Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"They’re expendable workers. I own this place. I’m the boss. They work for me. The only reason I don’t fire them is that they’re cheaper than robots. Etc."

I hate people like that. Why must he build himself up by putting down others? Regardless of what you think of the TSA's procedures, the people in the airport don't make the law. They're just decent people trying to make a living. If you have to insult them, albeit only to yourself, just to opt out of a scan you're probably the one who needs replaced by a robot.




It's really easy to Godwin a response to this, but I'll opt out and just ask: How decent are these people if they signed up for jobs to look at naked pictures and grope strangers? I'm all for being respectful as a tactic, but it's not as if they're doing anything to deserve respect.


When it comes to jobs of enforcement, you have to divorce the intent from the actions. It's similar to a cop. Lots of cops get into that career because they want to uphold the law and that's how you do it. They don't get to choose what laws they uphold. Cops routinely are forced to do things that go against their own personal politics, because you couldn't have a police force where every individual cop only enforced the laws as they saw fit.

It's not bad to want to uphold travel safety or to take a job doing so. You might disagree with whether or not these scanners accomplish that, or if they do, if it's worth the tradeoff, and so might the TSA agent. That doesn't make the TSA agent less deserving of respect as a person.


I find your argument disingenuous, since these people were likely hired before these new regulations were in place.


It's not as if this is the first invasive thing they've done, and I think my argument still stands if rephrased as "people who wouldn't quit a job when told to look at naked pictures and grope strangers all day."


Security personnel will almost always have to perform a job that is, in some way, invasive. Your argument could apply to all security personnel, not just those participating in the new policies.


I believe he was intentionally using hyperbole there. For example, if he were being literal, why would he mention "firing" anyone, since he obviously can't actually do that?


It doesn't matter. It says something about him regardless. It says something about the snobbishness here too that nobody else thinks its even noteworthy.


Sorry--I'm not trying to be condescending here, but, are you familiar with what exaggeration really means?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: