Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Not really news: Woman kicked off plane. Fark: For wearing a T-shirt that said, "If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd f--k a senator" (w/video)   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 335
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

9246 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 May 2012 at 3:25 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



335 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-25 12:18:49 PM  

Deucednuisance: So, my point about the common colloquialism for "fornicating" is that it's already been robbed of its power by overuse.


You can claim this but that does not make it so. In fact you cannot even get that word into your post.
 
2012-05-25 12:25:11 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Priapetic: Um, unlike the case at hand, none of the things you mention are visible communication commonly considered offensive to the average person. So no.

A book isn't visible? A cross? It doesn't matter what you think the "average person" considers offensive, people's VERY LIVES are at stake here! My buddy MycroftHolmes agrees with me here. A single, heated argument is a major safety concern for everybody on board. The pilot and the airline has a duty, nay, an HONOR, to throw off any passenger who displays any opinion in any fashion that may be taken as offensive by anyone on that plane.

Clearly the reasonable response is to give passengers gray jump-suits and blindfolds for the duration of the flight.


Fifth Element style.
 
2012-05-25 12:33:10 PM  

RobSeace: SweetSilverBlues: As such, the airlines still have every right to exercise this rule, just like Drew does.

Oh, I do agree... I was just pointing out it's going a bit far to say Fark (or any other normal business) is "just like" airlines... There's a reason why very few people, if any, would be complaining if this were a Wal-Mart that kicked her out or something, but see airlines a bit differently... As someone else said earlier in the thread, they're seen by many as defacto public transportation...


Ah, gotcha.

It's something I'm really divided on. If a business is failing, let it fail. But that hasn't happened and. we have to figure out what to do next.

Do banks, GMs and airlines need to be run as government entities due to the sheer amount of government support (read: taxpayer money) they receive?

It's not a good prospect.

And for now they are still, legally, private organisations.

That being said, she would not have been allowed to wear this shirt into a court of law, which is a government entity.

Claiming it's a safety issue is ridiculous, though. They have a discretionary rule and they enforced it. If they don't like the public fallout, they need to restructure the rule, not come up with bullshiat reasons.
 
2012-05-25 12:55:59 PM  

gulogulo: You're missing the nuance here: that's annoying to you, but may not be universally annoying.


WHAT!? Different behaviors are received differently by different people!? THE HELL YOU SAY!

But, yea, no, those idiots that wander around door to door. I'd put money down that more people are annoyed by them than not. Again, it's no rocket science. They know they're being intrusive assholes just like every other idiot who knocks on your door invited to steal your time for their own selfish ends, they just don't care.

gulogulo: Yes, they have the right to do it, but if there are more people like me out there than they are going to suffer for that choice.


Yea, "if". But since there's no, no, they're not. First of all, most people don't agree with you, and even those of us who don't really care about "bad" words on T-shirts have the common sense to know that other people probably do care and the basic empathy required to understand that there's no good reason to go out of our way to throw it in their faces.

Nobody's going to change their flight because the airline decided to set what is widely regarded as a reasonable and fair expectation for behavior and decorum. This entire debate is retarded, this woman is an idiot, an attention whore, and she lacks basic commonsense so I have no sympathy for her, same as the vast majority of people are going to feel.

Go out of your way to be a pain in the ass and you invite your own problems and most people aren't going to have any sympathy for you when you start to experience those problems. Plain and simple.
 
2012-05-25 01:06:08 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Priapetic: Of course it matters. It's amusing how as you paint yourself further and further into the corner, your arguments become both less intelligent and more hyperbolic.

No, I fixed it. We added a ball-gag. We're safe now.


Go do exactly what you suggest. Book a flight from Madison to Chicago on American and then pitch a fit because there is a child on board. Cite this clause in the policy and your reasons, and even mention this instance. Hope it works out for you.

Also, buy this shirt and wear it to work. Make sure that at least your boss' boss gets to see you in it. I bet it would go over well at funerals, weddings, etc....
 
2012-05-25 01:06:08 PM  
I remember a time when people used to dress a little nicer for things like flying on a plane or going to court.
/I'm 30 and I sound old.
 
2012-05-25 01:10:40 PM  
So this wasn't a TSA comment? humm
 
2012-05-25 01:11:03 PM  

MagSeven: I remember a time when people used to dress a little nicer for things like flying on a plane or going to court.
/I'm 30 and I sound old.


Yeah, it was much easier to tell if someone had money then.
 
2012-05-25 01:18:26 PM  

trappedspirit: You can claim this but that does not make it so. In fact you cannot even get that word into your post.


OK, Bucko, explain why it's a bad word, while "screw", "coitus", "bumping uglies", "making the Beast with Two Backs", and innumerable others are Just Fine.

Explain how the actual root word in English etymology, the one doctors would have used in the day, is not a proper word, suitable for everyday use.

Explain what a "bad word" is.

If you can't or won't, fark off.

Here's some words that I think are bad: Murder. Disembowelment. Beheading. War. Capital Punishment. The list goes on, but we use them and do them All The Time.

Guess what? You're only here because your mother farked someone. (Not me, for once.) And she probably liked it.

1.bp.blogspot.com

Just because a private entity chooses to use broadcast media restrictions on its content doesn't make it smart.

I not arguing that that's not the way things are. I saying it's stupid, and self-deluded and springs from ignorance of the language people claim to know how to speak.

Stupidity, self-delusion, and ignorance. Seemingly the main drivers of American society these days. Sad.
 
2012-05-25 01:27:16 PM  

Splinshints: Nobody's going to change their flight because the airline decided to set what is widely regarded as a reasonable and fair expectation for behavior and decorum. This entire debate is retarded, this woman is an idiot, an attention whore, and she lacks basic commonsense so I have no sympathy for her, same as the vast majority of people are going to feel.


I don't know. Radical change has never happened by people that just accepted the status quo as "common sense." There are a lot of "common sense" things from the past that were considered 'lewd and provocative, and classless' that have been challenged and overturned. It takes a person willing to test the boundaries to ever affect any change, and a public willing to look at the status quo and decide if it makes any kind of logical sense, or if we're only upholding it for no other reason than the status quo. That the airlines had to dig and call it a 'safety' issue should indicate that the latter is the case.

That said, I agree that the airlines have a right to do this. I just think American priorities are a little wacky. Like I said, I can be watching a movie on my laptop on a plane. Beheadings and severed limbs are fine on the screen, but the minute some woman whips her breasts out I have to shut it down. Seems kind of strange, doesn't it?
 
2012-05-25 01:48:43 PM  
Funny how people privately preen and biatch about the government being intrusive and stepping on freedoms, but when someone makes a public statement about the government being intrusive and stepping on freedoms you all immediately turn on the public person and rip them apart as an attention whore, whiner, conceited, etc before going back to griping about government being intrusive and stepping on freedoms.
 
2012-05-25 01:50:34 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Funny how people privately preen and biatch about the government being intrusive and stepping on freedoms, but when someone makes a public statement about the government being intrusive and stepping on freedoms you all immediately turn on the public person and rip them apart as an attention whore, whiner, conceited, etc before going back to griping about government being intrusive and stepping on freedoms.


Um, read the article again. Nothing in there is about the government, it's about a private company, American Airlines.
 
2012-05-25 01:52:53 PM  

Priapetic: Um, read the article again. Nothing in there is about the government, it's about a private company, American Airlines.


Her statement was about the government.
 
2012-05-25 01:55:35 PM  

gulogulo: Priapetic: Um, read the article again. Nothing in there is about the government, it's about a private company, American Airlines.

Her statement was about the government.


And the way it was presented violated the rules of the airline.

The content is irrelevant.
 
2012-05-25 01:58:46 PM  

SweetSilverBlues: And the way it was presented violated the rules of the airline.


Not explicit rules, but sort of a wishy-washy catch all. That said, very few people are arguing that the airlines wasn't within their rights, but are making the argument that it is capricious. Furthermore, the comment upon which I was commenting doesn't refute that either.
 
2012-05-25 01:59:01 PM  

SweetSilverBlues: Do banks, GMs and airlines need to be run as government entities due to the sheer amount of government support (read: taxpayer money) they receive?


I don't know about the first 2, but it almost seems like the government is pretty much running the airlines already for the most part, so they might as well fully take over... It's not just the money, but the support workers (TSA, FAA, air traffic controllers, air marshalls, etc.), the infrastructure (airports), and everything else we give them... When a city builds a rail system, stations, and staffs them with government workers, it doesn't generally then let some private companies come along and use it all for free with their own trains, and let them pocket all the profits...

That being said, she would not have been allowed to wear this shirt into a court of law, which is a government entity.

