upworthy

debate

Canva Photos

Some say kids shouldn't bring roller bags on airplanes

Taking kids on airplanes is tricky business. Yes, even us moms and dads know they can be annoying. Some parents pass out little care packages as a sort of pre-apology for their children crying, kicking seats, and making noise. Others put on movies and headphones and just pray for the best, and for the flight to go faster than anticipated.

One issue regarding flying with children has taken the cake for a while now. The discourse du jour has been whether or not paying passengers should give up premium seats so that children and parents can sit together. It's a tricky problem that pits passengers against each other when it's really, usually (but not always) the airlines' fault for crappy booking processes.

But move over, seat switchers. There's a new controversy in town.

A guy on Threads recently shared what turned out to be a controversial opinion: Parents shouldn't put children's luggage in the overhead bin.


airplane, flying, airports, planes, passengers, pilotsPlane taking offGiphy

"Please stop letting your little kid carry on a roller bag," he wrote in the now viral post. "It’s unnecessary and takes up bin space for people who actually need it. Give them a backpack or something that fits under a seat."

It's definitely frustrating boarding a flight and finding there's no overhead space left for your bag. Scrambling to find a spot many rows away, or being forced to check it off to a flight attendant, is awkward and stressful; especially so when you see things in the overhead bin that don't really belong there.

The person behind the small account unwittingly unleashed a firestorm of a debate as the post went viral.

First came the parents who were appalled at the suggestion. Some accused the man of not having kids and, thus, not knowing what he was talking about. But it turns out that wasn't the case.

"You don't have children do you if you think that all their stuff fits in a backpack that goes under the seat," one user wrote.

The OP responded: "Took two kids all over the country on planes and neither ever carried on a roller because it’s not necessary for them to do so."

That didn't quiet the angry response:


angry, mad, emotions, angry passengers, airplanes, flight etiquetteAnger from Inside OutGiphy

"As someone who squeezed all of their and their kids clothes into one carry on bag and nearly broke my back while carrying my infant.. disrespectfully, [hell no]... my oldest will have his own roller bag next time."

"The back pack my kid carries is the entertainment & snacks so they aren't screaming, kicking your chair, or otherwise being the nuisance that all passengers without kids complain about. The roller bag is her actual clothing, shoes, and other things she needs for a week. Also consider kids can't carry heavy things for prolonged periods of walking. The roller bag allows them to port their own things and not make the parents pack mules."

Some wondered why it was apparently a horrible crime for kids to stow a suitcase in the bin while adults get away with all kinds of outrageous behavior on planes:

"This made me so ... angry. Been on probably 200+ flights and never once experienced this. I have however seen people put jackets up there, suitcases the wrong way, small bags that would easily fit under their seat, and an array of other ridiculous shit ADULTS do up in that space. On EVERY FLIGHT IVE EVER BEEN ON. Like y’all just ... hate kids and it’s weird."

It's only every single flight where the attendants ask everyone to please stay seated until they're ready to disembark, and then what happens? Every single person stands up anyway, clogging the aisles and making a mess of the deplaning process.


airplane, planes, flying, passengers, flights, children, kids, parentsEmotions tend to run hot when it comes to airplanes and flying. Photo by Alev Takil on Unsplash

It is super frustrating getting on a flight and finding there's no more room left in the overhead bin. But again, it's not children's fault!

Airlines are incentivized to fill flights to the max as often as they can, and sometimes there's just not enough room in the cabin for everyone's luggage. The idea that kids — whose parents have to pay for a full-fledged ticket — don't deserve that space is ludicrous.

(Speaking of, maybe a kid-priced ticket is a good idea: Parents might be willing to pay less for the ticket and give up some of that luggage space.)

"When my kid's plane ticket costs less than my adult ticket, then we can talk about his luggage (with clothes he wears and items he needs at the destination) taking up less bin space," one parent wrote.

OP had a hard time finding anyone who agreed with him, but the dad clarified his position in further comments. He says he sees kids on flights all the time with only a roller bag and no "personal item" like a backpack that can fit under the seat. The spirit of his post is that, ultimately, parents bringing kids on flights should be as considerate as possible of others, and try to save space whenever possible.

To many parents, though, it felt like just another reminder that kids are less and less welcome in public spaces — and they're not happy about the trend.

Culture

Woman stands for entire 7-hour flight and sparks massive debate on airplane etiquette

Passengers were annoyed, but commenters had some empathetic theories.

envisionaries/TikTok & Leo McLaren/Unsplash

People just can't stop finding new ways to drive each other crazy on airplanes. Whether it's using kids as an excuse to try to switch seats, eating smelly food, standing and block the aisles immediately after landing, or having phone calls on speakerphone, airplanes have become hotbeds of bad behavior. The unique cocktail of travel stress, cramped spaces, alcohol, and altitude seems to have a big effect on our judgment for some reason.

One passenger recently went viral for some interesting behavior during a long flight. And let's just say, her fellow passengers couldn't stand it.

Richard Duong posted a video on TikTok of a passenger several rows ahead of him on a flight. The caption: "Lady stood on my flight the ENTIRE 7 hour duration watching her movie."

Although the video is short, it definitely backs up his claim. Through several clips stitched together, we see a blonde woman standing in the aisle staring at her back-of-seat screen. Lights on? She's standing there. Lights go off? Still standing there.

Duong mentioned in a comment that she did return to her seat when the pilot turned on the seatbelt light, but otherwise, she was standing the entire time.

He also mentioned that passengers on the flight were definitely annoyed. People asking to squeeze by to get to the bathroom, and even the flight attendants trying to serve drinks, were less than thrilled that she was blocking the aisle for so long.

I can imagine it made the passengers around her uneasy, too. Have you ever sensed someone standing over you and felt a sort of unexplainable anxiety? It must have driven the people seated near this woman absolutely bonkers!

We've heard of people having too much to drink or taking their socks off during a flight, but standing the entire time has to be a new one.

@envisionaries

#onthisday


Commenters on the video — unlike some passengers on the flight — had a lot of empathy for the mysterious standing woman.

Apparently, there are a lot of reasons someone might want to stand for *checks notes* seven hours straight.

Some people suggested the woman had a clotting disorder and couldn't sit down for long.

Others speculated about back issues like sciatica, a broken tailbone, severe motion sickness, a herniated disc, or fibromyalgia. Someone said the woman probably had restless leg syndrome.

interior of an airplane with seats and movie screensAlev Takil/Unsplash

The theories just kept coming — to date, the video has racked up nearly a million views and 800 comments.

Duong, who posted the video, probably had the most likely explanation: "I thought she was standing just to stand."

It's true — some people just like to stand! Maybe they read an article about the dangers of sitting and leading a sedentary lifestyle, or maybe it just feels good and relaxes them. The mystery woman could very well have restless legs or a back injury, but maybe she just felt like standing except when she was specifically told not to.

What I loved about the response to Duong's video was the outpouring of empathy. People were really willing, and even eager, to excuse the woman's admittedly pretty obnoxious behavior by justifying it with a medical reason.

It was honestly really refreshing to read the incredibly laundry list of possible medical conditions that could make someone want to stand for an entire flight. We're often so quick to assume the worst in people — that mom trying to switch seats with her kid is just trying to take advantage, people who stand up right away after landing are just being jerks, etc. It's rare that we stop to think and realize that we don't know their story, their medical history, what happened to them earlier that day, what they're really like as a person.

In a follow up video, Duong clarified: "Yes she would get out of the way (for passengers and crew), she was very polite, no fuss or anything, but it did impact the flight."

"The video was not meant to be mean or judgmental. The video was never about her as a person. It was a funny, unexpected event. A woman standing on a flight for seven hours, you don't see that every day."

