BeeR Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/d...p_n_902138.html I'm so glad the NAACP is involved, they'll set "the man" straight! Reparations baby - somebody call Jesse and Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) Listen, I'm no fan of that style of wearing one's pants, but, according to the story, they did let this guy fly, so... And, yes, it is a "black" style, so I can see why the NAACP would get involved. Mind you, this is about the last thing I'm going to take to the streets and fight for, but I'm hardly going to be outraged about someone else taking issue with it. ETA: Sure, what he's technically being accused of is not cooperating with the captain, but let's not fool ourselves, this whole thing got started because a stewardess was trying to enforce a dress code that US Airways does not claim to have. Could the kid have avoided the whole mess by simply pulling up his pants like a decent adult? Certainly. But it does seems as if the employees overreacted. Edited July 19, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 INCONCEIVABLE!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Wow, they let a white guy fly with nothing on but women's lingerie. That is probably the norm in SF though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/d...p_n_902138.html I'm so glad the NAACP is involved, they'll set "the man" straight! Reparations baby - somebody call Jesse and Al dude.... the thing about schtick is that it doesn't work you need to move on. how about you take the next step and assume a more militant neo-nazi position.... it wouldn't be so tired, predictable and boring and it might even provide a welcome change of pace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 And, yes, it is a "black" style, so I can see why the NAACP would get involved. Around here, A LOT of the white kids do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Wow, they let a white guy fly with nothing on but women's lingerie. That is probably the norm in SF though. Joe Montana and Dwight Clark used to trade women's underwear on gameday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 How come BeeR forgot to make a thread when the race card was played here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Around here, A LOT of the white kids do that. Are there any black kids in Eau Claire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Pants on the ground...pants on the ground...lookin' like a fool with yo' pants on the ground... Everybody! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Are there any black kids in Eau Claire? Isn't that a college town? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Around here, A LOT of the white kids do that. We had basically no black kids in the town I grew up in, so some little white punks had to pretend to be gang bangers. About as funny as it gets, really, because they were all from pretty affluent families. Tell you what man, on the mean streets of Scotts Valley, a brotha's gotta do whatever it takes to survive. Even if that means pulling an extra lifeguard shift at the country club pool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) I don't like comparisons with the lowest common denominator. If the LCD is always our new standard, standards can never go up, they can only decrease when oversights or mistakes in the lower direction are not prevented. Those oversights or mistakes then become the new standard. A standard not set by thoughtful policy, but only by the lower half of random happenstance. BTW, this kid is no civil rights pioneer. Yes I know analogies could be made, and I could make them myself, but this is not about essential human dignity. This is about a kid finding his fashion sense can only be served by showing his crack in the back and his taint in the front. Trying to work up outrage over this only cheapens real outrageous conduct. Edited July 20, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Isn't that a college town? yeah . . . . in EAU CLAIRE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 Listen, I'm no fan of that style of wearing one's pants, but, according to the story, they did let this guy fly, so...How is that relevant? They didn't kick the kid off because of poor taste FYI. He was wearing his "pants" (actually pajama bottoms )below his rear. He couldn't walk safely, could easily trip etc. It was unsafe. And, yes, it is a "black" style, so I can see why the NAACP would get involved.As pointed out, no, it is not. it's more like they arrested a black guy and there's an easy shot at the limelight so the NAACP got involved. ETA: Sure, what he's technically being accused of is not cooperating with the captain, but let's not fool ourselves, Too late. FYI he wasn't "technically accused," it's established fact that he refused to obey the airline staff and who have every right to tell him to (gasp) pull up his alleged pants - then to leave - and he refused both times. That said, I actually have less of a problem IMO his spoiled brat attitude than I do with the farce that is the NAACP getting involved and (surprise) pulling the extremely well-worn race card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 How is that relevant? They didn't kick the kid off because of poor taste FYI. He was wearing his "pants" (actually pajama bottoms )below his rear. He couldn't walk safely, could easily trip etc. It was unsafe. As pointed out, no, it is not. it's more like they arrested a black guy and there's an easy shot at the limelight so the NAACP got involved. Too late. FYI he wasn't "technically accused," it's established fact that he refused to obey the airline staff and who have every right to tell him to (gasp) pull up his alleged pants - then to leave - and he refused both times. That said, I actually have less of a problem IMO his spoiled brat attitude than I do with the farce that is the NAACP getting involved and (surprise) pulling the extremely well-worn race card. Just a bystander on this one, but... What he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 How is that relevant? They didn't kick the kid off because of poor taste FYI. He was wearing his "pants" (actually pajama bottoms )below his rear. He couldn't walk safely, could easily trip etc. It was unsafe. As pointed out, no, it is not. it's more like they arrested a black guy and there's an easy shot at the limelight so the NAACP got involved. Too late. FYI he wasn't "technically accused," it's established fact that he refused to obey the airline staff and who have every right to tell him to (gasp) pull up his alleged pants - then to leave - and he refused both times. That said, I actually have less of a problem IMO his spoiled brat attitude than I do with the farce that is the NAACP getting involved and (surprise) pulling the extremely well-worn race card. It's relevant because the rationale given by the flight attendant for why she asked him to pull up his pants was that she thought it indecent. It was not mentioned that it was unsafe. That's just you trying to explain it in a better way. Well, if a dude in baggy clothes, who's pants are hanging low is indecent, I'd say a guy wearing nothing but woman's underwear would qualify. However, when they defended not asking him to put on clothes despite customer complaints, they said it is not their policy to enforce a dress code. Thus, it is rather safe to say that the stewardess in question was just sick of seeing that "style" and decided to enforce her own dress code. I understand that the pilot needs to have authority for safety reasons. However, I'd like to think they'd wield that authority in matters other than having their sense of fashion offended. Because white kids have picked up the style does not mean it is not a "black style". Would anyone argue that rao isn't, essentially a black art form? Does the fact that Eminem also raps undo the fact that the vast majority of rappers are black? That it was started by black artists? Same with this style. White kids are adopting a "black style" and to argue otherwise is beyond a stretch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 It's relevant because the rationale given by the flight attendant for why she asked him to pull up his pants was that she thought it indecent. It was not mentioned that it was unsafe. That's just you trying to explain it in a better way. Well, if a dude in baggy clothes, who's pants are hanging low is indecent, I'd say a guy wearing nothing but woman's underwear would qualify. However, when they defended not asking him to put on clothes despite customer complaints, they said it is not their policy to enforce a dress code. Thus, it is rather safe to say that the stewardess in question was just sick of seeing that "style" and decided to enforce her own dress code. I understand that the pilot needs to have authority for safety reasons. However, I'd like to think they'd wield that authority in matters other than having their sense of fashion offended. Because white kids have picked up the style does not mean it is not a "black style". Would anyone argue that rao isn't, essentially a black art form? Does the fact that Eminem also raps undo the fact that the vast majority of rappers are black? That it was started by black artists? Same with this style. White kids are adopting a "black style" and to argue otherwise is beyond a stretch. They can have my FUBU shirt when they rip it off my cold, bullet riddled, corpse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Pull yourpants up and play by the rules if you want to fly. Baggy clothes conceal explosives easier - angry passenger could equal threat to other passengers. Angry passenger wearing concealing clothes and angry b/c he can't get on board equals danger to other passengers. Just like if a passenger was drunk, they won;t let you fly if you are offensive to other passengers. Duh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 yeah . . . . in EAU CLAIRE I'm pretty sure there are no colleges in Wisconsin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) I'm pretty sure there are no colleges in Wisconsin. Yes there are edit: http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=242552 Edited July 20, 2011 by Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Yes there are edit: http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=242552 it's a bar with books Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Pull yourpants up and play by the rules if you want to fly. Baggy clothes conceal explosives easier - angry passenger could equal threat to other passengers. Angry passenger wearing concealing clothes and angry b/c he can't get on board equals danger to other passengers. Just like if a passenger was drunk, they won;t let you fly if you are offensive to other passengers. Duh! If it was that type of safety issue then the TSA should have addressed it but they cheerfully waved him through. I gotta agree with det on this one, it really looks like the stewardess made the call and the wrong one at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 If it was that type of safety issue then the TSA should have addressed it but they cheerfully waved him through. I gotta agree with det on this one, it really looks like the stewardess made the call and the wrong one at that. this is gonna be an awesome fight for cival rights if that stewardess is a butch lezbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Are there any black kids in Eau Claire? 17 and the Harvard if the Midwest is in Wisconsin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.