Well, as someone else pointed out earlier: The Supreme Court says you do have the right to wear such a shirt in a courthouse... Of course, I suspect you'd have to spend some time in jail and fight the charges for quite a while to get them overturned, so you'd probably be wise to avoid doing so, anyway...
 
2012-05-25 02:22:37 PM  

Deucednuisance: trappedspirit: You can claim this but that does not make it so. In fact you cannot even get that word into your post.

OK, Bucko, explain why it's a bad word, while "screw", "coitus", "bumping uglies", "making the Beast with Two Backs", and innumerable others are Just Fine.

Explain how the actual root word in English etymology, the one doctors would have used in the day, is not a proper word, suitable for everyday use.

Explain what a "bad word" is.

If you can't or won't, fark off.

Here's some words that I think are bad: Murder. Disembowelment. Beheading. War. Capital Punishment. The list goes on, but we use them and do them All The Time.

Guess what? You're only here because your mother farked someone. (Not me, for once.) And she probably liked it.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 272x430]

Just because a private entity chooses to use broadcast media restrictions on its content doesn't make it smart.

I not arguing that that's not the way things are. I saying it's stupid, and self-deluded and springs from ignorance of the language people claim to know how to speak.

Stupidity, self-delusion, and ignorance. Seemingly the main drivers of American society these days. Sad.


Crucifixion! Nasty eh?
 
2012-05-25 02:23:35 PM  
I'm going to dig up my "Stupid people shouldn't breed" shirt.

It's funny that people self-identify.
 
2012-05-25 02:25:50 PM  
fark, coont, shiat, biatch, pussy, etc. Without context, they are simply words. Words everyone uses. Some people use them more often than others. There is nothing magical about these words except someone arbitrarily decided that the mere utterance of these cuss words should be reason enough to ban people from certain places, arrest people, get violent, etc. If there were no restrictions on these words, there would not be much reason to get upset over them. They would lose the power we've given them. Is the goal to completely get rid of the words? Why are they frowned upon? It seems like a War on Drugs-like futility.

"But what about the children?" Well, if you really cared about the children, you'd know that they use these words, but they tend not to do it around you because you're fragile and might get upset about it. If you care about the children, you'd explain to them why these words are considered bad: because someone arbitrarily chose them to be. I'm honest with my kid. And, my kid understands the drama around these words. I am honest with my kid about cuss words because I care more about him than silly words.
 
2012-05-25 02:32:03 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: fark, coont, shiat, biatch, pussy, etc. Without context, they are simply words. Words everyone uses. Some people use them more often than others. There is nothing magical about these words except someone arbitrarily decided that the mere utterance of these cuss words should be reason enough to ban people from certain places, arrest people, get violent, etc. If there were no restrictions on these words, there would not be much reason to get upset over them. They would lose the power we've given them. Is the goal to completely get rid of the words? Why are they frowned upon? It seems like a War on Drugs-like futility.

"But what about the children?" Well, if you really cared about the children, you'd know that they use these words, but they tend not to do it around you because you're fragile and might get upset about it. If you care about the children, you'd explain to them why these words are considered bad: because someone arbitrarily chose them to be. I'm honest with my kid. And, my kid understands the drama around these words. I am honest with my kid about cuss words because I care more about him than silly words.


If it's about bodily functions, some have a problem with it.
 
2012-05-25 02:32:46 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Crucifixion! Nasty eh?


Eh, freedom for me. They said I hadn't done anything, so I can go free and live on an island somewhere.
 
2012-05-25 02:51:53 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: fark, coont, shiat, biatch, pussy, etc. Without context, they are simply words. Words everyone uses. Some people use them more often than others. There is nothing magical about these words except someone arbitrarily decided that the mere utterance of these cuss words should be reason enough to ban people from certain places, arrest people, get violent, etc. If there were no restrictions on these words, there would not be much reason to get upset over them. They would lose the power we've given them. Is the goal to completely get rid of the words? Why are they frowned upon? It seems like a War on Drugs-like futility.

"But what about the children?" Well, if you really cared about the children, you'd know that they use these words, but they tend not to do it around you because you're fragile and might get upset about it. If you care about the children, you'd explain to them why these words are considered bad: because someone arbitrarily chose them to be. I'm honest with my kid. And, my kid understands the drama around these words. I am honest with my kid about cuss words because I care more about him than silly words.


