned from flying Delta, you're going to have a hard time flying in and out of Atlanta, which is the hub for the entire southeastern U.S, and you may find that it's unnecessarily expensive and hard to book flights that even pass through the eastern US without using Delta.

    The right thing for Delta to do here is announced the permaban to shut up the pearl-clutchers on the interwebs, and then quietly rescind the ban a few months or a year later, as long as Mr. Douche hasn't displayed any more fits of intemperance in confined public spaces. (i.e., hasn't gotten himself a public arrest record)

  52. GuestPoster says

    Delta made a business decision – that they'd keep/get more customers by guaranteeing that said would never run into this jerk than they'd lose by banning the jerk from flying. That's really all it is. And so far, it looks like those who defend the jerk are those who like to behave like a jerk, while those who appreciate the decision are those who simply want to board the plane, sit down, and have the quiet flight they imagine they're paying for.

    The jerk has the right to free speech. He doesn't have the right to speech free from consequences. He's facing a consequence. Is it too harsh? Look at Delta's stock movements for the next few months to see how people are voting on that issue. If Delta was the only carrier available, I'd say it was too harsh instantly. But it's not – there aren't MANY companies, but almost every airport is served by at least two or three airlines. He has other ways to fly, Delta simply isn't one of them any longer. And he could have at any time chosen NOT to go on a loud, threatening sounding tirade – he didn't.

    Yes, the world is full of jerks. Sure, maybe lots of them fly to Vegas – if our standard is being no worse than the worst people flying to Vegas, maybe we need better standards. Maybe if we held people to account for their actions, we'd have fewer jerks. Maybe we should stop making our standard 'not being worse than the worst person available'. Maybe we should hold ourselves, and our neighbors, to something a bit more like 'not being a jerk', even IF there are other jerks around.

    Of course, one of the major claims re: this November is that it was holding jerks to account for their actions that got us Trump – they're really, really hurt that we think them being jerks is sufficient reason to call them jerks, and ask them to stop being jerks. So maybe it wouldn't result in fewer jerks if we held them to account more often, but would simply encourage them to act like even BIGGER jerks.

  53. Guy who looks things up says

    ATL is Delta's hub, but that doesn't mean Delta is the only choice to fly in and out of Atlanta. It is almost never the cheapest alternative.

    Clark Howard (Google is your friend …) recommends Atlanta residents should fly out of Chattanooga or Birmingham.

  54. Nate077 says

    @Randazza

    Are you being intentionally dense with your attempt to conflate discrimination on the basis of someone's personal, private and possibly immutable characteristics (race, religion, sexuality, etc.) and discrimination on the basis of someone's quite conscious, public (and hopefully transistory) decision to act like an ass?

  55. M B says

    @DaveL

    Ah, so now speech isn't speech if you find it offensive – it's actions. Perhaps you ought to think that idea through a little longer than it took to type out.

    'Fighting Words,' 'Disorderly Behavior,' and 'Threats,' bro. Wikipedia them and come back. If you really hate learning new things, just think to yourself "would this behavior get me kicked out of a bar or a Chuck E Cheese/has similar behavior previously gotten me kicked out of a bar or a Chuck E Cheese?" If so, then a plane might ban you for it as well.

  56. Encinal says

    @Fidel's Carcass

    But I thought the Left was opposed to discrimination by private businesses? Or is it okay to discriminate against those who commit wrongthink?

    One really has to wonder about people who see hypocrisy in treating discrimination against gay people differently from discrimination against assholes.

    @GuestPoster

    And so far, it looks like those who defend the jerk are those who like to behave like a jerk, while those who appreciate the decision are those who simply want to board the plane, sit down, and have the quiet flight they imagine they're paying for.

    Giving harsh punishment to a group, and then accusing anyone who objects of also being in that group, is a rather dangerous road to be going down.

  57. Fidel's Carcass says

    One really has to wonder about people who see hypocrisy in treating discrimination against gay people differently from discrimination against assholes."

    Yes, it is hypocritical to say that discrimination by private business against those they choose not to do business with is somehow radically different than discrimination by private business against those they choose not to do business with.

    Sure, choosing not to serve gays might be shitty behavior but why should the florist/baker/photographer not have the same legal right to choose who to do business with as Delta? Or are laws only for poor people/those who hold the wrong views?

  58. aebhel says

    @Randazza

    Well, unless I'm seriously misunderstanding the law on this matter, the hypothetical Delta Cake Shop would be perfectly legally justified in refusing service to a customer who was loud, obnoxious, and combative toward other customers in the cake shop. They're just not allowed to refuse him service because he happens to be white and their religion indicates that white people shouldn't eat cake (for example).

    Less sarcastically, I think it's intellectually dishonest to conflate the two. They're apples and oranges. I can kick someone out of my place of business for screaming profanity; I can't kick someone out of my place of business for being gay. You could argue that I should have the legal right to do the latter, but the root of the issue is not the same.

    …and for the record, I do think that a perma-ban was an over-the-top reaction, and probably a PR move, unless as someone suggested above he was verbally abusive to whatever Delta rep no doubt contacted him over this. Whether it'll turn out to have been a wise PR move remains to be seen, I suppose.

  59. Michael says

    A permanent ban seems a bit much, but as others have said we don't know why that decision was made. Maybe he abused someone after the fact? Maybe he had a history of similar behaviour?

    It's a bit weird, because usually when something like this happens, the overreaction comes *before* the walk back. In this case the airline reacted reasonably in the first instance, then proceeded to the overreaction. I guess maybe some people on Twatter might have been clamouring for a perma-ban, but that would have died down in a week or so.

  60. Ed2 says

    "Now that it is speech I don't like, I refuse to change polarity just because some fucking crybabies don't like this guy's speech and lie that they "don't feel safe." "

    Again, it's not about the content. I can't read minds over the internet so I will not pass judgement on whether they lied. I will say, from what I saw, I'd be afraid for my life if this guy were on the same flight as me. You, Marc, wouldn't. What percentage of the plane's population needs to fear for their lives to make it a reasonable fear?

    "Frankly, had they booted him from the flight at that time I would have understood. What bothers me is that after he proved that he could make the flight without acting like an ignoramus, Delta then determined that he couldn't take another flight — not even in a year, two, or ten."

    Agreed.

  61. Ocean says

    Let me see if I’ve gotten this right:

    -Entering a plane and yelling about “Hillary bitches” = freedom of speech.

    -Entering a plane and yelling “Allahu Akbar” = terroristic threats.

    And, based on some of the comments herein:

    -Refusing service to a member of a protected class based on their membership in that class = okay.

    -Refusing service to an asshole = not okay.

    No one should be yelling anything while entering or occupying a plane, and that includes shout-outs to the Pats as well as political slogans, religious diatribes, and misogynist rants.

    Maybe Delta’s permaban on this asshole will teach him a much-needed lesson. (Doubtful, since this sort of asshole is often unteachable, but one hopes.)

  62. Trent says

    Just to get this out of the way; I personally believe anyone that (just like the guy in the video) gets up, starts shouting at their fellow passengers, trolling them and offering to fight them should be kicked off the flight immediately, their ticket canceled, no refund provided and banned for the day so they get the fun of trying to find another flight on another airline at the last minute. 12 Hours in an airport would probably teach them a lot about public behavior. I believe this should be standard policy on every single airline and rigorously enforced.

    I don't know if Delta's reaction was content based, really there is no way to know. I believe they were backed into a corner by the viral video and an improper response by the crew. Had they not reacted to this video with some sort of harsh punishment they run the risk of the next asshole thinking their wouldn't be any consequences and this occurring several more times in rapid succession. By following through with a ban they'd effectively warned future passengers that such behavior is going to have consequences.

    I also believe that had he been kicked off the flight Delta Corporate wouldn't have done anything else regarding the viral video. The consequences would have been viral with the incident and they wouldn't need to worry about someone thinking they could do this without repercussion. But because the crew didn't react other than a wrist slap corporate started to worry about the guy standing up screaming about Allah or some other nutjob going even further and actually trying to start a fight. Corporate was backed into a corner by the flight crew response being too lenient.

