Man removed from UK flight over 'prayer' message on phone

[grumbler]

Yep.  If I go into a bakery and get in line, and the bakery owner tells the guy ahead of me to "get out of here, nigger!  We don't serve coons!" and then, when I get to the counter, tells me that he is all out of the raisin bread I came to buy, the other customer and I have encountered identical inability to purchase, and so the harm we have suffered is identical.

That analogy works really well if in this case someone kicked him off the plane and told him "We don't let black Muslim people fly our airline!".

Or maybe that is the point you are making? Not sure, might be blinded by my white privilege.

Exactly.  They didn't refuse to allow him to fly because he was "black," btw, it was because they thought he was Muslim.  Other than that, you are correct, the analogy works really well.  Thanks.

[Berkut]

Yep.  If I go into a bakery and get in line, and the bakery owner tells the guy ahead of me to "get out of here, nigger!  We don't serve coons!" and then, when I get to the counter, tells me that he is all out of the raisin bread I came to buy, the other customer and I have encountered identical inability to purchase, and so the harm we have suffered is identical.

That analogy works really well if in this case someone kicked him off the plane and told him "We don't let black Muslim people fly our airline!".

Or maybe that is the point you are making? Not sure, might be blinded by my white privilege.

Exactly.  They didn't refuse to allow him to fly because he was "black," btw, it was because they thought he was Muslim.  Other than that, you are correct, the analogy works really well.  Thanks.

No, they didn't refuse to allow him to fly at all, they just refused to allow him to fly without investigating whether he was a member of ISIS.

So the analogy ends up not working well, since nobody said any of the things you claimed would need to be said for the analogy to work - something akin to "get out of here nigger, we don't serve coons!".

Since nobody said anything even remotely similar, your analogy is Marty like in its terribleness.

[LaCroix]

I'd guess the pilot was a pussy rather than anything about race/ethnicity/religion

[Berkut]

I'd guess the pilot was a pussy rather than anything about race/ethnicity/religion

The article doesn't give enough detail to say. For all we know the pilot was asked with 30 seconds before take off, and just didn't have time to evaluate it.

But it is most likely RACIST, of course, and we should just assume that unless we want to be accused of being overly white.

[grumbler]

No, they didn't refuse to allow him to fly at all, they just refused to allow him to fly without investigating whether he was a member of ISIS.

  You say this as though no one at all was allowed to fly without being investigated to find out whether they were a member of ISIS.  He was on a plane, and was forced to leave the plane, because some racist thought he looked Muslim, and so the TSA had to investigate.

So the analogy ends up not working well, since nobody said any of the things you claimed would need to be said for the analogy to work - something akin to "get out of here nigger, we don't serve coons!".

Since nobody said anything even remotely similar, your analogy is Marty like in its terribleness.

So now we are changing the goalposts?   

They told the guy to get off the plane because they thought he looked like a Muslim terrorist, and so they had to confirm that he wasn't.  Had he been "white" this would never have happened.  So, my analogy holds:  you getting inconvenienced by weather is NOT the equivalent of this guy getting inconvenienced by racism. Your analogy was the Marti-like one.  Goalposts remain where they originally were.

[grumbler]

I'd guess the pilot was a pussy rather than anything about race/ethnicity/religion

I'd guess he knew fully well that the airline would take the heat, and not him, so he took the easy way out.  I doubt he ever knew much about the specifics of the case.

[grumbler]

The article doesn't give enough detail to say. For all we know the pilot was asked with 30 seconds before take off, and just didn't have time to evaluate it.

But it is most likely RACIST, of course, and we should just assume that unless we want to be accused of being overly white.

Rage on, you crazy rager! 

[Berkut]

No, they didn't refuse to allow him to fly at all, they just refused to allow him to fly without investigating whether he was a member of ISIS.

  You say this as though no one at all was allowed to fly without being investigated to find out whether they were a member of ISIS.  He was on a plane, and was forced to leave the plane, because some racist thought he looked Muslim, and so the TSA had to investigate.

You have no idea what the person who saw him texting "ISI men" thought. Your analogy claims that they came right out and said something akin to "no coons!" but of course they did not, so your conclusion is just speculation, and speculation of the nastiest sort.

So the analogy ends up not working well, since nobody said any of the things you claimed would need to be said for the analogy to work - something akin to "get out of here nigger, we don't serve coons!".

Since nobody said anything even remotely similar, your analogy is Marty like in its terribleness.

So now we are changing the goalposts?   

Uhhh, no, we are pointing out that nobody said anything that made it clear they took action based on racism (not that "Muslim" is a race anyway), as your analogy would demand.

They told the guy to get off the plane because they thought he looked like a Muslim terrorist,

No, they told him to get off the plane because someone mistook his messaging for indication that he might be a terrorist. Zero evidence that the way he looked had anything to do with it, unlike your fake analogy where someone is convenient enough to state it.

and so they had to confirm that he wasn't.  Had he been "white" this would never have happened.

Again, pure speculation.

So, my analogy holds:  you getting inconvenienced by weather is NOT the equivalent of this guy getting inconvenienced by racism.

Except that you have no evidence that there was any racism here, and being Muslim is not a race anyway, nor was he Muslim anyway.

Your analogy was the Marti-like one.  Goalposts remain where they originally were.

Goalposts swaying about like crazy, since nobody ever said anything like what your analogy demands.

Someone thought he was texting with ISIS. Kind of stupid, but no reason to assume it is racist, other than a desire to be outraged.

[Berkut]

The article doesn't give enough detail to say. For all we know the pilot was asked with 30 seconds before take off, and just didn't have time to evaluate it.

But it is most likely RACIST, of course, and we should just assume that unless we want to be accused of being overly white.

Rage on, you crazy rager! 

Uhhh no, I am the one NOT raging here, actually. The raging is the article writer and OP who are want us to be all worked over RACISM, whether it exists or not.

Notice that I am not the one bringing other posters own race into the discussion.

[grumbler]

The article doesn't give enough detail to say. For all we know the pilot was asked with 30 seconds before take off, and just didn't have time to evaluate it.

But it is most likely RACIST, of course, and we should just assume that unless we want to be accused of being overly white.

Rage on, you crazy rager! 

Uhhh no, I am the one NOT raging here, actually. The raging is the article writer and OP who are want us to be all worked over RACISM, whether it exists or not.

Notice that I am not the one bringing other posters own race into the discussion.

Sure.  You keep shouting about "RACISM" but are not raging.  Ummm hmmm.

[Martinus]

Is grumbler ever a pleasure to debate with? I don't recall.

[Razgovory]

Is grumbler ever a pleasure to debate with? I don't recall.

Is Berkut? 

[Valmy]

What I like about both Berkut and grumbler is they really listen to your arguments and grow as a result.

[derspiess]

Both are very pleasant fellows when it comes to a spirited debate.

[Berkut]

There really isn't any debate happening here. Just conjecture on the motives of people we have no idea about, since they weren't cooperative enough to say something like grumbler's analogy demands.

To the extent that the first person even potentially exhibited racism, even that is kind of bogus. He might have been engaging in some profiling, but that isn't necessarily racist per se.

Like many of these discussions, how people involve themselves is considerably more interesting that the actual fake outrage of the original article.

It is interesting how fast people will use loaded language, for example - terms like "white privilege" and such if someone has the audacity to simply question rather incredible assumptions about the motives of people we know nothing about.

We have zero information about the people involved other than the victim. No quotes, no interview, the "journalist" didn't bother talking to anyone else and seeing the story from their side at all. The only view we have into the views of others is through the victims eyes.