Politics has always been a mixed bag of genuine discussions about governance, inane partisan bickering, and ongoing struggles for power. As much as I wish we could engage in the first more often, it feels like politics in America has become far more of the latter.

Within those partisan power struggles, the language of politics gets skewed and molded to fit specific purposes. Sometimes, phrases are used as dog whistles calling on people's prejudices. Far too often, the manipulation of words and their meanings—political rhetoric—renders certain terms meaningless as they get tossed around without nuance or context. Ultimately, the repeated use of certain terminology ends up destroying discourse instead of adding to it.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but here are 10 terms I'd love to see us flush from American political discussions:

1. "Real Americans"

There's no excuse for anyone ever using this term. To call certain people "real Americans" implies some kind of defining characteristic that some Americans have and some don't, which is the complete opposite of the country's diverse reality. And who would get to determine that definition, anyway? Do we go by majority? A full 82% of Americans live in urban areas. Does that mean city people are "real Americans" and the rural minority are not? Obviously, that's ludicrous—just as ludicrous as the idea that Americans in diners talking about the Bible are "real Americans." There's simply no such thing.


2. "Identity politics"

It's not that politics based on identity doesn't exist—it's that it has always existed. The entirety of American history is filled with white, land-owning men creating politics around their own identity and excluding people of different identities from the political process in both overt and covert ways. We are where we are because inequality and injustice necessitate pushing for policies based on identity, but let's not pretend that the concept is new. It's just that the identities that are finally getting a voice are those that were kept out by the white, male identity politics that dominated the nation for centuries.

3. "Elites"

This word may have had some meaning at some point, but now it gets tossed around to mean anyone who lives in a city, lives on a coast, has above a certain amount of money, or has a college education. I've also seen it used as a pejorative to describe experts in a field, which is just silly. While yes, there are uber-wealthy people with undue power in politics who can be rightfully scorned as "elites" for snubbing their noses at the concerns of the rest of us, that's a very small group of people. Dismissing the entirety of academia or the entirety of the American coasts or the entirety of people with post-secondary educations as "elitist" is a misuse of the word and needs to stop.

4. "Working class"

On the flip side, the term "working-class Americans" has far too narrow a meaning the way it's usually used. When someone says "working-class Americans" it's usually meant to conjure up images of generally white farm, factory, or mining workers toiling away somewhere in Middle America. Rarely is the term "working class" used to refer to Black or Latino or immigrant workers in big cities, even though they make up a huge percentage of what's technically considered working-class labor. Rarely is the economic anxieties of those urban workers utilized in the same way politically. (The term also makes it sound like only certain kinds of jobs count as "work," which is just weird.)

5. "Blue states/Red states"

The way our electoral system is set up makes the illusion of blue and red states a thing, but it's really not a thing. All states are mish-mosh of people, and all states are closer to 50/50 than 100/0 when it comes to red/blue, Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative votes. I wish we could do away with those binary political labels altogether, but at the very least we need to stop assigning them to entire states. (And let's ditch the Electoral College that perpetuates the illusion altogether.)

There are lots of different versions of maps that more accurately portray the way the U.S. votes, but the truth is that every place is some shade of purple. And our differences are based much more along an urban/rural divide than a state line one.

6. "Career politician"

Yes, some people make a career out of being in government. Yes, there are some people who stay in politics for the wrong reasons or who have been in their positions for longer than they should. But let's stop saying "career politician" like it's automatically bad. Experience and expertise in any field is generally a good thing, and that's as true for public service as it is for anything else. Newcomers add fresh perspectives and voices to government, but there is also value in putting people who know what they're doing in powerful positions of leadership. We could address the negatives of long-term service by introducing term limits where there aren't any, but let's stop demonizing people who dedicate their lives and careers to public service.

