Overbooking, Flightcrew over paying passengers, the United incident

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, Rorshach said:

It should be kept in mind that the position taken by Tywin asserts (and, in his assertion, is backed up by most writers - I don't know) that this situation is within what's legally allowed for an airline carrier to do. And in many cases that is true - whether it's true here or not is up for debate. 

However, given that premise, your analogy fails. You compare what is asserted to be (and may be) a legal action with clearly illegal activities. At no point will that analogy be useful.

Those things have been perfectly legal at various times, some still remain murky.  Tywin's argument rests on the idea that the victim is complicit if they've said no, even if it's in a calm and polite way.  This is outrageous rather the request was legal or not. 

[mormont]

On 17/04/2017 at 3:17 PM, Tywin et al. said:

Good luck to that mentality. As a mod, if you tell someone to stop doing something, for example calling people "illegals" in the U.S. politics thread, and they respond by saying "no, f off," they've escalated the situation. They've forced you to intensify the situation, which is, ya know, the text book definition of escalation. 

Yeah, this is not how it works. I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion about moderation but let me just say you appear to be telling me here how my mind works when I do my job, and that's not ground you can win an argument on.

I will note that there's a difference between saying 'no' and saying 'no' and adding abuse. In the latter case they've introduced a new element into the situation, abusive language, which I will deal with as a separate issue. Otherwise, I'll simply note you're wrong and move on.

42 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I'm confused by why the definition of escalation matters.

Because in this case, the word is important, political even. As I've said before, it's commonplace for abuses of power by those in authority to be blamed on the victim 'escalating' the situation, with the implication that the violent response was proportionate to and justified by this 'escalation'. You can't take the moral judgement away from that word, I'm afraid.

[Rorshach]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Those things have been perfectly legal at various times, some still remain murky.  Tywin's argument rests on the idea that the victim is complicit if they've said no, even if it's in a calm and polite way.  This is outrageous rather the request was legal or not. 

Then my question is, I guess, how one should deal with protest. 

At this point, I'm wondering what the judgement would be if I, say, staged a sit-in across the street from my house. Some appartements will be built there shortly (within a couple of years, is my guess). Now, if I sit down there, and refuse to move when asked - how should the situation be dealt with? 

I'd like @mormont's view on that as well, if that's not too much to ask. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

Because in this case, the word is important, political even. As I've said before, it's commonplace for abuses of power by those in authority to be blamed on the victim 'escalating' the situation, with the implication that the violent response was proportionate to and justified by this 'escalation'. You can't take the moral judgement away from that word, I'm afraid.

Mormont,

Very well said.  It is the implications surrounding "escalate" that make it a poor word in this context.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, Rorshach said:

Then my question is, I guess, how one should deal with protest. 

At this point, I'm wondering what the judgement would be if I, say, staged a sit-in across the street from my house. Some appartements will be built there shortly (within a couple of years, is my guess). Now, if I sit down there, and refuse to move when asked - how should the situation be dealt with? 

I'd like @mormont's view on that as well, if that's not too much to ask. 

 

Images and stories of police firing off pepper spray or water canons or doing something else to harm protestors who say no to moving tend to spark public outrage, at least among a certain segment of the population.  In general, no, I don't think it's escalation for a protestor to say no when a police officer first requests they move. I don't think a no warrants physical attack by police officers. 

[Rorshach]

What, then, would be an appropriate way of dealing with protests that are outside the law, but still not inherently harmful? I'm wondering how best to deal with such situations.

Also, I think our previous encounters with law enforcement colours our interpretations. For me, the first image that arrives here isn't big, bad police forces. So I don't neccesarily see this as a first step on a slippery slope to more violence. 

Trying to formulate an opinion on this is hard, as I haven't put much thought into it. Firstly, I have long thought that bumping passengers is a lousy idea. I've once been in a situation where people were bumped owing to me (among others) being put on a plane where we really didn't need to be if some common sense had been applied. And I also think that the policy of overbooking is questionable - but I don't know the numbers behind it, and as such I'll refrain from passing judgement.