    I do think they went too far, he should have been banned for a period of time rather than lifetime but they may not have the ability within their system to engage in a time limited ban like that. But otherwise I have no problem with what they did. They had to show behavior like this on an airplane will have consequences and the easiest and most direct consequences could no longer be employed.

    Contrary to what was stated earlier by Mr Never Flown Commercial before every single airport in the country that I'm aware of including the little two gate airport in Helena Montana and the 4 gate airport in Baton Rouge all have at least 2 airlines serving them often 3 or 4 once you include the regional carriers. I know of not a single airport with only one airline in the continental US. SLC is the western Hub for Delta and we have every major carrier available at the SLC airport. Sure Delta has 3/4s of the airport and all the other airlines share a single terminal but they all fly here, even British Airways and other international airlines.

    The only airline death sentence is the "no fly list" which I personally believe has been implemented in the worst, most right violating way possible. If someone had told me 20 years ago that a single FBI agent could unilaterally put you on a list that banned you from ever flying again and that there was no way to challenge being on the list and they won't tell you if you are on the list I would have thought that's impossible. That the courts have allowed that is a tragedy IMO.

  63. Fasolt says

    @TradeGeek:

    It went viral. He loudly and obnoxiously called half the female population of the country bitches.

    I believe he was referring to all of the people who voted for Hilary, not just the women.

  64. Encinal says

    @Fidel's Carcass

    Yes, it is hypocritical to say that discrimination by private business against those they choose not to do business with is somehow radically different than discrimination by private business against those they choose not to do business with.

    First of all, that's wildly dishonest. Hypocrisy is when one treats two situations differently, when the only difference is that it is in one's interest to treat them differently. Treating two situations differently, when there are differences other than one's self-interest, is not hypocrisy. You may feel that the differences are not such to justify the differing treatment, but that is different from it being hypocrisy. But instead of making the argument that the differences are not important, you simply deleted the differences, and then declared that it's hypocrisy. That's like saying "El Chapo created a business, Mark Zuckerberg created a business, so it's hypocrisy to put one in prison and not the other."

    Second, now that's you've edited out all the differences, your dishonest framing isn't hypocrisy, either. As I said, hypocrisy is when one treats two situations differently, when the only difference is that it is in one's interest to treat them differently. When there is NO difference, not even self-interest, treating the situations differently isn't hypocrisy, it's capr

    Sure, choosing not to serve gays might be shitty behavior but why should the florist/baker/photographer not have the same legal right to choose who to do business with as Delta?

    They do. The florist also has the right to deny service to assholes. You are looking at a situation where a florist wants to discriminate against gay people, and a situation where Delta wants to discriminate against assholes, and pretending that the salient difference is florist vs. Delta, rather than discriminating against gay people vs. discriminating against assholes. Anyone with any sense should be able to realize that it is the latter, not the former, that is the salient difference. Are you deliberately being dishonest, or are you are moron?

  65. Fidel's Carcass says

    @Encinal

    Perhaps let me clarify. I say it is hypocritical to legally allow Company A to discriminate against Person B while barring Company C from discriminating against Person D. Sure, there might be legitimate differences between Person B and Person D, but if freedom of association means anything, Companies A and B should legally be allowed to choose who to do business with.
    That was my initial point–that at its core, both cases are similarly "discrimination by private business against those they choose not to do business with." The differences that you point out–say, the difference between actively being an asshole on a plane and merely being gay–are certainly relevant when considering the should of discrimination but not the legality. By should, I mean whether a company should or should not refuse service to an individual. Personally, I believe refusing service on account of race, sexuality, etc. is a pretty shitty thing to do and the business should suffer the economic consequences of boycotts and whatnot. When it comes to the law, however, the state should not be favoring one group over another or penalizing some discrimination but not other. That is the hypocrisy in my eye, to cheer for discrimination against those you dislike and throw a fit when the discrimination turns against those you favor.

  66. Eric Atkinson says

    Delta Airlines is hereby banned from putting an airliner under my ass. I'm sure they will not notice.
    BANNED I SAY!

