Discussion:
Lena Dunham Epitomizes Our Self-Enforcing Police State
Add Reply
BTR1701
2017-08-04 23:00:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Lena Dunham turning informant on politically incorrect airline employees
shows how the Left is training us to internalize the ethos of the police
state.

By Robert Tracinski

Lena Dunham had a delayed flight and was walking through the airport when
she overheard two American Airlines employees having an unapproved private
conversation about transgender children. So she did what you naturally do
when you are a well-known "liberal" who believes in free speech and
distrusts big corporations: she ratted them out to their employer on
Twitter:

@lenadunham
Not gonna call out the airline who delayed cuz shit
happens BUT I did just overhear 2 @AmericanAir
attendants having a transphobic talk.

What took this from being merely bullying and repressive to being creepy
and totalitarian in style is that Dunham didn't just make a general
complaint. She then posted what looks like direct messages or text messages
between her and the American Airlines account, in which she
enthusiastically provides detailed information about exactly where the
conversation took place.

https://twitter.com/lenadunham/status/893004544036286466/photo/1

Saying "I overheard a conversation" but giving no specifics might prompt
American Airlines to send out a general notice to its employees to watch
what they say while in the terminal-- which is a little unsettling in
itself. But giving specific information only has one purpose: to help the
airline locate, identify, and punish these specific employees for holding
politically incorrect views.

It's the hashtag #acrossfromthewinebar that sent chills down my spine.
Dunham is acting like an informant working for a totalitarian police
state-- but boastfully, in public, on social media. With a hashtag.

Undoubtedly, someone will point out that this isn't really totalitarianism
because these are all voluntary actions by private citizens and
organizations, not the government. Dunham isn't a paid stooge of the
police, but a citizen acting on her own initiative. American Airlines isn't
doing this because the government told them to, but because they're
terrified of bad press. (Which they are still going to get, but from the
other side.)

Yet somehow this makes it all worse, because it implies we are being
trained to internalize the ethos of the police state-- and to enact it
voluntarily, on our own initiative, without having to be coerced. We're
building a self-enforcing police state.

Recently, I warned that The New York Times is trying to rehabilitate
Communism. When the Left finally succeeds in resuscitating totalitarianism,
we will already know all about how to inform on our neighbors by way of
Twitter.

There are three substantial ways in which this incident shows how we are
preparing ourselves for totalitarianism. One of the hallmarks of
totalitarianism is that the officially approved truth was capricious and
unpredictable, and that was on purpose. They wanted the approved ideology
to change so quickly that there was no way to comply with it by sincere
personal conviction. The only way to comply with it was out of a habit of
obedience.

Now, let's apply that to the substance of the conversation Dunham was
reporting, which she reports to American Airlines in highly specific and
intellectual terms: "I heard 2 female attendants walking talking about how
trans kids are a trend they'd never accept a trans child and transness is
gross." The idea that "gender identity disorder", which has now been
renamed to the more politically correct "gender dysphoria", is not a mental
illness but instead a valid lifestyle to be encouraged and humored is
relatively recent, working its way into the mainstream in the past ten
years. The idea of transgender children-- of taking a child's normal
confusion about gender roles, encouraging it, magnifying it, and using it
as the basis for irreversible medical treatments-- would have been
considered a form of child abuse to most people until about last year. For
many of us, it still is.

But why wait for the process of changing mores and attitudes to work their
way through the culture and bring people around to your side? After all, if
you wait for people to be convinced, there's a chance that they won't be.
It's like what Stalin said about elections: the problem is that you don't
know ahead of time who's going to win. Intead, people have to immediately
update their views to be consistent with the Current Truth, subject to
change without notice.

Now let's look at Dunham's reaction. She hears two people saying something
she disagrees with, and it never occurs to her to talk to them directly, to
attempt to persuade them or to listen to their point of view and engage
with it. She might have changed someone's mind or least gotten to
understand the reasons for their views. But why wait for persuasion when
you can use fear? Why engage individuals directly, as if they are fellow
human beings with equal rights, when you can go over their heads and use
your fame and influence to pressure their employers?

While reading about this story, I was reminded of this scene from THE LIVES
OF OTHERS, based on life within the oppressive police state of East
Germany:



Apparently, the same rules apply now. Better watch what you say, or a
powerful person might ask for your employee number and your life will be
ruined.

Finally, consider the role of the employer. When the Czech dissident Vaclav
Havel formulated his ideas for how to resist Communist tyranny, he noted
the role of the small business or employer who agreed to enforce the rules
and post the propaganda of the regime out of fear and conformity. Well,
that's exactly what we're up against now.

If the proper response for Dunham was to converse with those flight
attendants directly (or maybe just to mind her own business), then the
proper response of American Airlines was to tell Dunham that it is not in
the business of policing the private conversations of its employees. But
that's another way we're being prepared for the police state. While the
Left blusters about how they don't want big corporations to tell us what we
can think, their actions say otherwise. They absolutely do want employers
to be responsible for the private views and political activity of their
employees-- so long as the views they are enforcing are politically
correct.

So all the elements are being put together. We have a dogma propagated from
the top down, a cadre of informants who are proud and eager to report their
fellow citizens, and private institutions that are cowed and co-opted,
ready to deprive dissidents of their livelihoods.

It's no mystery why, despite loud protestations that things will be
different this time, socialism always ends with the midnight knock on the
door. By the time government begins arresting people, the public will
already have the mentality needed to accept and cooperate with the police
state.

When we talk about and celebrate the fall of Communism, we frequently focus
on the positive role of "people power". When the oppressed people of
Eastern Europe chose to reject and resist Communism en masse, it collapsed
seemingly overnight. But we don't like to think too much about the flip
side of that coin. Totalitarian regimes came into existence, and maintained
their existence, not just because dissenters were killed or kept in a state
of terror, but also because the regimes enjoyed the active complicity of a
large segment of the population. East Germany's Stasi, after all, had a lot
of employees.

The recent exploits of Comrade Lena are a warning that the new police state
will have plenty of its own enthusiastic enforcers.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/04/lena-dunham-and-our-self-enforcing-police-state/
anim8rfsk
2017-08-05 01:04:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Lena Dunham turning informant on politically incorrect airline employees
shows how the Left is training us to internalize the ethos of the police
state.
By Robert Tracinski
Lena Dunham had a delayed flight and was walking through the airport when
she overheard two American Airlines employees having an unapproved private
conversation about transgender children. So she did what you naturally do
when you are a well-known "liberal" who believes in free speech and
distrusts big corporations: she ratted them out to their employer on
@lenadunham
Not gonna call out the airline who delayed cuz shit
attendants having a transphobic talk.
What took this from being merely bullying and repressive to being creepy
and totalitarian in style is that Dunham didn't just make a general
complaint. She then posted what looks like direct messages or text messages
between her and the American Airlines account, in which she
enthusiastically provides detailed information about exactly where the
conversation took place.
https://twitter.com/lenadunham/status/893004544036286466/photo/1
Saying "I overheard a conversation" but giving no specifics might prompt
American Airlines to send out a general notice to its employees to watch
what they say while in the terminal-- which is a little unsettling in
itself. But giving specific information only has one purpose: to help the
airline locate, identify, and punish these specific employees for holding
politically incorrect views.
It's the hashtag #acrossfromthewinebar that sent chills down my spine.
Dunham is acting like an informant working for a totalitarian police
state-- but boastfully, in public, on social media. With a hashtag.
Undoubtedly, someone will point out that this isn't really totalitarianism
because these are all voluntary actions by private citizens and
organizations, not the government. Dunham isn't a paid stooge of the
police, but a citizen acting on her own initiative. American Airlines isn't
doing this because the government told them to, but because they're
terrified of bad press. (Which they are still going to get, but from the
other side.)
Yet somehow this makes it all worse, because it implies we are being
trained to internalize the ethos of the police state-- and to enact it
voluntarily, on our own initiative, without having to be coerced. We're
building a self-enforcing police state.
Recently, I warned that The New York Times is trying to rehabilitate
Communism. When the Left finally succeeds in resuscitating totalitarianism,
we will already know all about how to inform on our neighbors by way of
Twitter.
There are three substantial ways in which this incident shows how we are
preparing ourselves for totalitarianism. One of the hallmarks of
totalitarianism is that the officially approved truth was capricious and
unpredictable, and that was on purpose. They wanted the approved ideology
to change so quickly that there was no way to comply with it by sincere
personal conviction. The only way to comply with it was out of a habit of
obedience.
Now, let's apply that to the substance of the conversation Dunham was
reporting, which she reports to American Airlines in highly specific and
intellectual terms: "I heard 2 female attendants walking talking about how
trans kids are a trend they'd never accept a trans child and transness is
gross." The idea that "gender identity disorder", which has now been
renamed to the more politically correct "gender dysphoria", is not a mental
illness but instead a valid lifestyle to be encouraged and humored is
relatively recent, working its way into the mainstream in the past ten
years. The idea of transgender children-- of taking a child's normal
confusion about gender roles, encouraging it, magnifying it, and using it
as the basis for irreversible medical treatments-- would have been
considered a form of child abuse to most people until about last year. For
many of us, it still is.
But why wait for the process of changing mores and attitudes to work their
way through the culture and bring people around to your side? After all, if
you wait for people to be convinced, there's a chance that they won't be.
It's like what Stalin said about elections: the problem is that you don't
know ahead of time who's going to win. Intead, people have to immediately
update their views to be consistent with the Current Truth, subject to
change without notice.
Now let's look at Dunham's reaction. She hears two people saying something
she disagrees with, and it never occurs to her to talk to them directly, to
attempt to persuade them or to listen to their point of view and engage
with it. She might have changed someone's mind or least gotten to
understand the reasons for their views. But why wait for persuasion when
you can use fear? Why engage individuals directly, as if they are fellow
human beings with equal rights, when you can go over their heads and use
your fame and influence to pressure their employers?
While reading about this story, I was reminded of this scene from THE LIVES
OF OTHERS, based on life within the oppressive police state of East
http://youtu.be/gHZJsMfukQY
Apparently, the same rules apply now. Better watch what you say, or a
powerful person might ask for your employee number and your life will be
ruined.
Finally, consider the role of the employer. When the Czech dissident Vaclav
Havel formulated his ideas for how to resist Communist tyranny, he noted
the role of the small business or employer who agreed to enforce the rules
and post the propaganda of the regime out of fear and conformity. Well,
that's exactly what we're up against now.
If the proper response for Dunham was to converse with those flight
attendants directly (or maybe just to mind her own business), then the
proper response of American Airlines was to tell Dunham that it is not in
the business of policing the private conversations of its employees. But
that's another way we're being prepared for the police state. While the
Left blusters about how they don't want big corporations to tell us what we
can think, their actions say otherwise. They absolutely do want employers
to be responsible for the private views and political activity of their
employees-- so long as the views they are enforcing are politically
correct.
So all the elements are being put together. We have a dogma propagated from
the top down, a cadre of informants who are proud and eager to report their
fellow citizens, and private institutions that are cowed and co-opted,
ready to deprive dissidents of their livelihoods.
It's no mystery why, despite loud protestations that things will be
different this time, socialism always ends with the midnight knock on the
door. By the time government begins arresting people, the public will
already have the mentality needed to accept and cooperate with the police
state.
When we talk about and celebrate the fall of Communism, we frequently focus
on the positive role of "people power". When the oppressed people of
Eastern Europe chose to reject and resist Communism en masse, it collapsed
seemingly overnight. But we don't like to think too much about the flip
side of that coin. Totalitarian regimes came into existence, and maintained
their existence, not just because dissenters were killed or kept in a state
of terror, but also because the regimes enjoyed the active complicity of a
large segment of the population. East Germany's Stasi, after all, had a lot
of employees.
The recent exploits of Comrade Lena are a warning that the new police state
will have plenty of its own enthusiastic enforcers.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/04/lena-dunham-and-our-self-enforcing-police-
state/
The important part of the story is that she was lying from the start.
Her flight was on Delta, which uses a different terminal than she
claimed to be in.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Ubiquitous
2017-08-05 12:48:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
The important part of the story is that she was lying from the start.
Her flight was on Delta, which uses a different terminal than she
claimed to be in.
This dumb cunt seems to have a long history of lying, in addition to being
totally mental.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
m***@hotmail.com
2017-08-05 16:20:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by anim8rfsk
The important part of the story is that she was lying from the start.
Her flight was on Delta, which uses a different terminal than she
claimed to be in.
This dumb cunt seems to have a long history of lying, in addition to being
totally mental.
No. That's just how you are all the time. Meanwhile, she brings home actual bread.
Ubiquitous
2017-08-06 01:42:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by anim8rfsk
The important part of the story is that she was lying from the start.
Her flight was on Delta, which uses a different terminal than she
claimed to be in.
This dumb cunt seems to have a long history of lying, in addition to
being totally mental.
No. That's just how you are all the time. Meanwhile, she brings home actual bread.
... and another sockpuppet exposes himself!
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Rhino
2017-08-05 02:06:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Lena Dunham turning informant on politically incorrect airline employees
shows how the Left is training us to internalize the ethos of the police
state.
By Robert Tracinski
Lena Dunham had a delayed flight and was walking through the airport when
she overheard two American Airlines employees having an unapproved private
conversation about transgender children. So she did what you naturally do
when you are a well-known "liberal" who believes in free speech and
distrusts big corporations: she ratted them out to their employer on
@lenadunham
Not gonna call out the airline who delayed cuz shit
attendants having a transphobic talk.
What took this from being merely bullying and repressive to being creepy
and totalitarian in style is that Dunham didn't just make a general
complaint. She then posted what looks like direct messages or text messages
between her and the American Airlines account, in which she
enthusiastically provides detailed information about exactly where the
conversation took place.
https://twitter.com/lenadunham/status/893004544036286466/photo/1
Saying "I overheard a conversation" but giving no specifics might prompt
American Airlines to send out a general notice to its employees to watch
what they say while in the terminal-- which is a little unsettling in
itself. But giving specific information only has one purpose: to help the
airline locate, identify, and punish these specific employees for holding
politically incorrect views.
It's the hashtag #acrossfromthewinebar that sent chills down my spine.
Dunham is acting like an informant working for a totalitarian police
state-- but boastfully, in public, on social media. With a hashtag.
Undoubtedly, someone will point out that this isn't really totalitarianism
because these are all voluntary actions by private citizens and
organizations, not the government. Dunham isn't a paid stooge of the
police, but a citizen acting on her own initiative. American Airlines isn't
doing this because the government told them to, but because they're
terrified of bad press. (Which they are still going to get, but from the
other side.)
Yet somehow this makes it all worse, because it implies we are being
trained to internalize the ethos of the police state-- and to enact it
voluntarily, on our own initiative, without having to be coerced. We're
building a self-enforcing police state.
Recently, I warned that The New York Times is trying to rehabilitate
Communism. When the Left finally succeeds in resuscitating totalitarianism,
we will already know all about how to inform on our neighbors by way of
Twitter.
There are three substantial ways in which this incident shows how we are
preparing ourselves for totalitarianism. One of the hallmarks of
totalitarianism is that the officially approved truth was capricious and
unpredictable, and that was on purpose. They wanted the approved ideology
to change so quickly that there was no way to comply with it by sincere
personal conviction. The only way to comply with it was out of a habit of
obedience.
Now, let's apply that to the substance of the conversation Dunham was
reporting, which she reports to American Airlines in highly specific and
intellectual terms: "I heard 2 female attendants walking talking about how
trans kids are a trend they'd never accept a trans child and transness is
gross." The idea that "gender identity disorder", which has now been
renamed to the more politically correct "gender dysphoria", is not a mental
illness but instead a valid lifestyle to be encouraged and humored is
relatively recent, working its way into the mainstream in the past ten
years. The idea of transgender children-- of taking a child's normal
confusion about gender roles, encouraging it, magnifying it, and using it
as the basis for irreversible medical treatments-- would have been
considered a form of child abuse to most people until about last year. For
many of us, it still is.
But why wait for the process of changing mores and attitudes to work their
way through the culture and bring people around to your side? After all, if
you wait for people to be convinced, there's a chance that they won't be.
It's like what Stalin said about elections: the problem is that you don't
know ahead of time who's going to win.
I've read quite a few books about Stalin and I don't recall any such
thing ever being cited. I *do* recall a frequently cited remark that
said it doesn't matter how people vote so much as who counts the votes
which is, arguably, the opposite: it says people can vote however they
like as long as The Party reports the desired result. (It would seem
Maduro has done that in Venezuela with the recent vote for the
Constituent Assembly by exaggerating voter turnout very dramatically.)
Post by BTR1701
Intead, people have to immediately
update their views to be consistent with the Current Truth, subject to
change without notice.
Yes, that *is* a reality of totalitarian regimes.
Post by BTR1701
Now let's look at Dunham's reaction. She hears two people saying something
she disagrees with, and it never occurs to her to talk to them directly, to
attempt to persuade them or to listen to their point of view and engage
with it. She might have changed someone's mind or least gotten to
understand the reasons for their views. But why wait for persuasion when
you can use fear? Why engage individuals directly, as if they are fellow
human beings with equal rights, when you can go over their heads and use
your fame and influence to pressure their employers?
While reading about this story, I was reminded of this scene from THE LIVES
OF OTHERS, based on life within the oppressive police state of East
http://youtu.be/gHZJsMfukQY
Apparently, the same rules apply now. Better watch what you say, or a
powerful person might ask for your employee number and your life will be
ruined.
Everyone who lived in Communist countries learned that rule early on.
Mind you, it wasn't only Communist countries that had these repressive
techniques to keep you in line. When WW II was coming to an end, the
Nazi government burned a LOT of paper and files to keep from revealing
all of their crimes. But, due to the spotty communications as a result
of the war, some offices didn't get the memo to destroy their files and
so some survived. An analysis of the files that didn't get destroyed
revealed that the large majority of those who were arrested by the
Gestapo, the Nazi secret police (GESTAPO is actually an acronym for
Secret State Police), were *not* arrested through the clever detective
work of Gestapo agents. In fact, roughly 90% of those who were arrested
by the Gestapo had been turned in by their own neighbours. For instance,
if your neighbours heard you listening to the BBC - which was against
the law - they would typically rat you out to the Gestapo.

But this was also *extremely* widespread in Communist countries too. A
great many people who wound up in the Gulag did so because a neighbour
ratted them out to the secret police.
Post by BTR1701
Finally, consider the role of the employer. When the Czech dissident Vaclav
Havel formulated his ideas for how to resist Communist tyranny, he noted
the role of the small business or employer who agreed to enforce the rules
and post the propaganda of the regime out of fear and conformity. Well,
that's exactly what we're up against now.
It should be remembered that small businesses were few and far between
in Communist countries; most businesses had been nationalized with the
arrival of Communism. After all, businesses were the epitome of
capitalism which communists considered the arch-enemy of all that was
good in the world.
Post by BTR1701
If the proper response for Dunham was to converse with those flight
attendants directly (or maybe just to mind her own business), then the
proper response of American Airlines was to tell Dunham that it is not in
the business of policing the private conversations of its employees. But
that's another way we're being prepared for the police state. While the
Left blusters about how they don't want big corporations to tell us what we
can think, their actions say otherwise. They absolutely do want employers
to be responsible for the private views and political activity of their
employees-- so long as the views they are enforcing are politically
correct.
So all the elements are being put together. We have a dogma propagated from
the top down, a cadre of informants who are proud and eager to report their
fellow citizens, and private institutions that are cowed and co-opted,
ready to deprive dissidents of their livelihoods.
It's no mystery why, despite loud protestations that things will be
different this time, socialism always ends with the midnight knock on the
door. By the time government begins arresting people, the public will
already have the mentality needed to accept and cooperate with the police
state.
When we talk about and celebrate the fall of Communism, we frequently focus
on the positive role of "people power". When the oppressed people of
Eastern Europe chose to reject and resist Communism en masse, it collapsed
seemingly overnight. But we don't like to think too much about the flip
side of that coin. Totalitarian regimes came into existence, and maintained
their existence, not just because dissenters were killed or kept in a state
of terror, but also because the regimes enjoyed the active complicity of a
large segment of the population. East Germany's Stasi, after all, had a lot
of employees.
When the Stasi files of East Germans were opened after the Wall came
down, a great many divorces resulted. It turned out that most of the
people that had gotten in trouble with the regime had been informed upon
by their own spouses.

A Soviet writer, hearing about claims that Soviet citizens were not able
to speak freely in the Soviet Union, hotly protested in public that a
Soviet citizen could say absolutely anything he liked - as long as it
was to his spouse and it was said in a whisper, at night, under the bed
covers. It seems the East Germans took it one step further and turned
spouses into spies against their wives or husbands.

And of course the children were the worst of them all. *They* were
carefully brainwashed in school to report *anything* untoward that they
saw, including any unseemly remarks or actions by their parents. George
Orwell gives us an example of these young monsters, who are called Spies
in 1984. I have no doubt whatever that he modelled these children on
what he knew of the Pioneers, the childrens' Communist Movement in the
Soviet Union.
Post by BTR1701
The recent exploits of Comrade Lena are a warning that the new police state
will have plenty of its own enthusiastic enforcers.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/04/lena-dunham-and-our-self-enforcing-police-state/
--
Rhino
Ubiquitous
2017-08-05 01:01:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Lena Dunham turning informant on politically incorrect airline employees
shows how the Left is training us to internalize the ethos of the police
state.
By Robert Tracinski
Lena Dunham had a delayed flight and was walking through the airport when
she overheard two American Airlines employees having an unapproved private
conversation about transgender children.
As it turns out, the dumb cunt was lieing -- again.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-08-05 05:14:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by BTR1701
Lena Dunham turning informant on politically incorrect airline employees
shows how the Left is training us to internalize the ethos of the police
state.
By Robert Tracinski
Lena Dunham had a delayed flight and was walking through the airport when
she overheard two American Airlines employees having an unapproved private
conversation about transgender children.
As it turns out, the dumb cunt was lieing -- again.
1) Spell.

2) Checker.

3) They're free.
--
"After leaving office, Bill Clinton started a Foundation that helped
over 400,000,000 people. George Bush painted pictures of his dog."
-Richard Hine
Ubiquitous
2017-08-05 12:48:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by BTR1701
Lena Dunham turning informant on politically incorrect airline employees
shows how the Left is training us to internalize the ethos of the police
state.
By Robert Tracinski
Lena Dunham had a delayed flight and was walking through the airport when
she overheard two American Airlines employees having an unapproved private
conversation about transgender children.
As it turns out, the dumb cunt was lieing -- again.
1) Spell.
2) Checker.
3) They're free.
Still butthurt about the last debate you lost to me, eh?
Do work on not being such a sore looser, mkay?

"Spelling" "flame" noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-08-05 12:02:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by BTR1701
Lena Dunham turning informant on politically incorrect airline employees
shows how the Left is training us to internalize the ethos of the police
state.
By Robert Tracinski
Lena Dunham had a delayed flight and was walking through the airport when
she overheard two American Airlines employees having an unapproved private
conversation about transgender children.
As it turns out, the dumb cunt was lieing -- again.
1) Spell.
2) Checker.
3) They're free.
Still butthurt about the last debate you lost to me, eh?
Lose a debate to you? How would one do that?
You only cut and paste the same responses over and over again.

What are there... about 12 total?
--
"After leaving office, Bill Clinton started a Foundation that helped
over 400,000,000 people. George Bush painted pictures of his dog."
-Richard Hine
Ubiquitous
2017-08-05 12:03:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
As it turns out, the dumb cunt was lieing -- again.
1) Spell.
2) Checker.
3) They're free.
Still butthurt about the last debate you lost to me, eh?
Lose a debate to you? How would one do that?
You only cut and paste the same responses over and over again.
What are there... about 12 total?
In other words, yes, you are butthurt about losing all those debates with me.
It's hardly my fault I am so easily able to concisely summarize how you loose
debates in this newsfroup.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-08-05 22:42:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
As it turns out, the dumb cunt was lieing -- again.
1) Spell.
2) Checker.
3) They're free.
Still butthurt about the last debate you lost to me, eh?
Lose a debate to you? How would one do that?
You only cut and paste the same responses over and over again.
What are there... about 12 total?
In other words, yes, you are butthurt about losing all those debates with me.
It's hardly my fault I am so easily able to concisely summarize how you loose
debates in this newsfroup.
Yea, I constantly hear how you "win" every debate.
Care to point to one?
--
"After leaving office, Bill Clinton started a Foundation that helped
over 400,000,000 people. George Bush painted pictures of his dog."
-Richard Hine
Barry Margolin
2017-08-05 06:21:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Lena Dunham turning informant on politically incorrect airline employees
shows how the Left is training us to internalize the ethos of the police
state.
By Robert Tracinski
Lena Dunham had a delayed flight and was walking through the airport when
she overheard two American Airlines employees having an unapproved private
conversation about transgender children. So she did what you naturally do
when you are a well-known "liberal" who believes in free speech and
distrusts big corporations: she ratted them out to their employer on
Everyone who wears a uniform knows that when you're in uniform in
public, you're considered a representative of the company/organization,
and anything you do reflects on them.

Do something good, and the press will herald "Quick-thinking American
Airlines flight attendant saves man with Heimlich Maneuver". Do
something inappropriate, and it's "Homophobic American Airlines flight
attendant disses gay man."
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
RichA
2017-08-05 06:46:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Read about Cambodia in the 1970's and China in the 1950's. Pretty clear parallels between social policy there and this woman's conduct.
moviePig
2017-08-05 14:14:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Lena Dunham turning informant on politically incorrect airline employees
shows how the Left is training us to internalize the ethos of the police
state.
By Robert Tracinski
Lena Dunham had a delayed flight and was walking through the airport when
she overheard two American Airlines employees having an unapproved private
conversation about transgender children. So she did what you naturally do
when you are a well-known "liberal" who believes in free speech and
distrusts big corporations: she ratted them out to their employer on
@lenadunham
Not gonna call out the airline who delayed cuz shit
attendants having a transphobic talk.
What took this from being merely bullying and repressive to being creepy
and totalitarian in style is that Dunham didn't just make a general
complaint. She then posted what looks like direct messages or text messages
between her and the American Airlines account, in which she
enthusiastically provides detailed information about exactly where the
conversation took place.
https://twitter.com/lenadunham/status/893004544036286466/photo/1
Saying "I overheard a conversation" but giving no specifics might prompt
American Airlines to send out a general notice to its employees to watch
what they say while in the terminal-- which is a little unsettling in
itself. But giving specific information only has one purpose: to help the
airline locate, identify, and punish these specific employees for holding
politically incorrect views.
It's the hashtag #acrossfromthewinebar that sent chills down my spine.
Dunham is acting like an informant working for a totalitarian police
state-- but boastfully, in public, on social media. With a hashtag.
Undoubtedly, someone will point out that this isn't really totalitarianism
because these are all voluntary actions by private citizens and
organizations, not the government. Dunham isn't a paid stooge of the
police, but a citizen acting on her own initiative. American Airlines isn't
doing this because the government told them to, but because they're
terrified of bad press. (Which they are still going to get, but from the
other side.)
Yet somehow this makes it all worse, because it implies we are being
trained to internalize the ethos of the police state-- and to enact it
voluntarily, on our own initiative, without having to be coerced. We're
building a self-enforcing police state.
Recently, I warned that The New York Times is trying to rehabilitate
Communism. When the Left finally succeeds in resuscitating totalitarianism,
we will already know all about how to inform on our neighbors by way of
Twitter.
There are three substantial ways in which this incident shows how we are
preparing ourselves for totalitarianism. One of the hallmarks of
totalitarianism is that the officially approved truth was capricious and
unpredictable, and that was on purpose. They wanted the approved ideology
to change so quickly that there was no way to comply with it by sincere
personal conviction. The only way to comply with it was out of a habit of
obedience.
Now, let's apply that to the substance of the conversation Dunham was
reporting, which she reports to American Airlines in highly specific and
intellectual terms: "I heard 2 female attendants walking talking about how
trans kids are a trend they'd never accept a trans child and transness is
gross." The idea that "gender identity disorder", which has now been
renamed to the more politically correct "gender dysphoria", is not a mental
illness but instead a valid lifestyle to be encouraged and humored is
relatively recent, working its way into the mainstream in the past ten
years. The idea of transgender children-- of taking a child's normal
confusion about gender roles, encouraging it, magnifying it, and using it
as the basis for irreversible medical treatments-- would have been
considered a form of child abuse to most people until about last year. For
many of us, it still is.
But why wait for the process of changing mores and attitudes to work their
way through the culture and bring people around to your side? After all, if
you wait for people to be convinced, there's a chance that they won't be.
It's like what Stalin said about elections: the problem is that you don't
know ahead of time who's going to win. Intead, people have to immediately
update their views to be consistent with the Current Truth, subject to
change without notice.
Now let's look at Dunham's reaction. She hears two people saying something
she disagrees with, and it never occurs to her to talk to them directly, to
attempt to persuade them or to listen to their point of view and engage
with it. She might have changed someone's mind or least gotten to
understand the reasons for their views. But why wait for persuasion when
you can use fear? Why engage individuals directly, as if they are fellow
human beings with equal rights, when you can go over their heads and use
your fame and influence to pressure their employers?
While reading about this story, I was reminded of this scene from THE LIVES
OF OTHERS, based on life within the oppressive police state of East
http://youtu.be/gHZJsMfukQY
Apparently, the same rules apply now. Better watch what you say, or a
powerful person might ask for your employee number and your life will be
ruined.
Finally, consider the role of the employer. When the Czech dissident Vaclav
Havel formulated his ideas for how to resist Communist tyranny, he noted
the role of the small business or employer who agreed to enforce the rules
and post the propaganda of the regime out of fear and conformity. Well,
that's exactly what we're up against now.
If the proper response for Dunham was to converse with those flight
attendants directly (or maybe just to mind her own business), then the
proper response of American Airlines was to tell Dunham that it is not in
the business of policing the private conversations of its employees. But
that's another way we're being prepared for the police state. While the
Left blusters about how they don't want big corporations to tell us what we
can think, their actions say otherwise. They absolutely do want employers
to be responsible for the private views and political activity of their
employees-- so long as the views they are enforcing are politically
correct.
So all the elements are being put together. We have a dogma propagated from
the top down, a cadre of informants who are proud and eager to report their
fellow citizens, and private institutions that are cowed and co-opted,
ready to deprive dissidents of their livelihoods.
It's no mystery why, despite loud protestations that things will be
different this time, socialism always ends with the midnight knock on the
door. By the time government begins arresting people, the public will
already have the mentality needed to accept and cooperate with the police
state.
When we talk about and celebrate the fall of Communism, we frequently focus
on the positive role of "people power". When the oppressed people of
Eastern Europe chose to reject and resist Communism en masse, it collapsed
seemingly overnight. But we don't like to think too much about the flip
side of that coin. Totalitarian regimes came into existence, and maintained
their existence, not just because dissenters were killed or kept in a state
of terror, but also because the regimes enjoyed the active complicity of a
large segment of the population. East Germany's Stasi, after all, had a lot
of employees.
The recent exploits of Comrade Lena are a warning that the new police state
will have plenty of its own enthusiastic enforcers.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/04/lena-dunham-and-our-self-enforcing-police-state/
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less to
punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon discovering
them.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
BTR1701
2017-08-05 16:54:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less to
punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon discovering
them.
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping to
track them down.
moviePig
2017-08-05 17:21:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less to
punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon discovering
them.
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping to
track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
But, looking down the Twitter stream, I don't see where she picked those
two employees out of a lineup, though that may well have been American's
pointless and corporately typical intent.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Ubiquitous
2017-08-05 18:44:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less to
punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon discovering
them.
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping to
track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
But, looking down the Twitter stream
My condolences.

I hope you weren't too traumatized by her stupity.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
moviePig
2017-08-05 18:25:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less to
punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon discovering
them.
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping to
track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
But, looking down the Twitter stream
My condolences.
I hope you weren't too traumatized by her stupity.
No, though I did run the risk of becoming informed...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Ubiquitous
2017-08-05 21:20:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less to
punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon discovering
them.
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping
to track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
But, looking down the Twitter stream
My condolences.
I hope you weren't too traumatized by her stupity.
No, though I did run the risk of becoming informed...
So you now know if animals experience menopause?
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Adam H. Kerman
2017-08-05 20:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less to
punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon discovering
them.
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping to
track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
But, looking down the Twitter stream
My condolences.
I hope you weren't too traumatized by her stupity.
No, though I did run the risk of becoming informed...
That's never a risk you would face, moviePig.
FPP
2017-08-05 22:45:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less to
punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon discovering
them.
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping to
track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
But, looking down the Twitter stream
My condolences.
I hope you weren't too traumatized by her stupity.
Your posts generally act like an immunization.
It takes a new level of stupid to spell "stupidity" wrong.

What's the matter? Your "CTRL-V" keys stuck?
--
"After leaving office, Bill Clinton started a Foundation that helped
over 400,000,000 people. George Bush painted pictures of his dog."
-Richard Hine
Ubiquitous
2017-08-06 01:45:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less
to punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon
discovering them.
She could easily have done that without contacting American and
helping to track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
But, looking down the Twitter stream
My condolences.
I hope you weren't too traumatized by her stupity.
Your posts generally act like an immunization.
It takes a new level of stupid to spell "stupidity" wrong.
What's the matter? Your "CTRL-V" keys stuck?
No, just enjoying yanking your chain so easily.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Ed Stasiak
2017-08-05 23:53:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
BTR1701
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping
to track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
Who the fuck is she and American Airlines to impose "enlightenment" on anyone?
trotsky
2017-08-06 10:07:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
BTR1701
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping
to track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
Who the fuck is she and American Airlines to impose "enlightenment" on anyone?
Is "not a Stasiak" the correct answer?
moviePig
2017-08-06 13:40:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
BTR1701
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping
to track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
Who the fuck is she and American Airlines to impose "enlightenment" on anyone?
Not everyone considers enlightenment an imposition. In this instance,
it might be called 'sensitivity training'. Besides, what do you suppose
the political posts here comprise if not attempts to enlighten?
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-06 14:16:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping
to track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
Who the fuck is she and American Airlines to impose "enlightenment" on anyone?
Not everyone considers enlightenment an imposition.
Some do, because they may detect patronage.
Post by moviePig
In this instance, it might be called 'sensitivity training'. Besides,
what do you suppose the political posts here comprise if not attempts
to enlighten?
What's political, though? Some posters here may have any number of other goals in mind.
moviePig
2017-08-06 15:16:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping
to track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
Who the fuck is she and American Airlines to impose "enlightenment" on anyone?
Not everyone considers enlightenment an imposition.
Some do, because they may detect patronage.
Post by moviePig
In this instance, it might be called 'sensitivity training'. Besides,
what do you suppose the political posts here comprise if not attempts
to enlighten?
What's political, though? Some posters here may have any number of other goals in mind.
Your killfile is for when those goals drown out the enlightenment.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Ed Stasiak
2017-08-06 20:10:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
Who the fuck is she and American Airlines to impose "enlightenment" on anyone?
Not everyone considers enlightenment an imposition.  In this instance,
it might be called 'sensitivity training'.  Besides, what do you suppose
the political posts here comprise if not attempts to enlighten?
We’re here together voluntarily for the express purpose of having our
speech heard by others.

Or do you agree with FPP above, that even on-line and on our own time,
we’re nothing more than slaves of our corporate masters and their brand
name?
moviePig
2017-08-06 21:21:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
Who the fuck is she and American Airlines to impose "enlightenment" on anyone?
Not everyone considers enlightenment an imposition. In this instance,
it might be called 'sensitivity training'. Besides, what do you suppose
the political posts here comprise if not attempts to enlighten?
We’re here together voluntarily for the express purpose of having our
speech heard by others.
Yes, and the preferred outcome is that enlightenment will ensue, in one
or both directions. (Isn't it?)
Post by Ed Stasiak
Or do you agree with FPP above, that even on-line and on our own time,
we’re nothing more than slaves of our corporate masters and their brand
name?
I think some responsibility accompanies the wearing of most uniforms,
yeah. I don't know if or how reasonably the employees thought they
couldn't be overheard, but I do think it unlikely Dunham was snooping.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Ed Stasiak
2017-08-06 22:20:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
We’re here together voluntarily for the express purpose of having our
speech heard by others.
Yes, and the preferred outcome is that enlightenment will ensue, in one
or both directions.  (Isn't it?)
Sure, but it doesn’t apply to two people having a private conversation at lunch.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Or do you agree with FPP above, that even on-line and on our own time,
we’re nothing more than slaves of our corporate masters and their brand
name?
I think some responsibility accompanies the wearing of most uniforms, yeah.
If they’re actively presenting themselves as employees as part of their speech
then it does but otherwise, no.
FPP
2017-08-06 23:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
We’re here together voluntarily for the express purpose of having our
speech heard by others.
Yes, and the preferred outcome is that enlightenment will ensue, in one
or both directions. (Isn't it?)
Sure, but it doesn’t apply to two people having a private conversation at lunch.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Or do you agree with FPP above, that even on-line and on our own time,
we’re nothing more than slaves of our corporate masters and their brand
name?
I think some responsibility accompanies the wearing of most uniforms, yeah.
If they’re actively presenting themselves as employees as part of their speech
then it does but otherwise, no.
Wearing an identifiable uniform provided by the company = representing
the company - whether or not they're actively working.
--
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the
Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps
themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
moviePig
2017-08-07 14:28:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
We’re here together voluntarily for the express purpose of having our
speech heard by others.
Yes, and the preferred outcome is that enlightenment will ensue, in one
or both directions. (Isn't it?)
Sure, but it doesn’t apply to two people having a private conversation at lunch.
A 'private conversation' is one that can be overheard only by someone
with a prior intent to eavesdrop. That defense applies here only if you
think Dunham was somehow stalking them, which I think improbable.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Or do you agree with FPP above, that even on-line and on our own time,
we’re nothing more than slaves of our corporate masters and their brand
name?
I think some responsibility accompanies the wearing of most uniforms, yeah.
If they’re actively presenting themselves as employees as part of their speech
then it does but otherwise, no.
You're asking the bystander to read the minds of the uniformed
individuals, or to somehow know whether they're "off duty". But that's
not even the issue here, as even Dunham must have realized the offending
opinions were clearly personal rather than corporate. She's using the
uniforms merely for the leverage afforded by typical corporate
over-response. I.e., she's pushing her message via a pretty standard
tactic. As it happens, I mostly agree with her message, so I don't find
the tactic all that dishonorable. Ymmv...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Ubiquitous
2017-08-07 15:01:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
We're here together voluntarily for the express purpose of having our
speech heard by others.
Yes, and the preferred outcome is that enlightenment will ensue, in one
or both directions. (Isn't it?)
Sure, but it doesn’t apply to two people having a private conversation
at lunch.
A 'private conversation' is one that can be overheard only by someone
with a prior intent to eavesdrop. That defense applies here only if you
think Dunham was somehow stalking them, which I think improbable.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Or do you agree with FPP above, that even on-line and on our own time,
we’re nothing more than slaves of our corporate masters and their brand
name?
I think some responsibility accompanies the wearing of most uniforms, yeah.
If they're actively presenting themselves as employees as part of their
speech then it does but otherwise, no.
You're asking the bystander to read the minds of the uniformed
individuals, or to somehow know whether they're "off duty". But that's
not even the issue here, as even Dunham must have realized the offending
opinions were clearly personal rather than corporate. She's using the
uniforms merely for the leverage afforded by typical corporate
over-response. I.e., she's pushing her message via a pretty standard
tactic. As it happens, I mostly agree with her message, so I don't find
the tactic all that dishonorable. Ymmv...
So you're OK with her claim being a lie?
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
moviePig
2017-08-07 15:06:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
We're here together voluntarily for the express purpose of having our
speech heard by others.
Yes, and the preferred outcome is that enlightenment will ensue, in one
or both directions. (Isn't it?)
Sure, but it doesn’t apply to two people having a private conversation
at lunch.
A 'private conversation' is one that can be overheard only by someone
with a prior intent to eavesdrop. That defense applies here only if you
think Dunham was somehow stalking them, which I think improbable.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Or do you agree with FPP above, that even on-line and on our own time,
we’re nothing more than slaves of our corporate masters and their brand
name?
I think some responsibility accompanies the wearing of most uniforms, yeah.
If they're actively presenting themselves as employees as part of their
speech then it does but otherwise, no.
You're asking the bystander to read the minds of the uniformed
individuals, or to somehow know whether they're "off duty". But that's
not even the issue here, as even Dunham must have realized the offending
opinions were clearly personal rather than corporate. She's using the
uniforms merely for the leverage afforded by typical corporate
over-response. I.e., she's pushing her message via a pretty standard
tactic. As it happens, I mostly agree with her message, so I don't find
the tactic all that dishonorable. Ymmv...
So you're OK with her claim being a lie?
What's the lie?
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Adam H. Kerman
2017-08-07 15:12:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
We're here together voluntarily for the express purpose of having our
speech heard by others.
Yes, and the preferred outcome is that enlightenment will ensue, in one
or both directions. (Isn't it?)
Sure, but it doesn't apply to two people having a private conversation
at lunch.
A 'private conversation' is one that can be overheard only by someone
with a prior intent to eavesdrop. That defense applies here only if you
think Dunham was somehow stalking them, which I think improbable.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Or do you agree with FPP above, that even on-line and on our own time,
we're nothing more than slaves of our corporate masters and their brand
name?
I think some responsibility accompanies the wearing of most uniforms, yeah.
If they're actively presenting themselves as employees as part of their
speech then it does but otherwise, no.
You're asking the bystander to read the minds of the uniformed
individuals, or to somehow know whether they're "off duty". But that's
not even the issue here, as even Dunham must have realized the offending
opinions were clearly personal rather than corporate. She's using the
uniforms merely for the leverage afforded by typical corporate
over-response. I.e., she's pushing her message via a pretty standard
tactic. As it happens, I mostly agree with her message, so I don't find
the tactic all that dishonorable. Ymmv...
So you're OK with her claim being a lie?
What's the lie?
It's been stated multiple times in this very thread that she claimed
that she overheard the discussion between stewardesses who worked for one
airline in another airline's terminal, so if the discussion actually took
place, she reported it to the wrong airline, you blithering idiot.
BTR1701
2017-08-07 16:06:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Ubiquitous
So you're OK with her claim being a lie?
What's the lie?
It's been stated multiple times in this very thread that she claimed
that she overheard the discussion between stewardesses who worked for one
airline in another airline's terminal, so if the discussion actually took
place, she reported it to the wrong airline, you blithering idiot.
From now on Lena Dunham should only be allowed to travel via trebuchet.
moviePig
2017-08-07 16:24:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Ubiquitous
So you're OK with her claim being a lie?
What's the lie?
It's been stated multiple times in this very thread that she claimed
that she overheard the discussion between stewardesses who worked for one
airline in another airline's terminal, so if the discussion actually took
place, she reported it to the wrong airline, you blithering idiot.
From now on Lena Dunham should only be allowed to travel via trebuchet.
Point her at the right castles and she'd probably accept.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Jim G.
2017-08-07 17:20:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Ubiquitous
So you're OK with her claim being a lie?
What's the lie?
It's been stated multiple times in this very thread that she claimed
that she overheard the discussion between stewardesses who worked for one
airline in another airline's terminal, so if the discussion actually took
place, she reported it to the wrong airline, you blithering idiot.
From now on Lena Dunham should only be allowed to travel via trebuchet.
She should only be allowed on flights piloted by someone who has as many
mental issues as she does. "Roger, tower, ascending to flight level 33"
while actually descending to FL 25, for example. Or "Attention,
passengers, I'm feeling particularly low and bad about myself today. Off
to your left, you'll see the Rocky Mountains, which are looking
particularly tempting to me today..."
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“It smells like bad beer and worse choices. I'll make it work.” – Rosita
Bustillos, WYNONNA EARP
Ubiquitous
2017-08-07 16:27:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Ubiquitous
So you're OK with her claim being a lie?
What's the lie?
It's been stated multiple times in this very thread that she claimed
that she overheard the discussion between stewardesses who worked for one
airline in another airline's terminal, so if the discussion actually took
place, she reported it to the wrong airline, you blithering idiot.
From now on Lena Dunham should only be allowed to travel via trebuchet.
Where have I heard that before?
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Ubiquitous
2017-08-07 16:26:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
Or do you agree with FPP above, that even on-line and on our own time,
we're nothing more than slaves of our corporate masters and their brand
name?
I think some responsibility accompanies the wearing of most uniforms, yeah.
If they're actively presenting themselves as employees as part of their
speech then it does but otherwise, no.
You're asking the bystander to read the minds of the uniformed
individuals, or to somehow know whether they're "off duty". But that's
not even the issue here, as even Dunham must have realized the offending
opinions were clearly personal rather than corporate. She's using the
uniforms merely for the leverage afforded by typical corporate
over-response. I.e., she's pushing her message via a pretty standard
tactic. As it happens, I mostly agree with her message, so I don't find
the tactic all that dishonorable. Ymmv...
So you're OK with her claim being a lie?
What's the lie?
It's been stated multiple times in this very thread that she claimed
that she overheard the discussion between stewardesses who worked for one
airline in another airline's terminal, so if the discussion actually took
place, she reported it to the wrong airline, you blithering idiot.
You are being far too generous with your description.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
moviePig
2017-08-07 18:48:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
Or do you agree with FPP above, that even on-line and on our own time,
we're nothing more than slaves of our corporate masters and their brand
name?
I think some responsibility accompanies the wearing of most uniforms, yeah.
If they're actively presenting themselves as employees as part of their
speech then it does but otherwise, no.
You're asking the bystander to read the minds of the uniformed
individuals, or to somehow know whether they're "off duty". But that's
not even the issue here, as even Dunham must have realized the offending
opinions were clearly personal rather than corporate. She's using the
uniforms merely for the leverage afforded by typical corporate
over-response. I.e., she's pushing her message via a pretty standard
tactic. As it happens, I mostly agree with her message, so I don't find
the tactic all that dishonorable. Ymmv...
So you're OK with her claim being a lie?
What's the lie?
It's been stated multiple times in this very thread that she claimed
that she overheard the discussion between stewardesses who worked for one
airline in another airline's terminal, so if the discussion actually took
place, she reported it to the wrong airline, you blithering idiot.
You are being far too generous with your description.
Ummm, yeah, so where's the lie again?
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Ubiquitous
2017-08-07 16:23:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
Or do you agree with FPP above, that even on-line and on our own time,
we're nothing more than slaves of our corporate masters and their brand
name?
I think some responsibility accompanies the wearing of most uniforms, yeah.
If they're actively presenting themselves as employees as part of their
speech then it does but otherwise, no.
You're asking the bystander to read the minds of the uniformed
individuals, or to somehow know whether they're "off duty". But that's
not even the issue here, as even Dunham must have realized the offending
opinions were clearly personal rather than corporate. She's using the
uniforms merely for the leverage afforded by typical corporate
over-response. I.e., she's pushing her message via a pretty standard
tactic. As it happens, I mostly agree with her message, so I don't find
the tactic all that dishonorable. Ymmv...
So you're OK with her claim being a lie?
What's the lie?
Seriously?
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
FPP
2017-08-06 22:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
Who the fuck is she and American Airlines to impose "enlightenment" on anyone?
Not everyone considers enlightenment an imposition. In this instance,
it might be called 'sensitivity training'. Besides, what do you suppose
the political posts here comprise if not attempts to enlighten?
We’re here together voluntarily for the express purpose of having our
speech heard by others.
Or do you agree with FPP above, that even on-line and on our own time,
we’re nothing more than slaves of our corporate masters and their brand
name?
If you're wearing the name, of logo of your company, you're representing
that company - and should be held responsible to that company if you
reflect badly on it.