(In parenthesis, looking at this from an enviromental angle, I tend to avoid flying. Normally, I get by very well by train, which is my first choice, and which is very enviromentally friendly in Norway, where some 96% of electricity is produced from renewable sources.)

Secondly, there's the question about legality. I don't know about others, but I tend to skip the fine print most of the time, knowing full well that I may consent to things I really don't consent to. This may have been one such incident - I can't evaluate that myself, and frankly, I'm unsure as to whether I'd do it if I would have been able. The incident - in itself - isn't the most interesting thing in the news, or outside the news. However, I struggle with the thought that if this was a legal action from United (to bump the passenger), we should expect him to "get away" with protesting. Given that it was legal (that's an if, btw), some reaction would follow, as he was breaking his contract with the airline. We don't agree always that we are culpable of such breaches, but legally we are - and while we should then work to change the rules, we cannot expect the rules not to be followed. And If we decide to break them - by protesting, for instance - we are escalating the situation by putting pressure on the other side to react. They, in turn, can choose to escalate further, or to de-escalate. (Note, here, that I would classify Ghandi as someone escalating a situation. Mainly, I use the word in a legal context, so to speak, by looking at how actions are perceived from the point of view of current law. Which is the framework we operate within. Morally, whether it was an escalation turns to a discussion about which moral framework we adopt.)

If United didn't have legal reason to remove the passenger, the discussion is moot. If they did, the argument becomes a question about the best way to deal with someone breaking a contract - "the law" - and refusing to comply with with what - under the circumstances - was a legally valid request. I have no idea how one should best deal with the situation then. Allowing people to dictate when to follow rules and when not to seems questionable, even if the current case could - and should - have been dealt with differently.

Meh, long word salad. Tl; dr: don't bother

[Swordfish]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

So, if I refuse to allow a cop to stick his finger up my ass on the side of the road it is my refusal... not his order... that escalates the situation?

You realize that more than one thing can escalate a situation, right?  It's not the dichotomy you paint it as here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

You realize that more than one thing can escalate a situation, right?  It's not the dichotomy you paint it as here.

I'm well aware.  I'm point out that refusing to allow an officer to shove his finger in my ass shouldn't be considered an "escalation" because the officer's actions predicated a valid refusal to comply with an improper and illegal order.

[Swordfish]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm well aware.  I'm point out that refusing to allow an officer to shove his finger in my ass shouldn't be considered an "escalation" because the officer's actions predicated a valid refusal to comply with an improper and illegal order.

A valid escalation.  Indeed.  We agree.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

29 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

A valid escalation.  Indeed.  We agree.

Do you not see the nasty implications that jump out whenever someone "legitimately" or "validly" escalates a situation?  The word "escalates" is never used when you are arguing someone acted appropriately.  Never.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, Rorshach said:

What, then, would be an appropriate way of dealing with protests that are outside the law, but still not inherently harmful? I'm wondering how best to deal with such situations.

Also, I think our previous encounters with law enforcement colours our interpretations. For me, the first image that arrives here isn't big, bad police forces. So I don't neccesarily see this as a first step on a slippery slope to more violence. 

 

An appropriate way to deal with this is to not immediately escalate to using violence to remove those people from areas.  I don't think this is too difficult.  Handcuffing and walking a person away from an area is a lot different to bloodying, concussing and then dragging someone away when they weren't fighting back.  There is a lot that can and should be considered before some cop decides to become violent.

As to the second part, that's probably true.  I do not and have largely never seen the police as an inherently decent force for good.  They are beings to be avoided as much as possible.  It has to be a pretty extreme case that would get me to call the cops because in most situations having cops on scene just immediately escalates everything.  

[DireWolfSpirit]

It was United that broke a contract, why shouldnt the emphasis be over how to deal with their actions? Afterall United took this victims money, upfront as well.