  67. M B says

    @Fidel's Carcass:

    By that logic, there's no difference between refusing to allow black people to enter a restaurant and getting a restraining order against the restaurant owner's violent ex. Or refusing to do business with Muslims and refusing to do business with someone that won't pay you. All of them involve choosing not to have a certain someone as a customer, so it's all freedom of association, right? The answer to your question is no, the government has put in certain rules for things that business owners cannot discriminate against (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) and they were put in for a good reason. Disruptive behavior, on the other hand, is not a protected action, and therefore businesses can refuse to work with you because of it.

  68. says

    He can scream obscenities the whole flight as long as the flight is free. I've been through nightmares like having my disabled daughter hassled by the TSA or sitting on the tarmac at LAX for 5 hours with no bathroom, and never got so much as a tiny bottle of vodka. I've never been lucky enough to have a belligerent redneck get me a flight comped.

  69. Philip Stan says

    Hello Marc,

    I have to disagree with you on this post.

    If we ignore for a moment what Mr douchebag was ranting about and focus instead on the way he chose to deliver his message it is obvious he was disruptive to many people on the flight and Delta has to weigh the cost of allowing bad behavior vs the comfort of the passengers.

    As long as the ban is based on Mr. Douchebag's bad behavior and not on the actual message then I see no problem here.

    The fact that Delta or any other airline may not always ban disruptive passengers is not important either. Once again they can pick and choose which passengers they wish to ban as long as the ban is not based on race, gender, political views, etc.

  70. Debb B says

    I'm curious what caused the video-taker to begin recording .. perhaps some earlier behavior by Mr. Douche?

  71. OrderoftheQuaff says

    DoctorX, yes sir, you got it right, I root for a team of losers (although Kaep's looking better the last couple of games). Two kinds of sports fans in America, the kind that only roots for winning teams and abandons them at the drop of a ring, and the kind that roots for his favorite team no matter their current record. I'm aware of the 49ers' current record, and believing as I do that adversity builds character, I liken this period to their Valley Forge. One of my ancestors spent a whole winter there; you would have cut and run.

    Mr. Randazza, you're expending a lot of keyboard sweat defending this asshole. There are over seven billion people in the world and almost as many causes, and this was the worthiest one you could find?

  72. says

    Mr. Randazza, you're expending a lot of keyboard sweat defending this asshole. There are over seven billion people in the world and almost as many causes, and this was the worthiest one you could find?

    Clearly you don't understand how freedom of expression works. You want me to go pick someone who everyone, or at least you, likes? Dumb fuck, go read Jezebel, that's where you belong. You don't meet the IQ requirements here.

  73. Fidel's Carcass says

    @M B

    Freedom of Association is a yes or no thing. Either it exists or it doesn't. If it does exist, then a business has the legal right to decide who to do business with. Neither you nor me nor the state can arbitrarily determine who is acceptable to discriminate against and who is protected from discrimination. That would be a violation of the business owner's freedom of association.
    Likewise, if freedom of association does not exist, then a business has no legal right to refuse service to anyone.
    What many people on here seem to be advocating is a Schrodinger's Cat freedom of association, where it both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. A "Freedom for me but not for thee," approach.
    To reiterate, while there may be an ethical/moral difference between refusing to serve someone because they are black, white, gay, muslim, etc. and refusing to serve someone because they are being an ass, there should be no legal difference between the two situations, though I readily admit that currently the law disagrees with me and distinguishes between the two.

  74. bob says

    I don't know why they banned the guy.

    It's not like he did something *really* disruptive, like, you know, speak Arabic while being brown.

  75. Trent says

    FidelC,

    A majority of our people have decided that it should be illegal to offer commercial services via a public storefront to groups of people identified by characteristics that are beyond their control (sex, race, age, disability, etc). So if you want to operate a business you are free to refuse to do business with anyone you want but if you start refusing to do business with people based on their inclusion in these protected groups we've put into place laws that say you either choose to offer those services publicly and serve all comers including those in the protected classes or you choose to offer those services to only private clients.

