We need both sides of the fence here, if only so that we have an opportunity to learn from each other. Lecturing, shouting, insulting people and name-calling are not going to persuade anyone that what they are doing is wrong. It may make us feel better momentarily ('I showed them!') but long term, it's not going to have any positive effect and will instead work to harden attitudes, not break them down. Catchmorefreedombeeswithhoney's handle seems to sum it up very well, even if they are messing with the formatting of the page by having no spaces in there ;)

I wonder when someone wrote
what their intention was? If I was working in the role the member described, I certainly wouldn't be persuaded by their argument - I'd write it off as another hyperbolic rant. Sure, they've stated their opinion, and they are entitled to do that - but when the totality of those opinions are driving reasonable people from FT, that's never a good thing for a forum :(

I think the entire thread was removed. It was really in poor taste and TB responded to several abusive posts with remarkable restraint.

I don't think I've ever responded to one of TB's posts. They've always seemed reasoned, though his unswerving loyalty to his employer (for all it speaks, in isolation, to strength of character) did come across as a bit infuriating. That's really my only problem with some TSA employees--they see their organization's policies as justifiable and necessary, and seem not to want to allow that they may be heavy-handed, not very well thought out, or may cross boundaries.

Naturally, there is no shortage of people here who hold opposite but similarly polarized views. Maybe I'm one of them, though I do think reasonable security measures are important and necessary. However, the debate on security and security measures is no less important. Unfortunately--until very recently, perhaps--the TSA has disagreed.

I tend to agree with Jenbel and ylwae (although just yesterday one of our TSOs implied that our voices ie non-American voices shouldn't be posting on TS&S)

Hyperbole and name-calling tend to sway people against the argument. I am proof of that myself, and I didn't start to really dig past that here until I had some bad experiences and was told some bizarre things that didn't seem right to me.

That is especially true for people talking to non-FTers, or those not necessarily against the AIT or pat downs. Reasoned argument supported by facts seems to go further than using hyperbole, which can close ears to the facts.

But I have also seen what is most people's 'night shift' here, with some very bizarre posts (and user names) which are cleaned up very quickly, so I do know that the moderators are working hard to reduce the amount of mess (for lack of a better word).

I am also saddened that we lost several TSOs over the year who seemed to be willing to post factually and in turn not use names or be derogatory to the general public. They were very valuable to the discussion here because they were willing to respond and answer questions.

When I came to TS&S earlier this year I was shocked to see how some of the regular TSOs spoke about passengers (and still find it loses support for the TSA) I don't know which came first, the chicken or the egg, on TS&S, but as someone standing closer to the side of the TSA I moved across the street to the other side in large part based on how I felt the TSOs treated me (and others) in person and here on TS&S.

> You and your colleagues would get a lot more respect if you would devote some
> of your efforts to scrubbing your ranks of this type of scum

Amen.

Suggested reading for those unaware of Godwin's Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum. As others have said, name calling. e.g "Brown shirts," "bigot," tends to shut down rational discussion and debate while trivializing the horror of truly totalitarian regimes.

"Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions."

Reductio ad Hitlerem "is a pun on reductio ad absurdum, and was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card,[1] by analogy to playing the race card.

"The fallacy claims that a policy leads to—or is the same as—one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich, and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association, a classic confusion of correlation and causality, as if to say that anything Hitler did, no-one else should do, for it will obviously or eventually lead to genocide. For example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong [because it leads to mass murder]." The tactic is often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger..."

I will freely admit my disdain and disgust for the TSA. I have self-edited many comments because I let my anger get the best of me.

However, I must also point out that there are more and more incidents of TSOs and representatives of the TSA who have blatantly lied to the general public and to the denizen of Flyertalk.

Let's start with this big, fat, hairy whopper from Blogger Bob: "These images are friendly enough to post in a preschool. Heck, it could even make the cover of Reader’s Digest and not offend anybody." To this day, Bob refuses to come clean about his, shall we say, miscommunication with the public despite the Rolando Negrin affair.

Perhaps we should look at the times all of us NEXUS card holders have been told by TSOs that our NEXUS ID was not valid despite what the TSA website said because the "TSA website is out of date."

Or maybe we could look at what is reported right here on Flyertalk today about a screening at RDU where the passenger was told that he had no right to pick his witness for the private screening. That's not what the TSA website says and what Pistole said less than two days ago.

So, where should I muster the energy to give one rat's behind about the TSA? They burned the public trust bridge long ago and continue to try to rekindle the flames on the dormant pile of ash.

I am sorry that TerminalBliss is departing as I like debate, dialogue and even shouting matches from time to time. However, I am not going to play the nice guy when I can never be sure that the TSA person I am talking to is giving it to me straight or reading from Blogger Bob's Reader's Digest playbook.

I give great kudos to those who believe that overarching pleasantries are going to woo the average TSO or TSA rep into a constructive dialogue. I think that is a completely lost cause based on just the dialogue here with some of the TSOs who defend their agency's actions regardless. If we had a video of a TSO shoving his hand into the bottom of a child and yelling "this is what you get for refusing to go into the scanner!" some TSO would justify it claiming that we didn't get the full story or that that procedure had to be done but they can't tell us why because it is SSI.

If the TSA wants to rebuild the trust it wants with the American public, the first place to start is to stop treating the American public as if we are all Al Qaeda operatives. Then, stop with the continual backpatting and immodest lines about being the last line of defense. Do those two things and I might be a TSA advocate.

I wish you well, TerminalBliss.

Agreed. I also find that the (very) frequent assertation that the passengers are embellishing or not telling the truth about these incidents weakens the TSOs stance. The fact is that at least one person must be telling the truth. I know what happened to me, for instance.

People believe all kinds of silly things. Google "Flat Earth Society"! I don't give any credit to such people.

The TSA is an out-of-control rogue elephant that needs to be tranquilized.

Bruce

+1.

TerminalBliss

I have a few points to make about your farewell post.
From a fellow veteran (retired US Navy), thank you for your service
to our country. But serving in the US Armed Forces does not make
every individual someone to respect, there are plenty of scum within
the ranks.

If you are so adamant about taking your job and US Constitution so seriously,
what have you done about the obvious violations you have observed while
employed by the TSA? You may have witnessed theft by your comrades, what did you do. You may have witnessed unwarranted degrading acts upon travelers, what did you do? You may have witnessed many things that as an individual that turned your stomach, what did you do?

I had a job in the civilian sector that supported the military. I was told to
lie to a government representative about some work that was not done, but to say it was. My response was that I was not going to do it. My option was to lie or quit. I chose to quit, and be able to live with myself for doing the right thing.

Everyday that you work for the TSA, you may feel you are doing the right thing, but are you really? When was the last time you came to the aid of a passenger that was being abused, and by that I mean in any way that you would not want your mother to be treated.

Just as you feel sensitive about being called names and being wished dead, we as passengers also have feelings. To be told "D.Y.W.T.F.T" for no other reason than to intimidate, is also very stressful to a passenger just trying to get on a plane.
We as passengers have done nothing to warrant the treatment we receive at an airport.

We all need to take a step back and realize that this idiotic "War on Terror" is having ZERO affect on the real terrorists, and actually destroying this country. We need to work out a compromise and end the "Us against them" when the "them" are Americans just wanting to get on an airplane.

At the risk of getting OT, Godwin's law simply states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. (Edited to Add: Agree with the rest of Fredd's comments 100%. To compare anyone that is not a genocidal maniac to Hitler or the Nazis is a disgusting slap in the face to those whose families have been affected by such atrocities. TSA has a lot of issues, but I don't see genocidal maniacs at the WTMD or in their office in DC. Such claims really have no place in rational discussion.)

More on topic, the anti-TSA crowd would likely find they would make more progress by being a little more rational in their style and, as Jon Stewart championed, "taking it down a notch." Treason? Really? Is that where this debate really is? I almost never participate in TS/S any more because it's gotten so extreme. It used to be somewhat informative and useful. (I suppose that may speak to FT at large, sadly.)

I hate being groped and find TSA policies and procedures a horrible, unnecessary invasion of privacy, but I also know the moderate crowd doesn't pay much attention to extreme zealots. I find the name-calling uncalled for at times, and at other times just silly. "Smurfs" is funny. But "clerks"? Come on now... clerks do clerical work. What's wrong with "screeners"?

In fact, what's wrong with rational discussion that doesn't so often visit either extreme?

Point 1: I have been on this board for a while and the worse I see them being called is Clerks or Tub Stackers.

Point 2: Yes, some posters consider them traitors. Read the constitution. Make your own mind up.

Point 3: If you are unhappy on FT the solution is at your fingertips. Stop typing in the URL into your web browser. Dont go away angry, just go away.

Terminabliss sneered at my assessment of the need for body searches when I pointed out there's been not one suicide bombing in the US. "Are YOU in the intelligence community?" Because it's impossible to say this without being in the IC. I won't miss him.

TB, please continue to lurk and jump in once in awhile. You make good points, present them in well reasoned ways and have self control that makes many of the TSA posters here look like raving loonies. I also have dropped off the radar for a bit and remain lurking and posting from time to time. I find that when I get to a point that the folks here get to an unreasonable point - I just stop posting because it is counterproductive. There are many here that oppose the regulations or actions of the agency - that is entirely within their rights. There are those that paint the members of the agency with a broad and ugly brush, and by doing so, completely detract from their valid points. Being told by small minded or mean-spirited people to suffer, do things that are anatomically impossible for most of us, or other nonsense is not the reason to leave. It is a reason to take a step back, and re-evaluate your interactions. I thank you for your service, both in the military and for the agency and hope you will reconsider and at least hang around commenting from time to time. Take care brother and safe travels to you as well.

^^^

I try to engage and discuss, I really do. I offer reasoned arguments with probing questions. I seek to learn the positions of those with whom I debate and seek to adjust my my own understanding if I am found to be incorrect in some fact or opinion or assertion. It is the way I learn and become smarter, if not more intelligent. I am hoping, against the odds it seems, that those with whom I am engaging are in the same pursuit.

As is often the case, the debate is not so much a debate as a discussion with a 4th grader at recess. The responses are not so much counter arguments and proposal for consideration, but taunts and provocations. To these I respond poorly, so I usually back away from the keyboard, grab a glass of juice out of the fridge, maybe even do some real work and come back. I can then turn on my ignore function without feeling that I have failed to defend myself and protect my integrity.

I once wrote a long post in response to one of our resident TSA folks. He replied. I hit the quote function to reply to him and since it left out all of my carefully thought out and I hoped reasoned discussion, all I could see were the responses:

It took an hour to calm down.

And I wrote this:

That was one of the most difficult posts to write that I have ever written. But, in the end it was the right one.