It's pretty fucking simple.
--
"After leaving office, Bill Clinton started a Foundation that helped
over 400,000,000 people. George Bush painted pictures of his dog."
-Richard Hine
Ubiquitous
2017-08-06 16:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
BTR1701
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping
to track them down.
Well, she'd obviously want American generally to enlighten their staff.
Who the fuck is she and American Airlines to impose "enlightenment" on anyone?
Leftists only believe in free speech when they agree with it, silly!
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
anim8rfsk
2017-08-05 22:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less to
punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon discovering
them.
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping to
track them down.
Well, she made the whole thing up anyway.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
trotsky
2017-08-06 10:05:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less to
punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon discovering
them.
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping to
track them down.
Well, she made the whole thing up anyway.
Yes, chicks do that because they're horrible, right guys?
Ubiquitous
2017-08-06 14:38:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less to
punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon discovering
them.
She could easily have done that without contacting American and helping
to track them down.
Well, she made the whole thing up anyway.
She sure does that a lot.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Ubiquitous
2017-08-05 14:15:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Lena Dunham turning informant on politically incorrect airline employees
shows how the Left is training us to internalize the ethos of the police
state.
By Robert Tracinski
Lena Dunham had a delayed flight and was walking through the airport when
she overheard two American Airlines employees having an unapproved private
conversation about transgender children. So she did what you naturally do
when you are a well-known "liberal" who believes in free speech and
distrusts big corporations: she ratted them out to their employer on
@lenadunham
Not gonna call out the airline who delayed cuz shit
attendants having a transphobic talk.
What took this from being merely bullying and repressive to being creepy
and totalitarian in style is that Dunham didn't just make a general
complaint. She then posted what looks like direct messages or text messages
between her and the American Airlines account, in which she
enthusiastically provides detailed information about exactly where the
conversation took place.
https://twitter.com/lenadunham/status/893004544036286466/photo/1
Saying "I overheard a conversation" but giving no specifics might prompt
American Airlines to send out a general notice to its employees to watch
what they say while in the terminal-- which is a little unsettling in
itself. But giving specific information only has one purpose: to help the
airline locate, identify, and punish these specific employees for holding
politically incorrect views.
It's the hashtag #acrossfromthewinebar that sent chills down my spine.
Dunham is acting like an informant working for a totalitarian police
state-- but boastfully, in public, on social media. With a hashtag.
Undoubtedly, someone will point out that this isn't really totalitarianism
because these are all voluntary actions by private citizens and
organizations, not the government. Dunham isn't a paid stooge of the
police, but a citizen acting on her own initiative. American Airlines isn't
doing this because the government told them to, but because they're
terrified of bad press. (Which they are still going to get, but from the
other side.)
Yet somehow this makes it all worse, because it implies we are being
trained to internalize the ethos of the police state-- and to enact it
voluntarily, on our own initiative, without having to be coerced. We're
building a self-enforcing police state.
Recently, I warned that The New York Times is trying to rehabilitate
Communism. When the Left finally succeeds in resuscitating totalitarianism,
we will already know all about how to inform on our neighbors by way of
Twitter.
There are three substantial ways in which this incident shows how we are
preparing ourselves for totalitarianism. One of the hallmarks of
totalitarianism is that the officially approved truth was capricious and
unpredictable, and that was on purpose. They wanted the approved ideology
to change so quickly that there was no way to comply with it by sincere
personal conviction. The only way to comply with it was out of a habit of
obedience.
Now, let's apply that to the substance of the conversation Dunham was
reporting, which she reports to American Airlines in highly specific and
intellectual terms: "I heard 2 female attendants walking talking about how
trans kids are a trend they'd never accept a trans child and transness is
gross." The idea that "gender identity disorder", which has now been
renamed to the more politically correct "gender dysphoria", is not a mental
illness but instead a valid lifestyle to be encouraged and humored is
relatively recent, working its way into the mainstream in the past ten
years. The idea of transgender children-- of taking a child's normal
confusion about gender roles, encouraging it, magnifying it, and using it
as the basis for irreversible medical treatments-- would have been
considered a form of child abuse to most people until about last year. For
many of us, it still is.
But why wait for the process of changing mores and attitudes to work their
way through the culture and bring people around to your side? After all, if
you wait for people to be convinced, there's a chance that they won't be.
It's like what Stalin said about elections: the problem is that you don't
know ahead of time who's going to win. Intead, people have to immediately
update their views to be consistent with the Current Truth, subject to
change without notice.
Now let's look at Dunham's reaction. She hears two people saying something
she disagrees with, and it never occurs to her to talk to them directly, to
attempt to persuade them or to listen to their point of view and engage
with it. She might have changed someone's mind or least gotten to
understand the reasons for their views. But why wait for persuasion when
you can use fear? Why engage individuals directly, as if they are fellow
human beings with equal rights, when you can go over their heads and use
your fame and influence to pressure their employers?
While reading about this story, I was reminded of this scene from THE LIVES
OF OTHERS, based on life within the oppressive police state of East
http://youtu.be/gHZJsMfukQY
Apparently, the same rules apply now. Better watch what you say, or a
powerful person might ask for your employee number and your life will be
ruined.
Finally, consider the role of the employer. When the Czech dissident Vaclav
Havel formulated his ideas for how to resist Communist tyranny, he noted
the role of the small business or employer who agreed to enforce the rules
and post the propaganda of the regime out of fear and conformity. Well,
that's exactly what we're up against now.
If the proper response for Dunham was to converse with those flight
attendants directly (or maybe just to mind her own business), then the
proper response of American Airlines was to tell Dunham that it is not in
the business of policing the private conversations of its employees. But
that's another way we're being prepared for the police state. While the
Left blusters about how they don't want big corporations to tell us what we
can think, their actions say otherwise. They absolutely do want employers
to be responsible for the private views and political activity of their
employees-- so long as the views they are enforcing are politically
correct.
So all the elements are being put together. We have a dogma propagated from
the top down, a cadre of informants who are proud and eager to report their
fellow citizens, and private institutions that are cowed and co-opted,
ready to deprive dissidents of their livelihoods.
It's no mystery why, despite loud protestations that things will be
different this time, socialism always ends with the midnight knock on the
door. By the time government begins arresting people, the public will
already have the mentality needed to accept and cooperate with the police
state.
When we talk about and celebrate the fall of Communism, we frequently focus
on the positive role of "people power". When the oppressed people of
Eastern Europe chose to reject and resist Communism en masse, it collapsed
seemingly overnight. But we don't like to think too much about the flip
side of that coin. Totalitarian regimes came into existence, and maintained
their existence, not just because dissenters were killed or kept in a state
of terror, but also because the regimes enjoyed the active complicity of a
large segment of the population. East Germany's Stasi, after all, had a lot
of employees.
The recent exploits of Comrade Lena are a warning that the new police state
will have plenty of its own enthusiastic enforcers.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/04/lena-dunham-and-our-self-enforcing-police-state/
As with her run-in with Odell Beckham, Jr., her purpose may be less to
punish "incorrect" attitudes than to share her reaction upon discovering
them.
Obviously. if that were the case, she wouldn't have tattled to AA and included

Rationalization noted.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Jim G.
2017-08-05 19:11:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Lena Dunham turning informant on politically incorrect airline employees
shows how the Left is training us to internalize the ethos of the police
state.
By Robert Tracinski
Lena Dunham had a delayed flight and was walking through the airport when
she overheard two American Airlines employees having an unapproved private
conversation about transgender children. So she did what you naturally do
when you are a well-known "liberal" who believes in free speech and
distrusts big corporations: she ratted them out to their employer on
@lenadunham
Not gonna call out the airline who delayed cuz shit
attendants having a transphobic talk.
What took this from being merely bullying and repressive to being creepy
and totalitarian in style is that Dunham didn't just make a general
complaint. She then posted what looks like direct messages or text messages
between her and the American Airlines account, in which she
enthusiastically provides detailed information about exactly where the
conversation took place.
https://twitter.com/lenadunham/status/893004544036286466/photo/1
Saying "I overheard a conversation" but giving no specifics might prompt
American Airlines to send out a general notice to its employees to watch
what they say while in the terminal-- which is a little unsettling in
itself.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham had
just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.

Having said that, and before continuing, I should point out that this is
all a discussion that was started by Dunham's almost pathological
inability to separate fact from fiction, apparently. Still it raises
some interesting points.
Post by BTR1701
But giving specific information only has one purpose: to help the
airline locate, identify, and punish these specific employees for holding
politically incorrect views.
Technically, Dunham would just be *hoping* to have them punished, which
is already a huge difference from the "police state" hysteria. The
airline in this instance surely appreciates hearing about what its
identifiable representatives are saying that could reflect badly on the
airline, whether it's something trans-related or whether they're, say,
just loudly dropping f-bombs while making fun of unnamed passengers from
their last flight. Or if they're just trying to argue that Alabama runs
a clean football program.
Post by BTR1701
It's the hashtag #acrossfromthewinebar that sent chills down my spine.
Dunham is acting like an informant working for a totalitarian police
state-- but boastfully, in public, on social media. With a hashtag.
Undoubtedly, someone will point out that this isn't really totalitarianism
because these are all voluntary actions by private citizens and
organizations, not the government.
Yep.
Post by BTR1701
Dunham isn't a paid stooge of the
police, but a citizen acting on her own initiative.
Yep.
Post by BTR1701
American Airlines isn't
doing this because the government told them to, but because they're
terrified of bad press.
Yep.
Post by BTR1701
(Which they are still going to get, but from the
other side.)
Yet somehow this makes it all worse, because it implies we are being
trained to internalize the ethos of the police state--
Oh, good grief. "Internalize the ethos"? Please. Not at all.
Post by BTR1701
and to enact it
voluntarily, on our own initiative, without having to be coerced. We're
building a self-enforcing police state.
For some odd reason, I suspect that this writer would not have gone off
the deep end like this if, say, a conservative actor had tweeted about
ovehearing a couple of flight attendants making insensitive pro-abortion
comments. Because that would have been a sign of virtue and uprightness
and not a sign of a "police state" mentality at all! Not all complaints
to a higher authority are equal, and all that.
Post by BTR1701
Recently, I warned that The New York Times is trying to rehabilitate
Communism. When the Left finally succeeds in resuscitating totalitarianism,
we will already know all about how to inform on our neighbors by way of
Twitter.
There are three substantial ways in which this incident shows how we are
preparing ourselves for totalitarianism. One of the hallmarks of
totalitarianism is that the officially approved truth was capricious and
unpredictable, and that was on purpose. They wanted the approved ideology
to change so quickly that there was no way to comply with it by sincere
personal conviction. The only way to comply with it was out of a habit of
obedience.
Yep. This, at least -- which takes us back to that Patton Oswald rant
about LQBTW militants and their constantly shifting terminology -- is a
valid point and not hyperbole. However, we're talking about Dunham's
"truth" here, which is not an "official" one. And until it *becomes* an
official one, it's hardly a "police state."
Post by BTR1701
Now, let's apply that to the substance of the conversation Dunham was
reporting, which she reports to American Airlines in highly specific and
intellectual terms: "I heard 2 female attendants walking talking about how
trans kids are a trend they'd never accept a trans child and transness is
gross." The idea that "gender identity disorder", which has now been
renamed to the more politically correct "gender dysphoria", is not a mental
illness but instead a valid lifestyle to be encouraged and humored is
relatively recent, working its way into the mainstream in the past ten
years. The idea of transgender children-- of taking a child's normal
confusion about gender roles, encouraging it, magnifying it, and using it
as the basis for irreversible medical treatments-- would have been
considered a form of child abuse to most people until about last year. For
many of us, it still is.
But why wait for the process of changing mores and attitudes to work their
way through the culture and bring people around to your side?
Because the left has a direct line to The Truth and the rest of us are
mouth-breathing haters and whateverphobes. Duh.
Post by BTR1701
After all, if
you wait for people to be convinced, there's a chance that they won't be.
It's like what Stalin said about elections: the problem is that you don't
know ahead of time who's going to win. Intead, people have to immediately
update their views to be consistent with the Current Truth, subject to
change without notice.
Now let's look at Dunham's reaction. She hears two people saying something
she disagrees with, and it never occurs to her to talk to them directly, to
attempt to persuade them or to listen to their point of view and engage
with it.
Even with something as relatively safe as intellectual exchanges,
liberals tend to be far more cowardly and timid than libertarians and
conservatives. You can see the same pattern play out every day on
USENET, where liberals will swarm to protect someone on their side who
is getting picked apart in one debate while libertarians and
conservatives have confidence in themselves and their like-minded pals
and are far more likely to sit back and watch their pals dissect the
swarm in another debate.
Post by BTR1701
She might have changed someone's mind or least gotten to
understand the reasons for their views.
Probably not. She seems pretty dense. She needs the swarm.
Post by BTR1701
But why wait for persuasion when
you can use fear? Why engage individuals directly, as if they are fellow
human beings with equal rights, when you can go over their heads and use
your fame and influence to pressure their employers?
While reading about this story, I was reminded of this scene from THE LIVES
OF OTHERS, based on life within the oppressive police state of East
http://youtu.be/gHZJsMfukQY
Apparently, the same rules apply now. Better watch what you say, or a
powerful person might ask for your employee number and your life will be
ruined.
Finally, consider the role of the employer. When the Czech dissident Vaclav
Havel formulated his ideas for how to resist Communist tyranny, he noted
the role of the small business or employer who agreed to enforce the rules
and post the propaganda of the regime out of fear and conformity. Well,
that's exactly what we're up against now.
If the proper response for Dunham was to converse with those flight
attendants directly (or maybe just to mind her own business), then the
proper response of American Airlines was to tell Dunham that it is not in
the business of policing the private conversations of its employees.
Which would be a legitimate response if you could accurately add "on
their own time and while out of uniform and away from a work setting" to
the end of that last sentence. But you can't say that here, so it's not
"private."
Post by BTR1701
But
that's another way we're being prepared for the police state. While the
Left blusters about how they don't want big corporations to tell us what we
can think, their actions say otherwise. They absolutely do want employers
to be responsible for the private views and political activity of their
employees-- so long as the views they are enforcing are politically
correct.
Well, yeah. Does this even need to be said? Fortunately, corporations
are not entirely made up of Dunham clones, so the Dunhams of the world
will sometimes end up disappointed. And sometimes they win if the
corporate environment in a given scenario is more Dunham-friendly.
There's nothing "police state" about it.
Post by BTR1701
So all the elements are being put together. We have a dogma propagated from
the top down, a cadre of informants who are proud and eager to report their
fellow citizens, and private institutions that are cowed and co-opted,
ready to deprive dissidents of their livelihoods.
Oh, good grief. This writer is wanking so hard at this point that he's
gonna break his wrist (and probably his appendage) long before he
reaches his happy ending.
Post by BTR1701
It's no mystery why, despite loud protestations that things will be
different this time, socialism always ends with the midnight knock on the
door. By the time government begins arresting people, the public will
already have the mentality needed to accept and cooperate with the police
state.
Yes, and the arrests are just piling up here.

Seriously, if someone on the left here posted something this batshit
crazy from someone on *their* side of the aisle, you'd be among the
first to rip it to shreds. And rightly so. Yes, Dunham is a coward and a
liar and an all-around pathetic waste of perfectly good oxygen. But all
of the "police state" silliness is just shameless pandering to the
right. And embarrassing pandering, at that.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“It smells like bad beer and worse choices. I'll make it work.” – Rosita
Bustillos, WYNONNA EARP
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2017-08-05 20:41:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:

[snip]
Post by Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham had
just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
Having said that, and before continuing, I should point out that this is
all a discussion that was started by Dunham's almost pathological
inability to separate fact from fiction, apparently. Still it raises
some interesting points.
[snip]

I wonder how some members of this newsgroup would react if it were
some uniformed employees criticizing Trump and a member of the
public, an avid Trump supporter, complained to their employer.

I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking a
very different stance.

Indeed, a lot of McCarthyism wasn't generating by McCarthy, but
rather members of the public who hated communists and objected to
seeing them on television or in public employment. Remember, a
supermarket chain owner refused to carry goods produced by
companies who sponsored communists on TV and radio, and his
efforts contributed to the blacklist. Based on the behavior and
posts of certain members of this newsgroup (such as corrupting
thread pointers), I can't help but suspect those members would've
been ardent supporters of McCarthy if they lived in that era.
Ed Stasiak
2017-08-06 00:09:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking
a very different stance.
I suspect very few would, unlike those in this newsgroup cheering on
secret government star chambers and corporations censoring and
blackmailing free speech.
BTR1701
2017-08-06 03:11:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking
a very different stance.
I suspect very few would, unlike those in this newsgroup cheering on
secret government star chambers and corporations censoring and
blackmailing free speech.
Yeah, I suspect hancock was suspecting me with his suspicions, and he's
completely wrong about it. I would no more approve of Dunham-like Stasi
behavior over the sort of things he cited than I do in this case.
FPP
2017-08-06 04:04:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking
a very different stance.
I suspect very few would, unlike those in this newsgroup cheering on
secret government star chambers and corporations censoring and
blackmailing free speech.
Yeah, I suspect hancock was suspecting me with his suspicions, and he's
completely wrong about it. I would no more approve of Dunham-like Stasi
behavior over the sort of things he cited than I do in this case.
Absolutely!
Only Trump-like Stasi behavior is to be tolerated by Thanny!
--
"After leaving office, Bill Clinton started a Foundation that helped
over 400,000,000 people. George Bush painted pictures of his dog."
-Richard Hine
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-06 11:42:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
de quoted text -
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking
a very different stance.
I suspect very few would, unlike those in this newsgroup cheering on
secret government star chambers and corporations censoring and
blackmailing free speech.
Yeah, I suspect hancock was suspecting me with his suspicions, and he's
completely wrong about it. I would no more approve of Dunham-like Stasi
behavior over the sort of things he cited than I do in this case.
You've probably never criticized stasi-like behavior before. Curious you'd start now.
BTR1701
2017-08-06 12:37:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
de quoted text -
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking
a very different stance.
I suspect very few would, unlike those in this newsgroup cheering on
secret government star chambers and corporations censoring and
blackmailing free speech.
Yeah, I suspect hancock was suspecting me with his suspicions, and he's
completely wrong about it. I would no more approve of Dunham-like Stasi
behavior over the sort of things he cited than I do in this case.
You've probably never criticized stasi-like behavior before.
Do you ever get tired of being so constantly and publicly wrong about
everything?
FPP
2017-08-06 13:16:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by b***@gmail.com
de quoted text -
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking
a very different stance.
I suspect very few would, unlike those in this newsgroup cheering on
secret government star chambers and corporations censoring and
blackmailing free speech.
Yeah, I suspect hancock was suspecting me with his suspicions, and he's
completely wrong about it. I would no more approve of Dunham-like Stasi
behavior over the sort of things he cited than I do in this case.
You've probably never criticized stasi-like behavior before.
Do you ever get tired of being so constantly and publicly wrong about
everything?
Sure. Lena Dunham is the REAL problem, right counselor?

The President of the United States just advocated that we become an
actual Police State.

He just told law enforcement it's OK with the head of the Justice
Department if they take the law into their own hands and brutalize the
suspects they have in their custody.

That's OK... but coming from Lena Dunham, that's the REAL travesty! You
really are fucked in the head, you know that?

The head of the government just came out in favor of police brutality -
AND THE POLICE LISTENING TO HIM CHEERED - and you want to point to Lena
Dunham as the REAL problem?
--
"After leaving office, Bill Clinton started a Foundation that helped
over 400,000,000 people. George Bush painted pictures of his dog."
-Richard Hine
BTR1701
2017-08-06 15:00:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by b***@gmail.com
de quoted text -
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking
a very different stance.
I suspect very few would, unlike those in this newsgroup cheering on
secret government star chambers and corporations censoring and
blackmailing free speech.
Yeah, I suspect hancock was suspecting me with his suspicions, and he's
completely wrong about it. I would no more approve of Dunham-like Stasi
behavior over the sort of things he cited than I do in this case.
You've probably never criticized stasi-like behavior before.
Do you ever get tired of being so constantly and publicly wrong about
everything?
Sure. Lena Dunham is the REAL problem, right counselor?
Ah, here we go. Whenever FPP starts whining about "the real problem", you
can expect he's about to try and hijack the thread and turn it into more of
his Trump hysteria.
Post by FPP
The President of the United States just advocated that we become an
actual Police State.
And there it is, right on cue.
Ubiquitous
2017-08-06 16:04:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by b***@gmail.com
de quoted text -
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking
a very different stance.
I suspect very few would, unlike those in this newsgroup cheering on
secret government star chambers and corporations censoring and
blackmailing free speech.
Yeah, I suspect hancock was suspecting me with his suspicions, and he's
completely wrong about it. I would no more approve of Dunham-like Stasi
behavior over the sort of things he cited than I do in this case.
You've probably never criticized stasi-like behavior before.
Do you ever get tired of being so constantly and publicly wrong about
everything?
Sure. Lena Dunham is the REAL problem, right counselor?
Ah, here we go. Whenever FPP starts whining about "the real problem", you
can expect he's about to try and hijack the thread and turn it into more of
his Trump hysteria.
In other words, it means he lost the debate.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
trotsky
2017-08-06 18:37:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by b***@gmail.com
de quoted text -
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking
a very different stance.
I suspect very few would, unlike those in this newsgroup cheering on
secret government star chambers and corporations censoring and
blackmailing free speech.
Yeah, I suspect hancock was suspecting me with his suspicions, and he's
completely wrong about it. I would no more approve of Dunham-like Stasi
behavior over the sort of things he cited than I do in this case.
You've probably never criticized stasi-like behavior before.
Do you ever get tired of being so constantly and publicly wrong about
everything?
Sure. Lena Dunham is the REAL problem, right counselor?
Ah, here we go. Whenever FPP starts whining about "the real problem", you
can expect he's about to try and hijack the thread and turn it into more of
his Trump hysteria.
Hey moron, with Trump's approval rating hovering just above thirty
percent how is it "his" Trump hysteria?
FPP
2017-08-06 22:36:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by b***@gmail.com
de quoted text -
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking
a very different stance.
I suspect very few would, unlike those in this newsgroup cheering on
secret government star chambers and corporations censoring and
blackmailing free speech.
Yeah, I suspect hancock was suspecting me with his suspicions, and he's
completely wrong about it. I would no more approve of Dunham-like Stasi
behavior over the sort of things he cited than I do in this case.
You've probably never criticized stasi-like behavior before.
Do you ever get tired of being so constantly and publicly wrong about
everything?
Sure. Lena Dunham is the REAL problem, right counselor?
Ah, here we go. Whenever FPP starts whining about "the real problem", you
can expect he's about to try and hijack the thread and turn it into more of
his Trump hysteria.
Post by FPP
The President of the United States just advocated that we become an
actual Police State.
And there it is, right on cue.
Nope, counselor. You brought up "Stasi-like" behavior, not me.

The biggest offender is the President of the United States. Too fucking
bad if you don't like it when people take your comments and comment on them.

There was no need to bring "Stasi-like" behavior into the discussion -
but YOU did.
Don't expect people to ignore it when you broaden the discussion.
--
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the
Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps
themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
NoBody
2017-08-07 11:11:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by b***@gmail.com
de quoted text -
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking
a very different stance.
I suspect very few would, unlike those in this newsgroup cheering on
secret government star chambers and corporations censoring and
blackmailing free speech.
Yeah, I suspect hancock was suspecting me with his suspicions, and he's
completely wrong about it. I would no more approve of Dunham-like Stasi
behavior over the sort of things he cited than I do in this case.
You've probably never criticized stasi-like behavior before.
Do you ever get tired of being so constantly and publicly wrong about
everything?
Sure. Lena Dunham is the REAL problem, right counselor?
Ah, here we go. Whenever FPP starts whining about "the real problem", you
can expect he's about to try and hijack the thread and turn it into more of
his Trump hysteria.
Post by FPP
The President of the United States just advocated that we become an
actual Police State.
And there it is, right on cue.
Nope, counselor. You brought up "Stasi-like" behavior, not me.
The biggest offender is the President of the United States. Too fucking
bad if you don't like it when people take your comments and comment on them.
And there he goes...
trotsky
2017-08-06 15:07:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by b***@gmail.com
de quoted text -
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I can't help but suspect those newsgroup members would be taking
a very different stance.
I suspect very few would, unlike those in this newsgroup cheering on
secret government star chambers and corporations censoring and
blackmailing free speech.
Yeah, I suspect hancock was suspecting me with his suspicions, and he's
completely wrong about it. I would no more approve of Dunham-like Stasi
behavior over the sort of things he cited than I do in this case.
You've probably never criticized stasi-like behavior before.
Do you ever get tired of being so constantly and publicly wrong about
everything?
You don't seem to have a problem with that.
Ed Stasiak
2017-08-06 00:03:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.

Now if they had been openly marching up and down the sidewalk protesting
something while in uniform specifically presenting themselves as AA employees,
then American Airlines would have something to say otherwise, they do not.

This growing acceptance of the government, employers and complete fucking
strangers dictating what we do and say in our private lives is insane.
A Friend
2017-08-06 02:26:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
How they were dressed is not irrelevant. I say this even while feeling
that Dunham was out of line here.
Jim G.
2017-08-06 22:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Friend
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
How they were dressed is not irrelevant.
Agreed.
Post by A Friend
I say this even while feeling
that Dunham was out of line here.
Agreed. That's twice in a row that I agreed with you. You can start to
worry now. :)
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“It smells like bad beer and worse choices. I'll make it work.” – Rosita
Bustillos, WYNONNA EARP
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-06 07:01:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”.
Now if they had been openly marching up and down...
They're still wearing the uniform.
Ed Stasiak
2017-08-06 12:35:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Ed Stasiak
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”.
Now if they had been openly marching up and down...
They're still wearing the uniform.
So all it takes for Americans to be stripped of their 1st Amendment
rights, is for an employer to insist they wear a piece of clothing?

And you’re cool with this?

The stewardesses weren’t acting in their capacity as employees
of AA at the time this disgusting broad was snooping in on their
private conversation, which had nothing to do with their employer.
FPP
2017-08-06 13:09:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by b***@gmail.com
Ed Stasiak
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”.
Now if they had been openly marching up and down...
They're still wearing the uniform.
So all it takes for Americans to be stripped of their 1st Amendment
rights, is for an employer to insist they wear a piece of clothing?
And you’re cool with this?
The stewardesses weren’t acting in their capacity as employees
of AA at the time this disgusting broad was snooping in on their
private conversation, which had nothing to do with their employer.
Yup. Wear the uniform, represent the company.
This is pretty basic shit.

You don't think a cop in uniform is representing their department even
if they're not "on the clock"?
--
"After leaving office, Bill Clinton started a Foundation that helped
over 400,000,000 people. George Bush painted pictures of his dog."
-Richard Hine
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2017-08-07 17:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by b***@gmail.com
Ed Stasiak
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”.
Now if they had been openly marching up and down...
They're still wearing the uniform.
So all it takes for Americans to be stripped of their 1st Amendment
rights, is for an employer to insist they wear a piece of clothing?
And you’re cool with this?
The stewardesses weren’t acting in their capacity as employees
of AA at the time this disgusting broad was snooping in on their
private conversation, which had nothing to do with their employer.
Republicans have pushed for increased employer powers over the
recent years. Many employers mandate their employees comply
with corporate policy while on the job, even if outside the
office (such as at lunch).
FPP
2017-08-06 13:07:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”.
Now if they had been openly marching up and down...
They're still wearing the uniform.
Then they're sill representing the company, whether they're on the clock
or not. Most businesses recognize this.
Post by b***@gmail.com
What is important is that all businesses have occasions when employees are off the proverbial clock but still “in uniform” representing the brand. Whether it’s how employees should behave at trade show after-parties or govern themselves on social media, expectations about how employees should behave when representing a brand are crucial.
Many times, the customer experience begins when a customer is exposed to a brand through contact with one of the brand’s representatives.
http://customersthatstick.com/blog/customer-service-techniques/does-your-business-have-an-employee-uniform-policy/
--
"After leaving office, Bill Clinton started a Foundation that helped
over 400,000,000 people. George Bush painted pictures of his dog."
-Richard Hine
Ed Stasiak
2017-08-06 20:05:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
FPP
What is important is that all businesses have occasions when employees
are off the proverbial clock but still “in uniform” representing the brand.
No, what’s important is that our freedom is speech trumps some company’s
brand name.

When did you become such a corporate boot licker?
trotsky
2017-08-06 21:16:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by b***@gmail.com
FPP
What is important is that all businesses have occasions when employees
are off the proverbial clock but still “in uniform” representing the brand.
No, what’s important is that our freedom is speech trumps some company’s
brand name.
When did you become such a corporate boot licker?
It's weird how you respond to the exact same posts Thanny does.
BTR1701
2017-08-06 21:33:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by b***@gmail.com
FPP
What is important is that all businesses have occasions when employees
are off the proverbial clock but still “in uniform” representing the brand.
No, what’s important is that our freedom is speech trumps some company’s
brand name.
When did you become such a corporate boot licker?
It's weird how you respond to the exact same posts Thanny does.
So do you, Hutt, you pustulent sow.
trotsky
2017-08-06 21:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by trotsky
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by b***@gmail.com
FPP
What is important is that all businesses have occasions when employees
are off the proverbial clock but still “in uniform” representing the brand.
No, what’s important is that our freedom is speech trumps some company’s
brand name.
When did you become such a corporate boot licker?
It's weird how you respond to the exact same posts Thanny does.
So do you, Hutt, you pustulent sow.
You're a sockpuppeteer and now you're just running interference. Busted
again, you Libertarian dickwad.
FPP
2017-08-06 22:38:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by b***@gmail.com
FPP
What is important is that all businesses have occasions when employees
are off the proverbial clock but still “in uniform” representing the brand.
No, what’s important is that our freedom is speech trumps some company’s
brand name.
When did you become such a corporate boot licker?
Nobody infringed anybody's freedom of speech,as far as anybody has
shown, Ed.
nobody stopped anybody from saying anything here.

In fact, it's that freedom of speech that got them in trouble in the
first place. You have no freedom to shoot off your mouth, and escape
the consequences.
--
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the
Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps
themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Ubiquitous
2017-08-06 16:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
FPP
What is important is that all businesses have occasions when employees
are off the proverbial clock but still “in uniform” representing the
brand.
No, what’s important is that our freedom is speech trumps some company’s
brand name.
When did you become such a corporate boot licker?
Do keep in mind that FPPsky's selective outrage is determined by whther he
likes the victim or not.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-07 11:28:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by b***@gmail.com
FPP
What is important is that all businesses have occasions when employees
are off the proverbial clock but still “in uniform” representing the brand.
No, what’s important is that our freedom is speech trumps some company’s
brand name.
When did you become such a corporate boot licker?
When did you become a KKK bootlicker?
moviePig
2017-08-06 13:55:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
Now if they had been openly marching up and down the sidewalk protesting
something while in uniform specifically presenting themselves as AA employees,
then American Airlines would have something to say otherwise, they do not.
This growing acceptance of the government, employers and complete fucking
strangers dictating what we do and say in our private lives is insane.
You're right that most of this issue is a matter of what they were
discussing and their particular views on it. Dunham heard them as
advocating child abuse, which makes her response quite restrained.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Ed Stasiak
2017-08-06 20:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
This growing acceptance of the government, employers and complete
fucking strangers dictating what we do and say in our private lives is
insane.
You're right that most of this issue is a matter of what they were
discussing and their particular views on it.  Dunham heard them as
advocating child abuse, which makes her response quite restrained.
Spying on someone’s private conversation, then running to their employer
and calling for them to use the airport’s security system to discover their
identity to track them down and fire them, isn’t what I’d call “restrained”.
anim8rfsk
2017-08-06 21:23:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
This growing acceptance of the government, employers and complete
fucking strangers dictating what we do and say in our private lives is
insane.
You're right that most of this issue is a matter of what they were
discussing and their particular views on it.  Dunham heard them as
advocating child abuse, which makes her response quite restrained.
Spying on someone’s private conversation, then running to their employer
and calling for them to use the airport’s security system to discover their
identity to track them down and fire them, isn’t what I’d call “restrained”.
Especially when you're in a different terminal than they fly from.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
moviePig
2017-08-06 21:23:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
This growing acceptance of the government, employers and complete
fucking strangers dictating what we do and say in our private lives is
insane.
You're right that most of this issue is a matter of what they were
discussing and their particular views on it. Dunham heard them as
advocating child abuse, which makes her response quite restrained.
Spying on someone’s private conversation, then running to their employer
and calling for them to use the airport’s security system to discover their
identity to track them down and fire them, isn’t what I’d call “restrained”.
I haven't seen evidence that Dunham called for that, or even wanted it.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Ed Stasiak
2017-08-06 22:21:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
Spying on someone’s private conversation, then running to their employer
and calling for them to use the airport’s security system to discover their
identity to track them down and fire them, isn’t what I’d call “restrained”.
I haven't seen evidence that Dunham called for that, or even wanted it.
If her goal was simply to “enlighten” the stewardesses, she could have said
something to them right then and there, not slither off and bring their employer
in on it.
FPP
2017-08-06 23:13:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
Spying on someone’s private conversation, then running to their employer
and calling for them to use the airport’s security system to discover their
identity to track them down and fire them, isn’t what I’d call “restrained”.
I haven't seen evidence that Dunham called for that, or even wanted it.
If her goal was simply to “enlighten” the stewardesses, she could have said
something to them right then and there, not slither off and bring their employer
in on it.
What's the matter now, Ed? Doesn't Dunham have that "freedom of speech"
you keep crowing about, too?

But when she does and says what she wants, somehow that "freedom of
speech" has an awful lot of limits.

Pick ONE lie and stick with it!
--
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the
Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps
themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
moviePig
2017-08-07 14:32:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
Spying on someone’s private conversation, then running to their employer
and calling for them to use the airport’s security system to discover their
identity to track them down and fire them, isn’t what I’d call “restrained”.
I haven't seen evidence that Dunham called for that, or even wanted it.
If her goal was simply to “enlighten” the stewardesses, she could have said
something to them right then and there, not slither off and bring their employer
in on it.
(I addressed this in just-posted message to you above.)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
FPP
2017-08-06 22:31:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
This growing acceptance of the government, employers and complete
fucking strangers dictating what we do and say in our private lives is
insane.
You're right that most of this issue is a matter of what they were
discussing and their particular views on it. Dunham heard them as
advocating child abuse, which makes her response quite restrained.
Spying on someone’s private conversation, then running to their employer
and calling for them to use the airport’s security system to discover their
identity to track them down and fire them, isn’t what I’d call “restrained”.
Were they in a closed room, all by themselves? Or in a private area?
Or were they in a public common area anybody could wander through?

The first is an invasion of privacy.
The second is what happens when people don't keep their mouth's shut in
public.
--
"After leaving office, Bill Clinton started a Foundation that helped
over 400,000,000 people. George Bush painted pictures of his dog."
-Richard Hine
Ubiquitous
2017-08-06 16:04:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
Now if they had been openly marching up and down the sidewalk protesting
something while in uniform specifically presenting themselves as AA employees,
then American Airlines would have something to say otherwise, they do not.
This growing acceptance of the government, employers and complete fucking
strangers dictating what we do and say in our private lives is insane.
You're right that most of this issue is a matter of what they were
discussing and their particular views on it. Dunham heard them as
advocating child abuse, which makes her response quite restrained.
TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
Jim G.
2017-08-06 22:39:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
How they were dressed is an important factor that can't be dismissed out
of hand. Rather, it is an especially important consideration since it
directly ties them to their employer. And a conversation held in a
public place at a volume level that can be overheard by others pretty
much fails the "private" part of "private conversation" every time.

As for "on the clock," that's largely irrelevant in a context like this
one -- in an airport and wearing a readily identifiable uniform, right
down to which airline you work for. And you can be "off the clock" in
terms of not being expected to report/return to duty while still being
*on* the clock in terms of the fact that you're still representing your
employer to a degree for as long as it takes you to change into personal
clothes, at which point you will fully stop representing your employer
(assuming, of course, that you don't identify your relationship to your
employer in some other way).
Post by Ed Stasiak
Now if they had been openly marching up and down the sidewalk protesting
something while in uniform specifically presenting themselves as AA employees,
then American Airlines would have something to say otherwise, they do not.
Their very presence *in uniform* means that they're presenting
themselves as employees. That's kinda sorta the whole reason why people
who wear uniforms are asked to wear uniforms in the first place.
Post by Ed Stasiak
This growing acceptance of the government, employers and complete fucking
strangers dictating what we do and say in our private lives is insane.
There's no government in this scenario outside of the feverish
imaginations of some folks with jerking knees. And as useless as Dunham
is, she wasn't "dictating" anything to anyone. She disagreed with what
the employees were saying and was too much of a worm to confront them
about it herself, so she took the safer social media route. And even
then, I didn't see her demanding/dictating how their employer should
respond. Again, though, it's all just an exercise since Dunham was once
again being a lying sack of crap, apparently. But that doesn't justify
approaching the whole subject with the level of hyperbole and paranoia
that some people are embracing on the "police state" front.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“It smells like bad beer and worse choices. I'll make it work.” – Rosita
Bustillos, WYNONNA EARP
Dimensional Traveler
2017-08-06 23:52:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
How they were dressed is an important factor that can't be dismissed out
of hand. Rather, it is an especially important consideration since it
directly ties them to their employer. And a conversation held in a
public place at a volume level that can be overheard by others pretty
much fails the "private" part of "private conversation" every time.
ANY conversation held in a public or semi-public location can be
overheard by someone. As for what the LEGAL definition of a private
conversation is, that depends on what state you are in.