    I see no conflict here. You are free to discriminate all you want, even in who you do business with, as long as you aren't offering public services to all comers. You are a plumber that doesn't want to plumb for gay people? Stop advertising and only provide services to a private group of people. The problem is that the bigot wants to offer services publicly to all comers then refuse to provide services to one or more of those protected classes. I don't see a problem with this as the government has specific constitutional rights and obligations to regulate commerce and there is a very good commercial reason not to allow such discrimination where it's outside the control of the discriminated to change.

  76. DaveL says

    Fighting Words,' 'Disorderly Behavior,' and 'Threats,' bro. Wikipedia them and come back

    No need, since I clearly have a far better grasp of these concepts than you do. Let's look at each one:

    Fighting Words: Must by definition be directed at a specific individual and be so extreme as to cause harm in themselves. He addressed a crowd, not an individual, and not one of them responded with violence. Which of course is not surprising, because "Hillary bitches" isn't exactly extreme.

    Threats: Exactly what harm was threatened here? Precisely none.

    Disorderly conduct? Not in Georgia, read the statute.

    Again, maybe think things through longer than it takes to type them out. And don't go throwing around words you don't know the meaning of.

  77. FirstAmendmentRuuuuules! says

    Right on Marc! Fucking tired of private businesses DISCRIMINATING against citizens for minor shit, and worse, AFTER THE FACT. Especially blogs. Fucking blogs don't wanna hear what the world has to say. Don't wanna be told their wrong, or reminded that Trump FUCKING WON BITCHES! We should shame every blog that has ever lifetime banned a commenter. Blog owners should take the time to talk to their posters about appropriate online behaviour, and then only ban if the action is repeated. Pre-emptive moderation and lifetime bans just for selling CHEAP medicinal products or work-from-home schemes is total bullshit!

    Everyone deserves a chance to use a captive audience for their platform. And if any business should ever decide to dissuade people from doing that, FUCK THEM. Delta are adult baby sitters and the fact that your destination is Vegas means that alcohol is a legitimate reason for you to NOT take responsibility for your own bullshit actions.

    Or you know..be like the rest of us and don't fucking yell on a plane. Airports and airlines have had a zero sense-of-humour policy for decades now. Anyone still getting pinged for that kind of behaviour is either incredibly self entitled or has a few screws loose. A hens group are also a lot less scary than a political group. There are not many instances in history of revellers going out and throwing everyone else into a labor camp. Now ask ourselves what Reds/Blues would do to each other if there was no fear of retaliation?

  78. Encinal says

    @Fidel's Carcass

    Perhaps let me clarify.

    You're not presenting anything that I've already addressed. So you're not clarifying, you're just repeating yourself. And apparently it is I who is not making my point clear.

    1. Your thesis seems to be that all laws against discrimination are illegitimate.

    2. This is rather a non sequitur, as it really isn't relevant to the original post.

    3. You tried to make it relevant by the following progression:
    a. First, you applied your principle of allowing private companies (a label that is not fully applicable to Delta, as repeatedly discussed above, and not addressed, but let's put that aside for the moment) to this case, and find that Delta should be allowed to discriminate.
    b. Next, you note that if your principle is applied to florists not wishing to provide flowers to gay people, then the florists should be allowed to discriminate.
    c. Finally, you note that despite your principle leading to the cases being treated the same, in actuality they are treated differently, and label this "hypocrisy".

    4. This displays a deep misunderstanding of the word "hypocrisy". "Hypocrisy" is when someone treats two things differently, even though, according to their purported principles, they should be treated the same. It is NOT when someone treats two things differently, even though YOUR PRINCIPLE says they should be treated the same. Hypocrisy is when people aren't following their own principles, not when they aren't following YOUR principles. You are displaying both deep ignorance of what the word “hypocrisy” means, and great arrogance in suggesting that everyone must follow your principles.

    5. If your central thesis is that all discrimination should be allowed, you should have just said “I think that all discrimination should be allowed”. All this bullshit about “hypocrisy” is simply obfuscating your point, which perhaps is the object, since clearly presenting your thesis would expose how inane it is; you're coming into a thread where no one is suggesting that Delta's behavior should be illegal and saying that Delta's behavior should be legal.

