There's a fair discussion about "was the way you confronted them that of a professional adult" but at the end of the day, I'm finding it hard to honestly be too upset at the language used outside of a very token "tsk tsk". TSA has not had a history of treating my wife and I respectfully so it's difficult to reciprocate, and can even see the argument that by adding social friction to working there you erode their ability to push policies like this if workers go "wait this may be a bad idea that may make people really angry at us." ESPECIALLY now that there's no real legal recourse outside of petitioning congress.
(An anecdote: I was very sick going through security recently, extremely sleep deprived and falling over without support, they pulled us over to secondary screening and refused to let me sit down while they were checking my bags, ended up vomiting into a trashcan while the agent gave me lip. Turns out all this was over a pair of nail clippers the wife forgot she had packed... and on the RETURN trip.)
Nail clippers are not allowed now!? I fly with nail clippers all the time (including to/from the US) and have never had an issue. Looking at the TSA site, nail clippers are explicitly permitted as well [1]. Was the agent actively looking to hassle you?
[1] https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...
[0] https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-chromium-scissors-scissor-...
Both are complicit in far worse IMHO.
From a certain point of view, it's better for the TSA agent to be soiled with vomit than it is to allow a potentially contagious passenger on what may be a very long flight.
It's the little things. As he stated, the agent wouldn't let him sit down and it was over a pair of nail clippers. Perhaps the vomit wouldn't have made them blink at all, doesn't mean I wouldn't get some form of enjoyment out of it. Sounds like the agent was being a prick. Are we surprised?
I'm no slave to civility by any means, but I am mindful that screaming at a couple off duty agents trying to shop, who I've had no prior interaction with, probably does not help my cause ;-)
I do think it is useful to influence what is perceived as being the general consensus. Both generally for public opinion, and specifically to undermine the organization's morale. In fact, that's also what my comment was doing here - given that courts have no problem continuing to bless this fascism, it's about the only hope we've got.
How much of the support for say the Iraq war was due to simple herd consensus - that feeling that you expect any arbitrary person to be in general support of it, and thus talking about it will likely just lead to an irreconcilable argument? "Support the troops" is a motte-and-bailey setup.
Normalizing the harassment of elected officials is dangerous and it puts us on a direct path towards politically-motivated random acts of violence.
Is this in regards to the "birther movement" or was he harassing politicians in the real world?
Nobody is above criticism, that much is certain, but we shouldn't cross the River Styx into a world where random acts of violence is the preferred method of political expression.
Tell us, what exactly is that difference? What's the difference between going up to Scott Pruitt (when he was the EPA director) and telling him what an awful job he's doing, and when Trump tweets out a gif showing him performing wrestling moves on a personified CNN? Or when he calls journalists the "enemies of the people"?
"Nobody is above criticism, that much is certain, but we shouldn't cross the River Styx into a world where random acts of violence is the preferred method of political expression."
And where the hell is violence being done? Last I saw, the calls for violence have been from the Trump camp.
And the response from the government is that either it's fake news or that they just don't care.
To a lot of people this is an injustice. And they have no avenue to demand change.
These people ruin lives. Imagine what kind of mental trauma these children will have for the rest of their lives.
And they get upset that people don't treat them with respect when they go about their lives.
Anyway, gotta jet and get home. Probably gonna walk past the only abortion clinic within 500 miles that has bulletproof glass windows and got firebomed for like the 30th time last week and over the past 20 years by right-wing terrorists. This is normal and not strange at all. I do it every day I'm not working from home.
Or see it headed off by declaration of martial law.
The powerful political actors realized they could just physically intimidate and impede their opponents with gangs. No one that believes in a functioning society should support politically motivated violence of any kind.
These agents still choose to carry out those policies.
What is the progress / outcome? Have there been any changes in policy resulting from public confrontations?
I hadn't realized that was his stated reason[0] for doing so.
Thank you for providing a real answer instead of just downvoting and moving along!
[0] - https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-res...
No there hasn't. It just makes everyone think these are petulant children. They ask for respect and equality of others but don't wish to give it to anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology.
In this case, "doesn't agree with their ideology" actually means, "Believes that many classes of people don't deserve human rights".
But in the instance of the comment in question, I think it was pretty clear that it was the protesters who were acting like petulant children.
I'm no fan of the TSA, but do you think that was productive?
Maybe direct your ire at the people at the top who make these policies instead.
There's been progress on that front with several Trump administration officials confronted while dining for example.