[Swordfish]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Do you not see the nasty implications that jump out whenever someone "legitimately" or "validly" escalates a situation?  The word "escalates" is never used when you are arguing someone acted appropriately.  Never.

you are absolutely wrong. of course it is.  it's used that way all the time.

i have issues in the workplace practically weekly that i need to escalate, generally because someone is not doing their job and it's impeding project progress.

You are allowing your own bias against the word to make you irrational.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

you are absolutely wrong. of course it is.  it's used that way all the time.

i have issues in the workplace practically weekly that i need to escalate, generally because someone is not doing their job and it's impeding project progress.

You are allowing your own bias against the word to make you irrational.

 

Maybe, but your example is one where someone acted inappropriately (not doing their job)... 

[Swordfish]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Maybe, but your example is one where someone acted inappropriately (not doing their job)... 

Right.  And then i escalate.

My escalation is 100% appropriate.

 

Another example:  if I am on the phone with customer service and I do not get an acceptable resolution, i will escalate my complaint through additional channels.

100% appropriate.

the notion that the phrase is never used when a person is acting appropriately is completely and demonstrably false. it happens all the time.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

you are absolutely wrong. of course it is.  it's used that way all the time.

i have issues in the workplace practically weekly that i need to escalate, generally because someone is not doing their job and it's impeding project progress.

You are allowing your own bias against the word to make you irrational.

 

I'm not.  In common parlance, not corporate speak or technical jargon, please give me an example of someone using "escalates" in a positive sense.  How about a police officer praising an officer for "escalating" a situation... or a politician praising someone who "properly escalated" something.  

The implication everytime "escalated" is used in common parlance is that the person "escalating" or causing the "escalation" is doing something wrong.  

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm not.  In common parlance, not corporate speak or technical jargon, please give me an example of someone using "escalates" in a positive sense.  

See above.

Quote

How about a police officer praising an officer for "escalating" a situation... or a politician praising someone who "properly escalated" something.  

 

I don't know what this means.

 

Quote

The implication everytime "escalated" is used in common parlance is that the person "escalating" or causing the "escalation" is doing something wrong.  

You keep saying that.  That doesn't make it true.

What you mean is 'it's my opinion that every time 'escalated' is used in the common parlance, the person escalating is doing something wrong'.  But your opinion is not correct, and i've given you a couple examples.

If you were assaulted and a cop refused to take your statement, could you not acceptably escalate to the cops boss?

there are plenty of examples of this kind of escalation.

 

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

See above.

 

I don't know what this means.

 

You keep saying that.  That doesn't make it true.

What you mean is 'it's my opinion that every time 'escalated' is used in the common parlance, the person escalating is doing something wrong'.  But your opinion is not correct, and i've given you a couple examples.

If you were assaulted and a cop refused to take your statement, could you not acceptably escalate to the cops boss?

there are plenty of examples of this kind of escalation.

 

 

 

Swordfish,

But the word is never used in public praise.  No one ever says "that was a great escalation you had the other day." or "good job escalating that matter, Swordfish."  The word has a negative implication.

[Swordfish]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Swordfish,

But the word is never used in public praise.  No one ever says "that was a great escalation you had the other day." or "good job escalating that matter, Swordfish."  The word has a negative implication.

It's used all the time that way, Scot.

Maybe instead of simply repeating yourself, you could provide something actually substantial to back up your point, because the actual definition of the word, and countless examples provided to you contradict your point, and there's virtually nothing here that supports your point other than your own opinion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

It's used all the time that way, Scot.

Maybe instead of simply repeating yourself, you could provide something actually substantial to back up your point, because the actual definition of the word, and countless examples provided to you contradict your point, and there's virtually nothing here that supports your point other than your own opinion.

Give me an example of "escalate" being used in public as a means of praise.  Not internally, not in a memo in an office, someone from a public platform or with something intended to be read publicly praising an "escalation".