    6. I think that I've made most of these points at least once, and some of them several times, and you're just doing the same thing over and over again.

    I say it is hypocritical to legally allow Company A to discriminate against Person B while barring Company C from discriminating against Person D.

    And you're wrong. That's not what “hypocrisy” means.

    Sure, there might be legitimate differences between Person B and Person D, but if freedom of association means anything, Companies A and B should legally be allowed to choose who to do business with.

    See, you just switched from “hypocrisy” to “freedom of association”. If there are legitimate differences between the cases, then it's not hypocrisy. If you have to resort to A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT, such as “freedom of association”, when your charge of hypocrisy is challenged, then your charge was not legitimate. And you would have saved everyone a lot of time if you had simply presented the freedom of association argument to begin with, rather than starting with hypocrisy and then switching when challenged. But, again, it would have been a non sequitur to come into this thread to start out with “Florists should be allowed to discriminate”, so instead you started out with hypocrisy to bring in the subject of florists, and then keeping on the subject even when the original justification is debunked.

    That was my initial point–that at its core, both cases are similarly "discrimination by private business against those they choose not to do business with."

    The issue is that “those they choose not to do business with” is different in the two cases. And that is part of the core of the cases. It is not hypocrisy to treat different cases differently.

    The differences that you point out–say, the difference between actively being an asshole on a plane and merely being gay–are certainly relevant when considering the should of discrimination but not the legality.

    They absolutely are relevant to deciding the legality. They are, in your opinion, not relevant to deciding the should of legality. But they are relevant to deciding the actually is of legality.

    When it comes to the law, however, the state should not be favoring one group over another or penalizing some discrimination but not other.

    That's idiotic. Government should not favor people who pay their taxes over those who don't? Is it hypocrisy to put the latter in prison, and not the former?

    That is the hypocrisy in my eye, to cheer for discrimination against those you dislike and throw a fit when the discrimination turns against those you favor.

    No, feeling that some people are more deserving of bad things isn't “hypocrisy”, it's one of the basic cornerstones of society.

  79. Fidel's Carcass says

    First, let's start with the definition of hypocrisy since you seem to be a little fuzzy on that. A quick search finds that hypocrisy is "the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion," and "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."
    In essence, hypocrisy is claiming to have principles but, in actuality, not following them.
    When it comes to discrimination by private businesses, the underlying principle is Freedom of Association. Of course, as I mentioned in another post, one can reject that Freedom of Association exists, in which case private business has no principle to rely upon and thus cannot discriminate. But, given that no one has claimed that Delta's actions were illegal, let's say that most people accept that Freedom of Association exists. The hypocrisy comes in to play when people claim that because of the principle of Freedom of Association, a business can refuse service to someone who is, for example, not wearing a shirt or shoes, and also claim that a business cannot refuse service to some protected class. If you claim to believe, in principle, that people should legally be able to associate with whomever they want, but then advocate legal punishment against people who act in accordance to the principle you claim to hold, that most certainly is "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess," i.e. hypocrisy.

    you just switched from “hypocrisy” to “freedom of association”.

    No, I didn't switch anything. My charge of hypocrisy is rooted in the principle of freedom of association, and how many people falsely claim to adhere to it.

    1. Your thesis seems to be that all laws against discrimination are illegitimate.

    Yes, that is what I believe.

    feeling that some people are more deserving of bad things isn't “hypocrisy”, it's one of the basic cornerstones of society.

    I think you have, perhaps unintentionally, exposed both your own worldview and, frankly, the worldview of many on the Left and Right. Your conception of right and wrong is based entirely on subjective "feeling/feelz," not any sort of rational or objective principles. Your "principle," if it can be called that, is based entirely on emotion. As you readily admit, there are some people in the world who you just "feel" should deserve "bad things" simply because they have upset you or hurt your feelings.
    When it comes to the issue of discrimination, you "feel" that that asshole Trump supporter should be kicked the hell off that plane for eternity and probably fucking shot too because he's a dick and, most importantly, a Trump supporter, egad. So, of course Delta should kick him right the hell off. They have the right to! But not Sally Sue of Sally Sue's Bakery who has refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Sally Sue can't do that! I "feel" it! "Bad things" should happen to her. May her soul rot in eternal torment.

