upworthy

debate

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."

This election might be giving a lot of people stress, but it's also giving us memes. While Thursday's debate didn't have anything nearly as spectacular as the fly - which will now get a whole chapter in future history books just so there's enough room to cover even a fraction of the jokes – people were still able to have fun with it.

During the debate, Joe Biden accidentally misspoke and referred the Proud Boys as "poor boys." "He has made everything worse across the board. He said about the poor boys, the last time we were on stage here, he said 'I tell them to stand down and stand ready,'" Biden said during Thursday night's debate. "Come on. This guy is a dog whistle about as big as a foghorn," Biden said.

While the internet didn't pick up on that whole vintagey-sounding dog whistle/foghorn analogy, Twitter did go wild with Biden's "poor boy" moniker.







RELATED: Parents are struggling to explain the presidential debate to their children

Some people just had fun with it and made it their own.



While others brought up the food. A poor boy is a sandwich, Joe!



RELATED: 'Weird Al' takes a rare foray into political humor with his hilarious new election song

And some people wanted to officially make "poor boys" a thing.




Verbal gaffs from politicians are the gift that keeps on giving. And while this whole election cycle might be exhausting, at least we're able to still have even a little bit of fun.

In the lead-up to the last presidential election, thousands upon thousands of people begged Joe Biden to run. And after Donald Trump was elected, even more people demanded that Biden, who was then seen as America's kooky but competent uncle/grandpa, take a stab at the presidency. After all, a guy who was the right-hand man to (arguably) one of America's most respected presidents had to be the best choice, right?

Well, things are a little different in 2019. Even though Biden's been polling well, his campaign has been plagued with controversy — he's been accused of sexual harassment and has ignited ire due to his positive statements about working with segregationist— and at last night's debate, he took another hit when Kamala Harris rightfully confronted him about past statements and stances.

Kamala Harris Confronts Joe Biden On Race | TIMEwww.youtube.com


Harris, a former prosecutor from California, the second black woman to ever be elected to the senate, and the only black woman vying for the presidency, turned her focus to Biden after telling the audience that she "would like to speak on the subject of race." Then, she said she was going to direct her next comments "at Vice President Joe Biden."

"I do not believe you are a racist, and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground," Harris said before revealing Biden's past work in opposing integration. This, she said, was "personal."

"It was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing," Harris added.

"And, you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me," Harris revealed before stating that the subject of race can't be "an intellectual debate among democrats. We have to take it seriously. We have to act swiftly."

Biden responded by saying that Harris has mischaracterized him, noting his past as a public defender (and "not a prosecutor") and Vice President to Barack Obama before stating that everything he'd done in his career was in service to civil rights. Perhaps, in other cases, this would have been enough to get him back on even footing, but Harris, who continues to prove she's a formidable opponent and a strong candidate, shot back with a question about integration.

"Do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America then? Do you agree?" she asked.

"I did not oppose busing in America. What I opposed is busing ordered by the Department of Education. That's what I opposed. I did not oppose ——" Biden said.

"Well, there was a failure of states to integrate public schools in America. I was part of the second class to integrate Berkeley, California public schools almost two decades after Brown v. Board of Education," Harris shot back.

Biden and Harris face off on second night of debates | ABC Newswww.youtube.com

Biden's response that Harris' experience was a failure of local government landed flat, with Harris saying that the federal government must step in when states fail to support and protect civil rights.

"That's why we have the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. That's why we need to pass the Equality Act. That's why we need to pass the E.R.A., because there are moments in history where states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people," she said.

Though Biden tried to fight back, it was clear that no prepared answer would work. And while many might still see his performance at the debate as solid — especially in comparison to freshly-minted viral sensation Marianne Williamson — his responses are a reminder that we must hold those who seek power accountable for their actions.

Will Harris win the nomination? That's still to be seen. But last night's performance sent the message that she's not going down without interrogating the decisions her opponents have made.

More

This Australian nailed why churches should stop fighting gay marriage.

A comedian and archbishop walk into a bar to chat politics, and what happened next was no laughing matter.

On a recent episode of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's "Q&A," actor and comedian Magda Szubanski (Mrs. Hoggett in "Babe") debated Anglican archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies on the merits of same-sex marriage — a hot-button issue currently being voted on in Australia.

Szubanski and Davies were there representing opposing sides of the heated issue. Szubanski, who is openly gay, supports the country's "yes" campaign in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, while Davies has been rallying the country to vote "no."


In an emotional plea with Davies that has since gone viral, Szubanski passionately explained why the church should have much more limited influence in shaping public policy.

Same-sex marriage: Magda Szubanski nails it on Q&A

Magda Szubanski nails it on Q&A: "You won't even let me marry outside the Church … Why should you have the right to tell me or any other person, straight or gay, what they do in the civil domain? That's not your domain."

Posted by Guardian Australia on Monday, October 23, 2017

"Now, I accept that the church will never marry me. That grieves me in ways that you will never know," Szubanski began, her voice tight.

But, she said, that's something she's come to accept:

"I’m less of an atheist than people would think. 74.9% of people in Australia get married outside the church. Now, I accept that the church will never marry me. That grieves me in ways that you will never know. I’m the one in my family, when I buried my parents, I organized every detail of the requiem masses, I wrote the orders of service, I put the pall over my mother’s coffin."

[rebelmouse-image 19532375 dam="1" original_size="500x275" caption="GIF via "Q&A."" expand=1]GIF via "Q&A."

Growing frustrated, Szubanski pointed out how outrageous it is that the church should have any authority to also decide who can get married outside of its doors:

"Now, I accept that the Catholic church will never marry me. But you won’t even let me marry outside the church. … Fair enough, in your domain, you do what you like. We live in a 'live and let live' society. I don’t want to tell anyone else what to do."

Szubanski's brief but powerful argument was met with loud cheers from the live audience. A "yes" vote to legalize same-sex marriage in Australia, however, is far from assured.

The vote over gay marriage is heating up.

A mail-in, voluntary survey — which began in September and will close on Nov. 7 — will prompt the Australian parliament to debate and vote on the issue, should the "yes" campaign garner more votes. That will likely lead to a change in public policy. If "no" wins out, however, the status quo — which gives no legal right for same-sex partners to wed — will remain. (It's a ... complicated process.)

Australians overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage, public polling has shown. But as the end to the mail-in vote draws nearer, advocates for the "yes" campaign have become increasingly concerned with low voter participation among key groups, particularly younger Australians, who they see as crucial to changing the law in favor of LGBTQ rights.

A "yes" victory might seem inevitable, which could be contributing to lower turnout, some have said noted — but it's anything but. And if voters don't decide at the ballot box, the church will, as Szubanski noted.

"Why should you have the right to tell me — or any other person, straight or gay — what they do in the civil domain?" Szubanski asked Davies, as the audience cheered. "That’s not your domain."

Preach.