As for the uniform part, that depends on what their employment contract
says and, again, what state they are in.

So that entire paragraph is wrong as a sweeping generalization and in
some jurisdictions _Dunham_ committed a crime by eavesdropping on the
two women. Which means the entire rest of your argument has nothing to
stand on.

And THEN we get into First Amendment territory.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
BTR1701
2017-08-07 01:04:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
How they were dressed is an important factor that can't be dismissed out
of hand. Rather, it is an especially important consideration since it
directly ties them to their employer. And a conversation held in a
public place at a volume level that can be overheard by others pretty
much fails the "private" part of "private conversation" every time.
ANY conversation held in a public or semi-public location can be
overheard by someone. As for what the LEGAL definition of a private
conversation is, that depends on what state you are in.
As for the uniform part, that depends on what their employment contract
says and, again, what state they are in.
So that entire paragraph is wrong as a sweeping generalization and in
some jurisdictions _Dunham_ committed a crime by eavesdropping on the
two women.
I can't think of any jurisdiction in America where overhearing a
conversation between two people in a public airport terminal is a crime.

Which jurisdictions do you believe that to be the case?
Dimensional Traveler
2017-08-07 05:03:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
How they were dressed is an important factor that can't be dismissed out
of hand. Rather, it is an especially important consideration since it
directly ties them to their employer. And a conversation held in a
public place at a volume level that can be overheard by others pretty
much fails the "private" part of "private conversation" every time.
ANY conversation held in a public or semi-public location can be
overheard by someone. As for what the LEGAL definition of a private
conversation is, that depends on what state you are in.
As for the uniform part, that depends on what their employment contract
says and, again, what state they are in.
So that entire paragraph is wrong as a sweeping generalization and in
some jurisdictions _Dunham_ committed a crime by eavesdropping on the
two women.
I can't think of any jurisdiction in America where overhearing a
conversation between two people in a public airport terminal is a crime.
Which jurisdictions do you believe that to be the case?
Didn't she record the conversation to turn over to the airline? Many
states require all parties give consent for recording.

I'm also wondering about how exactly the two employees were identified.
Dunham apparently give the airline a specific time and location for the
conversation but how did they go from that to "these two"? Did they
perhaps use the security cameras in the terminal? Which are almost
certainly controlled by a Federal agency?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
BTR1701
2017-08-07 10:21:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
How they were dressed is an important factor that can't be dismissed out
of hand. Rather, it is an especially important consideration since it
directly ties them to their employer. And a conversation held in a
public place at a volume level that can be overheard by others pretty
much fails the "private" part of "private conversation" every time.
ANY conversation held in a public or semi-public location can be
overheard by someone. As for what the LEGAL definition of a private
conversation is, that depends on what state you are in.
As for the uniform part, that depends on what their employment contract
says and, again, what state they are in.
So that entire paragraph is wrong as a sweeping generalization and in
some jurisdictions _Dunham_ committed a crime by eavesdropping on the
two women.
I can't think of any jurisdiction in America where overhearing a
conversation between two people in a public airport terminal is a crime.
Which jurisdictions do you believe that to be the case?
Didn't she record the conversation to turn over to the airline? Many
states require all parties give consent for recording.
No, she just reported what she heard to the airline.
I'm also wondering about how exactly the two employees were identified.
Dunham apparently give the airline a specific time and location for the
conversation but how did they go from that to "these two"? Did they
perhaps use the security cameras in the terminal? Which are almost
certainly controlled by a Federal agency?
There's been no indication that the employees were actually identified by
the airline. Just that Dunham tried her best to help the airline to
identify them.
anim8rfsk
2017-08-07 16:24:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
How they were dressed is an important factor that can't be dismissed out
of hand. Rather, it is an especially important consideration since it
directly ties them to their employer. And a conversation held in a
public place at a volume level that can be overheard by others pretty
much fails the "private" part of "private conversation" every time.
ANY conversation held in a public or semi-public location can be
overheard by someone. As for what the LEGAL definition of a private
conversation is, that depends on what state you are in.
As for the uniform part, that depends on what their employment contract
says and, again, what state they are in.
So that entire paragraph is wrong as a sweeping generalization and in
some jurisdictions _Dunham_ committed a crime by eavesdropping on the
two women.
I can't think of any jurisdiction in America where overhearing a
conversation between two people in a public airport terminal is a crime.
Which jurisdictions do you believe that to be the case?
Didn't she record the conversation to turn over to the airline? Many
states require all parties give consent for recording.
No, she just reported what she heard to the airline.
I'm also wondering about how exactly the two employees were identified.
Dunham apparently give the airline a specific time and location for the
conversation but how did they go from that to "these two"? Did they
perhaps use the security cameras in the terminal? Which are almost
certainly controlled by a Federal agency?
There's been no indication that the employees were actually identified by
the airline. Just that Dunham tried her best to help the airline to
identify them.
Which has been hampered by her making the whole thing up.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
moviePig
2017-08-07 17:04:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FPP
2017-08-07 06:06:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
How they were dressed is an important factor that can't be dismissed
out of hand. Rather, it is an especially important consideration since
it directly ties them to their employer. And a conversation held in a
public place at a volume level that can be overheard by others pretty
much fails the "private" part of "private conversation" every time.
ANY conversation held in a public or semi-public location can be
overheard by someone. As for what the LEGAL definition of a private
conversation is, that depends on what state you are in.
As for the uniform part, that depends on what their employment contract
says and, again, what state they are in.
So that entire paragraph is wrong as a sweeping generalization and in
some jurisdictions _Dunham_ committed a crime by eavesdropping on the
two women. Which means the entire rest of your argument has nothing to
stand on.
Where didja' get THAT idea from?

Private communications take place where one may reasonably expect to be
safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance, but such term
does not include a place to which the public or a substantial group of
the public has access. A person commits the crime of criminal
eavesdropping if he intentionally uses any device to eavesdrop, whether
or not he is present at the time.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/eavesdropping/
--
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the
Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps
themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
trotsky
2017-08-07 11:45:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
How they were dressed is an important factor that can't be dismissed
out of hand. Rather, it is an especially important consideration
since it directly ties them to their employer. And a conversation
held in a public place at a volume level that can be overheard by
others pretty much fails the "private" part of "private conversation"
every time.
ANY conversation held in a public or semi-public location can be
overheard by someone. As for what the LEGAL definition of a private
conversation is, that depends on what state you are in.
As for the uniform part, that depends on what their employment
contract says and, again, what state they are in.
So that entire paragraph is wrong as a sweeping generalization and in
some jurisdictions _Dunham_ committed a crime by eavesdropping on the
two women. Which means the entire rest of your argument has nothing
to stand on.
Where didja' get THAT idea from?
Dimensional travelling?
Jim G.
2017-08-07 17:11:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
How they were dressed is an important factor that can't be dismissed out
of hand. Rather, it is an especially important consideration since it
directly ties them to their employer. And a conversation held in a
public place at a volume level that can be overheard by others pretty
much fails the "private" part of "private conversation" every time.
ANY conversation held in a public or semi-public location can be
overheard by someone.
Nope. And this from someone who mentions a "sweeping generalization"
later in the same post. :)

And even if it weren't wrong, then it would just mean that private
conversations can only take place in private settings. And since the
airport restaurant or bar is not a private setting, that means that we
-- or the airline employees in question -- can't have a "private
conversation" there.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
As for what the LEGAL definition of a private
conversation is, that depends on what state you are in.
Can you name a state where a conversation in a public bar/restaurant
would be viewed as "private"?
Post by Dimensional Traveler
As for the uniform part, that depends on what their employment contract
says and, again, what state they are in.
Can you name a state where the law says that you can be wearing your
employer's uniform and still be 100% free from any blowback from your
employer for your words spoken while wearing that uniform?
Post by Dimensional Traveler
So that entire paragraph is wrong as a sweeping generalization and in
some jurisdictions _Dunham_ committed a crime by eavesdropping on the
two women.
Can you name a jurisdiction where Dunham would be an eavesdropper?
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Which means the entire rest of your argument has nothing to
stand on.
Do you have any cites for any of the above?
Post by Dimensional Traveler
And THEN we get into First Amendment territory.
Which isn't relevant since the issue isn't what was said, but the
context in which it was said. As we've all discussed before, there are
limits to free speech even in the U.S., and people have been known to
receive professional blowback over their personal comments in spite of
the First Amendment.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“It smells like bad beer and worse choices. I'll make it work.” – Rosita
Bustillos, WYNONNA EARP
anim8rfsk
2017-08-07 00:41:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim G.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Jim G.
Jim G.
No, it's not. In a work setting and while wearing an identifiable work
uniform, you absolutely *should* "watch what you say" in that setting.
You have an obligation to the employer you're representing, quite
frankly. Now if the two women talking were out of uniform and Dunham
had just recognized them anyway, it would be a different story. Still an
indiscretion on the part of the employees, but not quite as serious.
The stewardesses were sitting in a restaurant having a _private_ conversation
and clearly not “on the clock”, regardless of how they were dressed.
How they were dressed is an important factor that can't be dismissed out
of hand. Rather, it is an especially important consideration since it
directly ties them to their employer. And a conversation held in a
public place at a volume level that can be overheard by others pretty
much fails the "private" part of "private conversation" every time.
As for "on the clock," that's largely irrelevant in a context like this
one -- in an airport and wearing a readily identifiable uniform, right
down to which airline you work for. And you can be "off the clock" in
terms of not being expected to report/return to duty while still being
*on* the clock in terms of the fact that you're still representing your
employer to a degree for as long as it takes you to change into personal
clothes, at which point you will fully stop representing your employer
(assuming, of course, that you don't identify your relationship to your
employer in some other way).
Post by Ed Stasiak
Now if they had been openly marching up and down the sidewalk protesting
something while in uniform specifically presenting themselves as AA employees,
then American Airlines would have something to say otherwise, they do not.
Their very presence *in uniform* means that they're presenting
themselves as employees. That's kinda sorta the whole reason why people
who wear uniforms are asked to wear uniforms in the first place.
Post by Ed Stasiak
This growing acceptance of the government, employers and complete fucking
strangers dictating what we do and say in our private lives is insane.
There's no government in this scenario outside of the feverish
imaginations of some folks with jerking knees. And as useless as Dunham
is, she wasn't "dictating" anything to anyone. She disagreed with what
the employees were saying and was too much of a worm to confront them
about it herself, so she took the safer social media route. And even
then, I didn't see her demanding/dictating how their employer should
respond. Again, though, it's all just an exercise since Dunham was once
again being a lying sack of crap, apparently. But that doesn't justify
approaching the whole subject with the level of hyperbole and paranoia
that some people are embracing on the "police state" front.
Why are you giving this story any credence? Dunham is known for making
up what people nearby are thinking and making claims based on her own
imagination.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Jim G.
2017-08-07 17:17:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2017-08-07 18:20:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 7:00:10 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:

[snip]
Post by BTR1701
The recent exploits of Comrade Lena are a warning that the new police state
will have plenty of its own enthusiastic enforcers.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/04/lena-dunham-and-our-self-enforcing-police-state/
What do folks think of the following incident per this discussion:




San Jose police arrested Michael Kellar, 56, after a flight from
Seattle to San Jose July 31. A passenger noticed Keller swapping text
messages about sexually molesting children and alerted the flight crew
who contacted authorities on the ground.

A preschool teacher buckled in for the two-hour flight from Seattle to
San Jose noticed something on the cellphone screen of a fellow
passenger that set off alarms.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/04/an-alert-airline-passenger-exposed-a-suspected-child-sex-predator-after-glancing-at-his-text-messages/
Loading...