  80. d says

    An airline may ban someone on future flights b/c of unacceptable behavior. This practice is many decades old but very under the radar. Much more interesting than this incident are the famous people who have been banned over the decades.

    (I have 4 decades in the industry)

  81. Justabystander says

    @Fidel's Carcass You're not helping yourself by lengthening your posts, bro. You actually did originally disguise your viewpoint in some weakly argued ish about hypocrisy when what you meant was that you are against all anti-discrimination laws because of some absolutist idea about what the concept of freedom of association means. Shoulda gone straight there.

    Freedom of association has been litigated. I mean in court, not like the way every talking head on TV and radio now needs to say litigate to seem more high-falutin'. There is a body of legal precedent that defines the limitations of freedom of association. That makes your extreme outlier viewpoint at odds with established law, and I would daresay, overwhelming majority public support.

    "True" freedom of association, as I've seen more and more bigots refer to it, is the haven for racists and bigots. Dressing it up in some Libertarian or Constitutional garb with select supporting quotes from some of the Founding Fathers does nothing to conceal that. It's intellectual window dressing for vile behavior and low morals.

  82. OrderoftheQuaff says

    Mr. Randazza, it seems that you are the one who doesn't understand how freedom of expression works. There's no freedom of expression on a commercial airplane, you spawn of a retarded prostitute and a syphilitic orangutan.

  83. OrderoftheQuaff says

    And furthermore, while my IQ may not be genius level like you, it was good enough to pass the California Bar Exam on the first try. Where are you admitted, and how many times did you fail your bar exams? I look forward to reciting here any public record of discipline you may have.

  84. Deplorable Kell says

    If not for handling and dealing with assholes like this, routinely!, what the fuck are the air crews trained to DO? If they couldn't handle this disruption, how the hell do they handle a hostile takeover of the aircraft itself?
    People wonder why I don't fly anymore? They once refused, while I was active service, to allow me to bring aboard their aircraft, a fully functioning, military parachute!
    No sense of humor at all…if this plane is going down somewhere between points A and B, I'm getting off somewhere around A and 3/4's!
    See ya'!

  85. Andrew Wade says

    I might not agree with Mr. Douche, but the only difference between him and anyone boarding a Friday night Vegas-bound flight in an Affliction shirt is that he shouted a political view that certain crybabies find offensive.

    "a political view". Cute. It is indeed a political view, and it is offensive, and I'm done with coddling the feelings of deplorables.

  86. Encinal says

    @FIdel's Carcass

    First, let's start with the definition of hypocrisy since you seem to be a little fuzzy on that.

    That's quite the pot calling the kettle black.

    A quick search finds that hypocrisy is "the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion," and "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."

    That's in the neighborhood of hypocrisy, but not quite there. Simply falsely claiming virtue is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is demanding that others follow the principle, but not follow it oneself.

    When it comes to discrimination by private businesses, the underlying principle is Freedom of Association.

    That's a rather nonsensical claim. If you have a particular person that you think has that as their base principle, you should say so. But simply making a blanket statement about what the underlying principle, not of a person, but of a subject matter, is absurd.

    Of course, as I mentioned in another post, one can reject that Freedom of Association exists, in which case private business has no principle to rely upon and thus cannot discriminate.

    You're simply failing Logic 101. A naive absolutist Freedom of Association is not the only principle one can rely on.

    But, given that no one has claimed that Delta's actions were illegal, let's say that most people accept that Freedom of Association exists.

    They believe that Freedom of Association is one principle, to be balanced against other concerns. Balancing Freedom of Association against a person's "right" to be a bigoted asshole, Freedom of Association wins. Balancing Freedom of Association with someone's right to marry the person they wish, marrying the person they wish wins. That's not "hypocrisy".

    The hypocrisy comes in to play when people claim that because of the principle of Freedom of Association, a business can refuse service to someone who is, for example, not wearing a shirt or shoes, and also claim that a business cannot refuse service to some protected class.