7. "Socialism"

This word has a meaning, and it's not what the vast majority of Americans mean when they use it these days, on either side of the aisle. Socialism is a "social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources." Practically no one is advocating for actual socialism in the U.S. Some people think anything having to do with equality or equity is synonymous with socialism, but that's not anywhere close to true. Some people think universal healthcare is a slippery slope to a socialist state, even though they'd never think of public education in the same way. Some people just hear "radical socialist agenda" and start foaming at the mouth, even if what's being described as radical socialism would be considered center-right ideology in most democratic nations we consider our peers. And on the same note...

8. "Radical"

What is often called "radical" isn't really radical these days. The only reason that some things seem radical—as defined by advocating a sweeping change—is because of how long certain things have been allowed to remain status quo. The idea that anyone who works a full-time job should be able to afford to live is not a radical idea. It's just common sense. The idea that no one should go bankrupt or die because they have a medical issue isn't radical—it's the way people in almost every other country live. The idea that people should be able to live free from discrimination for being who they are is not a radical idea—it's simply freedom. The word "radical" is used to make any idea sound out-there, no matter how reasonable it might be in reality.

9. "Fascist"

Not everyone who enacts legislation we don't like is a fascist. Not everyone who pushes nationalism is a fascist. Not even everyone who uses prejudice and fear to drum up populist support is a fascist. Like socialism, this word has been thrown around so often as to have virtually no real meaning anymore. Fascism was a specific form of rule during a specific time and place in history, and though we can point to some similarities of thought or action between politicians now and then, they're not the same. It's not likely that an autocrat dictator would find success with actual fascist practices here, and labeling everything that smacks of authoritarianism or demagoguery as fascism muddies the waters. Authoritarianism and demagoguery are problematic enough on their own, and jumping straight to "Fascism!" enables people to dismiss legitimate concerns over them.

10. "Patriot"

A patriot is someone who loves their country and is willing to defend it. A patriot is not someone who terrorizes their own seat of government because they reject reality and don't like the way the voting went. A patriot doesn't defend an attack on our Capitol or the attempted overturning of an election. A patriot doesn't fly the flag of a defeated country that fought with the United States over the right to enslave Black people and nearly split the nation in two. A patriot doesn't try to keep Americans they disagree with or don't like from voting. A patriot doesn't accuse half of their fellow Americans of being demonic pedophiles. If the people who do any or all of those things are the ones calling themselves patriots, then the word is useless.

Words and their actual meanings matter. Let's discuss ideas. Let's debate policy. But let's do so without slinging around buzz words and phrases that oversimplify positions, play on people's prejudices, and remove the nuance necessary for reasonable discourse.

I've been writing for the people of the internet for more than a decade, so I'm used to my fair share of hate mail. I don't generally share the details of my inbox with the public (choosing instead to send screenshots to my close friends so we can vent about the insanity of the world together), but two e-mails I received from people who had similar complaints about an article I wrote seem like they offer a lesson of sorts about how we should—and shouldn't—communicate with each other.

A few months ago, I wrote an article about some people's reactions to the murder of Cannon Hinnant, a 5-year-old North Carolina boy shot and killed by a neighbor while out riding his bike in front of his house. It was a terrible, tragic story. Anti-BLM forces quickly jumped on it, complaining that the national media didn't cover the story like they would if the races were reversed (Hinnant was white, his killer was Black). A #SayHisName campaign accompanied the complaint, usurped from the BLM movement. My piece pointed out the reasons why that complaint was problematic.

You can read the piece here if you want the context for the emails I'm going to share with you.

As with many articles I write, the reactions were split. I got messages from people thanking me for expressing exactly what they had wanted to say, and messages from people who vehemently disagreed. I always a bit amazed when people take the time to track down my e-mail address to share their thoughts on what I write, and I generally appreciate it, even when they're writing to tell me they disagree with me. But the disagreement messages for this article were on a whole other level.


If it were just the one horrible message, I'd write it off as just some whacko. But I got multiple messages and comments that were boiling over with hatred. I had to block one guy from my Facebook page for dropping in to address me—a woman he has never met—as a "hypocritical bitch" and a "f*cking c*nt" with no other arguments made. (Out of curiosity, I took a peek at his profile and found out he was a fitness/performance coach who had volunteered with a kindness initiative. Interesting, huh?)

But the cherry on top of this article's hate mail sundae was this email from a man named Edger. Prepare now for a bunch of profanity. (You might also need a key for this: gfy = go fuck yourself, pos = piece of shit, msm = mainstream media.)

Here we go:

"Say his fucking name!

Your liberal pos article telling us not to compare Cannon Hinnant's murder to the scam blm bs or politicize the tragedy is unbelievably fucked up bitch. THAT is exactly what you motherfuckers have been doing for six fucking months over this blm scam bullshit, so gfy you scumbag pos!!!

We are sick of you leftwing blm socialist scam artist destroying America and will fight to the death for our country. And we will win.

I pray one or better yet all of your kids get cancer and die, so you can feel the pain of what you liberals have done to this innocent family and Americans with your cold hearted liberal left wing politically motivated articles and tweets. All of you heartless and trashy liberal degenerates will pay dearly one day, God willing.

CNN, MSNBC and CNBC did not pick up the story until just a few hours ago and only after the outrage of their deafening silence was raised loudly by patriotic Americans, unlike you msm liberals pos assholes.

You pathetic pieces of shit do not come close to understanding how angry we all are, but you will in November, you corrupt vermin.
HOW DARE YOU EVIL FUCKING SCUM.
FU!!!"

So fun, right? Clearly, the dude has some issues, but this is really not too far off from public comments I receive on Facebook regularly on my articles. Our public discourse has devolved into radicalized idealogues spewing the anger and hatred their chosen media outlets keep them coming hooked on instead of actually discussing ideas and issues.

But it doesn't have to be this way.

Another email I received on this article exemplifies the kind of disagreements we can and should have, even if we're coming from totally different perspectives.

Hi Annie

First if I want to say I'm sorry you were subjected to all those vulgar tirades from those that did not like your article on Cannon. Those were uncalled for and just immature.

But that is not to say I agree with your article. There are some flaws or liberties you took with your argument. The 30 second google search on news stories does come up with hits, but most from Thursday or Friday of last week. When the murder took place on Sunday. One very local News to NC Did report it on Sunday night.

Second, you wrote, on average, three children are killed every day. But that includes those over the age of 12. I don't think 16 thru 18 year old count as children. Those over the age of 12 make up half of the three children. If you focus on the 8 and under group(Which is more appropriate for this case), it's more like one per day. And I'd be willing to bet, In not one case, did a man walk up to a child in the street and shoot him point blank in the face. Just the heinous of this crime should have made more of a National splash.

I am not asking for demanding justice. His killer was caught.

But in these days of all this racial unrest, I truly believe that, if the races were reversed, this would have been the first story on Good Morning America on Monday morning. Wouldn't you agree? Or at least agree that is a good possibility? Of course I can't prove that and can't cite any examples of when this actually happened.

Anyway, I wanted to write and share my thoughts. I am just so tired of the media bias.

Mike

Now, that's a message I can do something with.

The obvious lesson here is "Be like Mike, not like Edger," but how do we get people to do that? As I said, I've been writing on the internet for 10 years. I've written about all kinds of contentious topics, from racism to breastfeeding in public. Up until this year, the foulest message I'd received was on an op-ed I wrote five years ago about not assuming every family does Santa Claus—a take that earned me a "Stop being such a whiny c*nt and stop f*cking up your kids" message to my personal Facebook page. I get messages like that regularly now.

There are ways to discuss our perspectives—assuming your perspective isn't wrapped in denying someone's humanity or basic human rights—with civility and reasoned arguments. I am happy to debate issues and do so frequently, but it's impossible to have a discussion with someone who says they hope your kids get cancer and die. Hatred like that is cancerous itself, but unfortunately it feels like its metastasizing throughout the body politic.

I wish I had a perfect answer for how to stop it, but I don't. All I know is that we won't survive this if we don't figure out something quick.