Its not the words, its the totality of what they convey when used in society. As long as there is hate and offensiveness, there will be hateful and offensive words or phrases. The specific word is unimportant - the argument here is someone went out of their way to be deliberately offensive, and a private corporation exercised their private property right to refuse to provide service.

It doesn't matter if you dilute what is currently a swear into common language, people like this lady will just find another method of being offensive to others. It could be a word, a phrase, a picture, a video, etc..

Don't get hung up on the word, and whether it is currently considered offensive by society. Focus on the behavior, being deliberately offensive to others. That's the issue here.
 
2012-05-25 03:15:06 PM  

Priapetic: deliberately offensive to others.


I had to go back to the article and something you said way earlier, where you quoted this woman as saying she chose this because she explicitly stated she liked that it was deliberately offensive.

However, that quote is not actually attributed to this woman, but to the Rep who took the picture of the sign. Whether this woman went out to be deliberately offensive, or just felt like that it was an effective message without much thought to how offensive 'fark' would be to some people is entirely unknown.
 
2012-05-25 03:40:35 PM  

kisseswookies: But think of the children (on the plane)!

/does this ignite the never ending fark threads about how children on planes are spawned from Satan, and their parents are slack-jawed idiots?
//probably not, obvious troll...etc.


I wonder how many people will realize you just Godwin'd the thread.

/who said 'think of the children'?
 
2012-05-25 04:16:20 PM  

kim jong-un: If you use a public resource to run your business, the people can cut it off if you don't follow their rules. Airspace is a public resource, and one of the restrictions in using it is that you can only deny boarding for a very limited set of conditions if you want to keep the permission to use the airspace.

So you retain the right to kick people off your plane. The people retain the right to kick your plane out of our skies.


It is true that the Congress could change existing law to re-regulate the airline industry and impose all sorts of restrictions that you propose. Currently that isn't the state of the existing deregulated airline industry, which would allow you to open up your own airline and compete for gate space at nearly every airport in the US. Current law allows the airlines to keep anyone off their planes they want for almost any reason in the world that they deem advantageous to their business, so long as it's not solely because the person is a member of a protected class (disabled, elderly, minority race or ethicity, or religious affiliation).

Being a douche that likes to wear offensive curse words out in public is more than enough reason to be kicked out of many businesses. In my hometown, I'd guess that 90% of the business owners and managers would ask a patron with a FARK shirt on to remove it or leave the store. That is their right. If you want to open up an airline, like HOOTERS did, that allows adult behavior on your own airplanes, then pony up the cash and open it up.

/You don't have the right to be on my property and say whatever you want. I have the right to ask you leave and if you refuse, you may be forcibly removed for trespassing by the proper authorities.
 
2012-05-25 04:35:47 PM  

Priapetic: It doesn't matter if you dilute what is currently a swear into common language, people like this lady will just find another method of being offensive to others. It could be a word, a phrase, a picture, a video, etc.


"If I wanted the government in my womb, I wouldn't have uncontrollable flatulence."
 
2012-05-25 06:08:13 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: fark, coont, shiat, biatch, pussy, etc. Without context, they are simply words. Words everyone uses. Some people use them more often than others. There is nothing magical about these words except someone arbitrarily decided that the mere utterance of these cuss words should be reason enough to ban people from certain places, arrest people, get violent, etc. If there were no restrictions on these words, there would not be much reason to get upset over them. They would lose the power we've given them. Is the goal to completely get rid of the words? Why are they frowned upon? It seems like a War on Drugs-like futility.

"But what about the children?" Well, if you really cared about the children, you'd know that they use these words, but they tend not to do it around you because you're fragile and might get upset about it. If you care about the children, you'd explain to them why these words are considered bad: because someone arbitrarily chose them to be. I'm honest with my kid. And, my kid understands the drama around these words. I am honest with my kid about cuss words because I care more about him than silly words.


Finally someone comes in the thread to say this.
I dislike arbitrarily deeming words "forbidden". (Widely used racial slurs I can understand; there is at least a distinct reason for their offensiveness. However, it's cowardly to censor even those when one is merely reporting events, i.e. in a news story.)

There isn't anything inherently wrong with the meanings of "curse" words - most arbitrary profanities have socially inoffensive synonyms. Overhearing someone using profanity is utterly, objectively harmless to children and everyone else. It's just a silly game society plays. Unfortunately, the game's biggest fans make such an obnoxious fuss at rulebreakers that they've gotten far more people, who ordinarily wouldn't mind the words, to run interference for them. It's happening in this thread.

What profanity really is is a matter of taste. We don't kick people off airlines for having mullets or B.O. or Sharpie eyebrows or badly executed tattoos (and that's even assuming profane language is in the same league). So... who cares?
 
2012-05-25 06:31:24 PM  

Priapetic: Keizer_Ghidorah: Funny how people privately preen and biatch about the government being intrusive and stepping on freedoms, but when someone makes a public statement about the government being intrusive and stepping on freedoms you all immediately turn on the public person and rip them apart as an attention whore, whiner, conceited, etc before going back to griping about government being intrusive and stepping on freedoms.

Um, read the article again. Nothing in there is about the government, it's about a private company, American Airlines.


I was talking about people in this thread laughing at her and calling her an AW. Most of them post the same anti-government everywhere views in other threads. A bit hypocritical, really.
 
2012-05-25 07:09:59 PM  

Pert: Mugato: But at what point does it stop being about safety and become completely arbitrary?

The airline said nothing about safety. It was about wearing something that offended their other paying customers who had complied with the rules associated with their tickets.


The only person who complained was the stewardess.
 
2012-05-25 07:19:18 PM  

Mugato: thamike: How many times must it be said? Wear a suit or at least a blazer (or the female equivalent) when you fly. You wouldn't wear sloganized t-shirts to a restaurant would you? Are you twelve?

LOL what? It's not the Brown Derby, it's an airplane. It's transportation. Do you wear a tux on the subway?


What ridiculous comparisons.
 
2012-05-25 07:26:55 PM  
And, no, my suggestion doesn't come from my own stodgy aesthetics, but rather the convenience of breezing through security, being waited on promptly and politely, being treated with quiet mutual respect by everyone else and generally having a good flight. It's worth it. Unless your flying from Montreal to Jakarta, it evens out to be the most comfortable way to travel.
 
2012-05-25 07:55:11 PM  

RelativeEase: Its quite amazing how dense some of you are. Thinking a private businesses can't refuse service to obnoxious customers. I'm willing to bet there are a many number of businesses in your city that would refuse service to someone wearing a t-shirt with the word fark prominently placed on it. The woman made this a political issue not the airline. I'm sure you'd all be outraged if some guy was refused to ride the plane for wearing a shirt that said:

"the only good n***er is a dead n***er."


Go indigently stamp your feet elsewhere. There are grownups trying to have a conversation in this thread.
 
2012-05-25 11:30:01 PM  
Airlines are privately run businesses, not public transportation. For them to be public transportation, they would have to be owned by the federal government or the states. Last I checked, they are not (despite the millions in bailouts they've received since 9/11/01, they are still privately owned and operated).

The First Amendment - which, incidentally, protects you from the government, not private business or private citizens - does not apply, therefore, the airline was well within their rights to deny the woman service, regardless of who complained. If a private business has a policy, whether you feel it's being enforced fairly or not, STFU and abide by it. Deal with your issue with the policy after the fact by writing a letter to the board of directors. Don't get in a pissing contest with an airline captain, especially in today's world - not only will you lose, you might get an attractive pair of nickel-plated steel bracelets.

TL;DR - airline's right, patron is wrong according to the Constitution.
 
2012-05-26 11:17:08 AM  

gulogulo: Priapetic: deliberately offensive to others.

I had to go back to the article and something you said way earlier, where you quoted this woman as saying she chose this because she explicitly stated she liked that it was deliberately offensive.

However, that quote is not actually attributed to this woman, but to the Rep who took the picture of the sign. Whether this woman went out to be deliberately offensive, or just felt like that it was an effective message without much thought to how offensive 'fark' would be to some people is entirely unknown.


so, you actually entertain the idea that the woman chose this message with no regard to the offensive nature of the language? That she did not even consider that the f word, one of the most charged words in the english language would be offensive????? This is beyond imagining.
 
2012-05-26 11:24:06 AM  

MycroftHolmes: so, you actually entertain the idea that the woman chose this message with no regard to the offensive nature of the language? That she did not even consider that the f word, one of the most charged words in the english language would be offensive????? This is beyond imagining.


'how"'offensive =/= 'not offensive'. You sound so exasperated that not everyone would read that word and feel like it warrant the breathless reaction you're giving it, let alone being so bad people in what amounts to airborne city buses (not a fine-dining establishment), would cause such a ruckus. That's really beyond 'imagining' for you?
 
Displayed 35 of 335 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report