    Again, not hypocrisy. You are confusing nuance for hypocrisy. If someone says they respect private property, but would be willing to steal a car if someone they loved needed to get to the hospital immediately, that's not hypocrisy.

    If you claim to believe, in principle, that people should legally be able to associate with whomever they want,

    But people don't believe that. They believe that people should be legally be able to associate with whomever they want, subject to certain limits.

    that most certainly is "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess," i.e. hypocrisy.

    Just because some website somewhere says that's hypocrisy, doesn't mean that's what hypocrisy means.

    Your conception of right and wrong is based entirely on subjective "feeling/feelz," not any sort of rational or objective principles.

    Nonsense. At the very beginning, I asserted that there is a difference between a person screaming on a plane and someone getting married. If you had asked what that difference is, I could have told you. Instead, you insisted on dismissing that difference as irrelevant. And now you're claiming that I don't have any rational or objective principles behind my thinking there's a difference. How do you know whether I have rational or objective principles, when you made no effort to examine the issue? That's quite arrogant.

    As you readily admit, there are some people in the world who you just "feel" should deserve "bad things"

    You're being dishonest. I didn't say I just feel that. Ethical intuition is a very important part of civilization, and yes, that involves emotions, but it's not just emotions.

    simply because they have upset you or hurt your feelings.

    Now you're flat-out lying. The issue isn't that they've "hurt my feelings". The issue is that they have violated an ethical principle. Your post is a weird mixture of moral relativism and moral relativism; any ethical positions you disagree with are dismissed as "feelz" and being simply people "hurt your feelings", thus apparently endorsing moral relativism, but presumably you think YOUR ethical principles are somehow rational and objective.

    Talk about hypocrisy.

    When it comes to the issue of discrimination, you "feel" that that asshole Trump supporter should be kicked the hell off that plane for eternity and probably fucking shot too because he's a dick and, most importantly, a Trump supporter, egad. So, of course Delta should kick him right the hell off. They have the right to! But not Sally Sue of Sally Sue's Bakery who has refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Sally Sue can't do that! I "feel" it! "Bad things" should happen to her. May her soul rot in eternal torment.

    More lies. I never said that. In fact, I oppose his permaban.

  87. Cromulent Bloviator says

    LMFAO! The only available "freedom of expression" angle available to argue would be to defend the private business and their right to do business with whoever they want and set whatever standards of expression they feel are appropriate for their venue.

    Why is it that some people remember to defend the offensive assholes when the government ignores their right to free speech, claiming it is a necessity, but then when the offensive asshole isn't having their rights infringed at all, they still find it necessary to defend them?

    It certainly does a disservice to this blog, which has often hosted legit content in support of free speech, to so egregiously conflate merely being offensive with being protected-speechy.

  88. James says

    I am not an American, so I can't really comment on the law here but it kind of doesn't seem unreasonable.

    The business made a decision that they wanted the public face of the company to be that if you fly with them then you will not be subjected to this kind of behaviour by other passengers. Is this so wrong?

    The anger doesn't seem to be in response to the airline not letting this guy fly but instead to them announcing that they are not letting him fly. Why should the airline not be free to make this announcement and to signal to their customer base the kind of experience they should expect on one of their flights?

    Is it wrong to deny service to someone for shouting at other customers? Maybe; certainly I take other peoples points that in a plane people are more tense and the kind of thing that would just be being an ass-hole in the street takes on a new and scary meaning on a flight. It seems severe but this guy is going to have a significant effect on the perception of the desirability of flying with the airline if he is seen to be able to behave this way without any reaction.

  89. TheLizard says

    This was likely an entirely economic decision on the part of Delta. All those wealthy coastal Democrats regularly by-passing fly-over country on their way to some business meeting in hip Silicon Valley or to a soiree in SOHO for the weekend threaten to take their skip-dealing-with-middle-America air travel plans to another airline unless Delta DOES SOMETHING about this guy with an outspoken unpopular opinion informed their decision.

    They need the money. So they can ban one guy and make the special snowflakes happy again and spending their money. Easy decision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *