Is this really a thing?!? Blasting the others with unwanted noise.
I never been in a flight, or train across Europe where passengers showed just lack of respect for the others.
The only ones pumping anything loud, on trains or busses, usually get quickly pointed down by other passengers, personal or security.
Ah, and then there are the rebellious kids or gangs, as the other exception, which usually don't take flights anyway.
NikolaNovak 1 days ago [-]
I am astonished how many people now use speakerphone as their default interaction. On subway, go train, in grocery stores, on the streets, sometimes even in the office, they blast their conversations with zero care.
And so yes, I've definitely seen and experienced people watching inane tiktoks on speaker in subway or bus or airplane. It's the epitome of complete lack of empathy or self awareness to me, but I guess that's the way culture is going.
tzs 23 hours ago [-]
I'm curious what people think of people who use their speakerphone in public, but have the volume set low enough and themselves speak low enough that the conversation is no louder than an in person conversation would be.
Still annoying?
If so, is the problem usually the loudness of the speakerphone, or the loudness of the person who is there? I've noticed some people talk louder when on speakerphone than when on regular phone (and some people talk louder on regular phone than when talking to someone in person).
Back before mobile phones there was a tendency for people to talk louder on the phone at first, but after being reminded a few times that just because the other person is far away doesn't mean you have to shout most people learned to talk at normal volume.
I wonder if loud talkers don't get that feedback now? With old phone handsets there was pretty much only one position for them, so the mic was about the same distance from the mouth for all speakers. Talk to loud and it would be annoying on the receiving end.
But with modern phones there are a variety of positions people hold them in, which can lead to quite different mic positions. My understanding is that they do a lot more automatic gain control and other processing to try to keep the level the same despite all those different positions. Perhaps this means that the person on the other end doesn't know you are talking loud and so unless someone on your end tells you to keep it down you might never realize you are a loud phone talker.
follie 22 hours ago [-]
> Still annoying?
Naturally it is extremely rude. If two people have a conversation in public both pay attention to the surroundings and feedback to change their volume tone and topics. If you put someone on speaker without introducing everyone present then they should hang up on you.
RS-232 5 hours ago [-]
> If you put someone on speaker without introducing everyone present then they should hang up on you.
This is silly. Just tell the person you are talking to that they are on speaker.
Assuming the party on the phone has been informed and the volume is not excessive, having a conversation on speaker is equivalent to having a physical conversation in person.
lostlogin 1 days ago [-]
Phone makers deleted the speaker is the ‘courage’ I want.
fhdkweig 1 days ago [-]
There are times you need speaker-phone mode. My parents almost always turn on speaker-phone when they call me because they both want to be part of the conversation. I don't think they will ever take a plane or a bus trip in their lives so their speaker-phone isn't going to hurt anyone.
tzs 22 hours ago [-]
Speaker phone is probably necessary nowadays since many people only have a smartphone.
With the old phones you could reasonably tilt your head and raise your shoulder to hold the handset in place so you could do something that required two hands while talking/listening, like looking up something in a book or taking notes.
Smartphones are smaller than the old handsets and much flatter. I can pinch mine between my shoulder and head but I've got to raise my should pretty high and do some other contortions to get my head tilted enough making it much more awkward to do anything with my hands. Also that phone is small enough that it is pretty well covered in that position by the side of my face and my shoulder, so I'm not sure the mic could pick up much.
jghn 19 hours ago [-]
Can't you just hold it with your hand?
tzs 17 hours ago [-]
Sometimes you need both hands for something else while on the phone.
Landline telephones mostly had handsets that looked like the top photo here [1]. When held with a hand they were positioned as shown in the second photo there.
Because of its thickness and length you only had to tilt your head and/or raise you should a little to hold it hands free with the speaker end right at the ear and the mic end still near the mouth.
If you were taking a call while standing for example and needed to write something down in a notebook that was no problem.
Sure. At home. And yes, I'm old enough to have walked around with a phone tucked in my neck.
But if you're in public, and using a smartphone, headphones are always an option. There s absolutely no reason why anyone needs to use speakerphone in public if they're just one person.
echelon 1 days ago [-]
I need speakerphone when I'm home alone and attempting to be on a phone call while doing other things. Some of those calls are even about instructing me to look for something, so it necessitates me to be moving about. Speakerphone is an incredibly useful utility.
Don't take functionality away because of a few bad actors. That'd be like getting rid of drones because a few people are assholes.
Put rules in place to correct the bad behavior. Kicking them off planes seems fair.
dataflow 1 days ago [-]
I've seen it everywhere except airplanes. I don't recall ever seeing it on planes. How often have you seen that? Do passengers or flight attendants do anything? How does the person respond?
cromulent 1 days ago [-]
I had it happen to me, on a long-haul flight, in business class. I was shocked. I stood up to look at the guy after no-one did anything.
I told him that phone speakers "make me gassy" and then he turned it off.
thedougd 24 hours ago [-]
You’re an every day hero. Thank you!
cromulent 24 hours ago [-]
Thanks mate. If he can assault my ears, I can assault his nose, right. Or threaten to ;)
pfannkuchen 22 hours ago [-]
Can you follow through on that? I don’t really know how I would assault someone’s nose on command. Would appreciate some tips.
etrautmann 23 hours ago [-]
Kids playing games is the truly annoying one. You feel terrible saying anything but it’s also some of the most annoying sounds.
born2web 9 hours ago [-]
Totally... unlike watching a movie, games keep them addicted. I have experienced situations where even toddlers played for 5 hours straight... I couldn't even muster the courage to ask them to lower their volume :-)
pjmlp 22 hours ago [-]
Agreed, but not on a plane.
mikkupikku 1 days ago [-]
In America, a small number of people derive pleasure from being disruptive to everybody, and blasting music on public transit with captive audiences is a very "traditional" way of fucking with people and expressing your broad contempt for their society. I'd estimate that maybe one in five times you get on a city bus in America, you'll encounter somebody like this.
Very rarely does anybody call them out or otherwise try to reign it in, because you're as likely as not to be physically attacked and in America, the odds of bystanders coming to your rescue are... Not zero, but not great.
andy99 1 days ago [-]
Pretty sure on planes this is more ignorance than malice. It’s self absorbed people that are too selfish to consider someone else might not want to hear what they’re watching, rather than some deliberate anti society thing.
Regardless, no punishment is too harsh, this should be considered the equivalent of lighting up a cigarette on a plane.
sowbug 1 days ago [-]
Another angle is kids who have been given a tablet as a pacifier. Their parents are often on autopilot, having checked out months or years earlier.
I'm not a fan of the tablet as a pacifier approach but it's not my business. What is my business is when the parents do so without providing a way for the child to indulge without annoying everybody else. I consider that to be absolutely unacceptable in that if they can afford a tablet they can afford cheap headphones.
sowbug 22 hours ago [-]
Yes, only the open-air noise-making kind (per the article topic). Don't care what the rectangle is as long as we can't hear it.
mothballed 1 days ago [-]
When young children are on airplanes you cheat in whatever way you can.
jghn 1 days ago [-]
Perhaps people can cheat while still giving them headphones or turning devices on silent mode?
etrautmann 23 hours ago [-]
I have a three year old and would still never subject others to tablet noise. Yes they’re the literal worst to fly with but don’t export your misery to others.
zeroonetwothree 1 days ago [-]
Tell me you don’t have kids without telling me you don’t have kids
Aurornis 1 days ago [-]
I’ve brought a tablet on airplanes to watch movies with kids on long flights, but we bring headphones. Flights are the only time we do this.
There is nothing about a tablet or a flight that requires letting them blast audio at full volume. It’s not even a good experience.
sowbug 23 hours ago [-]
That's rather defeatist. Surely you believe there are other options.
We traveled with a single Nexus 7 and one pair of headphones shared by three kids. Having to take turns taught them to be OK with having entertainment, being a spectator, or being bored. And they understood that if we ever heard it, they'd all have to be bored for a while.
1 days ago [-]
e40 1 days ago [-]
The idea someone doesn’t know they bothering everyone around them is absurd. It is 100% malice.
andy99 1 days ago [-]
I don’t know if anyone remembers the movie Inside Man where at the beginning they are waiting in line at the bank and the woman is having a loud conversation on her phone and the guard comes and tells here to keep it down. It’s this kind of person that I see not using speakers (when the movie was made I don’t think they contemplated humanity could sink that low), at best it’s entitlement, but I still think in most cases it boils down to not thinking about others vs actively trying to annoy them.
y1n0 1 days ago [-]
I’m sure it is, much of the time. But I also believe many people are just completely self absorbed and devoid of empathy.
plagiarist 1 days ago [-]
I am self-absorbed and devoid of empathy but it is still easy to logically deduce that other people don't want to hear my games, videos, or phone calls.
bluefirebrand 1 days ago [-]
Being devoid of empathy would mean you may realize that people don't want to hear your shit, but you wouldn't care what other people want
Sharlin 1 days ago [-]
Hanlon's razor applies. Yes, some people have a bad case of the main character syndrome simply because nobody has ever called them out on it.
mothballed 1 days ago [-]
Usually they have been called out on it a time or two. They are often signaling that if you want to stop them, you'll have to use violence, and look -- no one or almost no one is willing to do that.
There are a couple of us who have actually seen someone call them out that are warning folks here what commonly happens. I saw someone get attacked with a knife, another commenter here had a gun pulled on him when they asked them to stop. It isn't about the loud music itself, it's that they're openly saying they are king shit, that no one is willing to challenge them, and broadcasting their eagerness to deliver violence upon anyone that might.
The other side of this is that they often do it on places you can't easily escape, like a train car with stops only every 5 minutes. This gives them a very long time to go to town on anyone that might challenges them. Something I've seen with my own eyes when they were asked to tone down the music.
jghn 1 days ago [-]
> They are often signaling that if you want to stop them, you'll have to use violence
I'm well aware of the types you're talking about, but in my experience this has largely changed. It used to be that these sorts were the most common offenders. But now it's just, well, everyone and anyone. For instance I don't think the little, old lady in front of me on the bus the other day was challenging people to violence.
Sharlin 1 days ago [-]
I think we're talking about two different groups of people. The ones I mean don't look dangerous, just self-absorbed. The ones you mean I don't have much experience of, they're not common around here. And they're certainly not common on airplanes.
andy99 1 days ago [-]
> I saw someone get attacked with a knife, another commenter here had a gun pulled on him
I though the discussion here was about people not using their headphones on airplanes.
18 hours ago [-]
Fezzik 1 days ago [-]
A lot of people don’t get a lot of things; you know the adage about stupidity being a more likely cause than malice. Just last week I had to explain to a grown adult why spitting on the sauna floor was disgusting and rude to the other gym members. He was shocked.
dymk 1 days ago [-]
It's apathy
charcircuit 1 days ago [-]
I experienced this in real life and this creature was unable to understand the bus driver telling her to stop. It's like they didn't understand English nor social signals. To me it seemed to stem from a lack of intelligence than from intentionally being malicious.
pessimizer 1 days ago [-]
They understand English. They just don't want to stop doing what they want to do. This is a quality that they share with everyone else on the planet by definition, but they think they're more important than other people.
There are angry people playing dominance games on one hand, and on the other people who simply don't care what anybody else wants and will do what they can get away with. There's no difference in intelligence between the two, but only the first type can actually be reasoned with. The second type will only pretend to be reasonable until the person that they're intimidated by leaves the room.
Everybody says "social cues," but as you said, the people who "don't get social cues" also don't seem to "get" direct requests or orders.
pstuart 1 days ago [-]
Sorry to disagree -- stupidity and self-centeredness have a plan in that too.
dataflow 1 days ago [-]
> no punishment is too harsh, this should be considered the equivalent of lighting up a cigarette on a plane.
Okay this is ridiculous. One is a fire hazard and the other is not. Do you really need the hyperbole here?
0xffff2 20 hours ago [-]
Are you aware that smoking used to be allowed on planes? We didn't stop allowing it because of a rash of airplane fires either.
dataflow 17 hours ago [-]
Yes, I'm fully aware. And it is emphatically irrelevant. It's kind of ridiculous to suggest the original motivations for the rule somehow render the associated risks on people's safety, lives, and properties permanently ineligible for consideration.
eudamoniac 5 hours ago [-]
Japanese pilots still smoke every flight
BenjiWiebe 23 hours ago [-]
The lack of cigarettes on a plane isn't due to the fire hazard.
17 hours ago [-]
hallole 1 days ago [-]
I don't think I'd have the wherewithal to jump in and do something if I were a bystander. I'm not the sort to throw hands, I don't carry, and these disruptive types are already a bit feral.
I'm not sure it's contempt they're expressing, or if they're expressing anything at all. There really are people who enjoy and defend it, too; "it's just a guy playing music, mind your own business." Truly alien.
AnimalMuppet 1 days ago [-]
My business includes my ears. If you don't want me in your business, keep your business to your ears.
standardUser 1 days ago [-]
I've found that looking the person in the eye and giving a quick "hey, forget your headphones?" sometimes does the trick, and has yet to start a fight. Everyone has to act in ways they are comfortable with - but mass inaction is what creates space for this shitty behavior in the first place.
dymk 1 days ago [-]
I did this on a bus and had a gun pulled on me, so your mileage may vary
mothballed 1 days ago [-]
Yes exactly. If they are blasting ethnic music while in an ethnic hood it is usually because they are repping their hood, and sometimes in a way to intentionally bait someone to say something. If you ask them to stop they will pretend it is a challenge on their hood/race (no matter that they will play it so loud everyone's ears are splitting and all they want is not to get hearing damage). I watched a guy pull out a knife and start slashing as soon as he was asked to stop.
If you ask such person to stop it is implied they expect you to back that up with violence and you've already consented to a battle.
balamatom 1 days ago [-]
>you've already consented to a battle.
More like you've already admitted cowardice, which makes you fair game. If it's the music that upsets you, come at me with louder speakers!
wanderingstan 1 days ago [-]
My go-to technique has been to offer the offender a pair of headphones, saying something to insinuate that they must forgotten theirs or be too poor to afford them. Most of the time they say “oh I have headphones!” and then realize that they’ve outed themselves. (I stockpile the free headphones from gyms or airplanes, or get the $2 ones from AliExpress)
CamJN 23 hours ago [-]
But on a plane they'll have already been asked by a flight attendant either by the time the plane takes off, or as soon as it stops climbing. So clearly this isn't working on the people this rule targets. In fact I think this rule is actually the ideal response from the airline and should be adopted everywhere, as anyone who is so unconcerned with the wellbeing of others as to play audio on their device without headphones shouldn't be allowed to fly, as they're obviously happy to fuck up everyone's day, and won't follow instructions.
oidar 1 days ago [-]
Bluetooth headphones too?
This is actually a really good response though. Because the act of having a device blaring demonstrates contempt for everyone one around them. It's hard to act in a hateful way to someone who just offered you something for free.
wanderingstan 23 hours ago [-]
Exactly. To refuse the “gift” is an explicit statement of “I know I could do this silently but I want to bother everyone around me.”
boxedemp 1 days ago [-]
Big "Kill them with kindness" energy.
18 hours ago [-]
CalRobert 1 days ago [-]
Happens elsewhere too. Can be an issue in Dutch trains
zulux 24 hours ago [-]
It happenes in Dutch trains, but it's not the Dutch doing this.
LaurensBER 1 days ago [-]
20%? That's a bit insane. This does happen in Europe but is heavily looked down up on and usually quickly corrected.
On the other hand I did get a chewing out from an older guy for having a conversation with friends on a train once, so some people take it perhaps a bit too serious.
keiferski 1 days ago [-]
It’s very much a thing on US public transit, with the added negative bonus that no one ever confronts the person doing it, because chances are they’re either crazy, armed, or both.
boxedemp 1 days ago [-]
Happens in Canada too. Calling them out can be dangerous, people have been injured.
24 hours ago [-]
baal80spam 1 days ago [-]
I can guarantee you that's not only America's problem.
striking 1 days ago [-]
Sure, but also you might be on a city bus for... half an hour? It's not pleasant to have someone blast noise but it's nothing like a multi-hour flight. Why bother?
johnfn 1 days ago [-]
I mean, you are painting it as some moralistic judgement, but if you’re asking me for on one hand listening to some annoying music, and on the other hand having some chance (however slight) of bodily injury, knife wound, or whatever… I know which one I am going to choose.
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1 days ago [-]
> and in America, the odds of bystanders coming to your rescue are... Not zero, but not great
Yes, because there's been a recent push to more heavily punish good Samaritans than perpetrators. When good men get metaphorically crucified for helping, they stop helping.
If that seems like a common sense outcome of such policies, you're right. But as we've seen time and again, common sense is not a flower that grows in everyone's garden.
JumpCrisscross 1 days ago [-]
I’ve absolutely seen this nonsense in the UK.
mikkupikku 1 days ago [-]
Doesn't surprise me, but I'm only speaking from my experience in America.
gib444 1 days ago [-]
Yup. Eg guys getting on Thameslink services in south London, walking right up to the area behind the driver's cab and and start creating a disturbance. Driver stops the train and has a go at them if he's feeling in the mood...
1 days ago [-]
slg 1 days ago [-]
>is a very "traditional" way of fucking with people and expressing your broad contempt for their society.
Motivated in large part as a response to society saying fuck them. I'm not defending assholes being assholes, but I think what we have been seeing in the US over the last 5 or 10 years is classic collapse of the social contract stuff. The less a society cares about its people the less its people will care about the rest of society.
mikkupikku 1 days ago [-]
I get what you're saying, but blasting music on buses has been a thing since boom-boxes were invented, it's nothing new. I am also not inclined to blame systems instead of individuals because most people with the same background of injustice will choose to respond to that injustice by being better than it. It's only a very small number of people being disruptive like this, while the number of people with fair and understandable grievances against society is massive.
3eb7988a1663 1 days ago [-]
It was referenced in the 1986 Star Trek movie -Spock incapacitates a guy after he refuses to turn down his stereo.
Digging more into this... because why not... it appears that he (Kirk Thatcher) also wrote the song and there's a nice bit of real life lore in the Wired article.
> According to the movie credits, the song was performed by the obscure band Edge of Etiquette. (Edge of Etiquette was, indeed, so obscure that it is rather difficult to find anything more about them than their having performed this particular song.) The punk on the bus who flipped Kirk "the bird" was played by Star Trek IV associate producer Kirk Thatcher. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia, 4th ed., vol. 1, p. 354, Edge of Etiquette was a pseudonym for Thatcher.
> Thatcher also wrote the lyrics for the song to music written by Mark Mangini. A game card, from the Star Trek Customizable Card Game released by Decipher, excerpted the lyrics of the song. Thatcher had complained that the new wave music previously considered would not have been an accurate representation of what a 1980s punk would listen to, and offered to write "I Hate You" instead.
> But portraying “Punk on the Bus” would turn out to be Thatcher’s most lasting contribution to The Voyage Home. He and Nimoy had grown chummy during filming, so when the filmmakers were looking to cast the punk, Thatcher lobbied the director to get the role. “I told him, ‘Look, I used to have a mohawk, and I’ll dress the part—you won’t recognize me,'” Thatcher says. “Leonard said, ‘Huh, really,’ in that deep, basso profondo way. I couldn’t tell if he thought it was a stupid idea.”
> ...
> The song itself came later. Paramount Pictures had a music-licensing deal that gave it to access to songs by new-wave artists like Duran Duran, but none of those bands seemed like a good fit for Thatcher’s snarling character. “I said, ‘Leonard, that’s not punk. I could write you a punk song and it will cost you nothing. I’ll do it for [a few hundred dollars],'” says Thatcher. He wrote out the nihilistic lyrics, which he brought to his friend (and future Mad Max: Fury Road Oscar winner) Mark Mangini, a sound editor who came up with the song’s snotty, simple guitar riff. Thatcher himself sang vocals, and the whole tune was recorded on a weekend night, in a hallway that would provide the necessarily shitty sound.
> “My idea of punk at the time was the Dead Kennedys, Germs, Black Flag—real West Coast hardcore punk, that real raw sound,” Thatcher says. “I also wanted a Sex Pistols ‘God Save the Queen’ vibe, which is why I did the British accent.”
> As for Nimoy’s response? “He came by, heard it, and said, ‘OK. That’s very punk.'”
slg 1 days ago [-]
>I get what you're saying, but blasting music on buses has been a thing since boom-boxes were invented, it's nothing new.
Yes, because people have always felt like outsiders in relation to society. My point was that this sort of public misbehaving is getting worse because social cohesion is getting even worse. Not everyone with grievances against society will respond this way, but as more people have grievances against society, more people will respond in a manner like this.
1 days ago [-]
3842056935870 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
balderdash 1 days ago [-]
It is - there are three groups of people that do this generally the completely self absorbed, people from places where it’s culturally acceptable, and people that like the feeling of empowerment that comes from inconveniencing others (the same people that will walk out into traffic with no light / crosswalk)
callamdelaney 1 days ago [-]
How is walking over a road without a light inconveniencing anyone? I’ll cross the road when it’s clear. I don’t blast music in public places though.
JumpCrisscross 1 days ago [-]
> How is walking over a road without a light inconveniencing anyone?
They said “walk out into traffic.” That’s rude. You should wait for a signal or a break in the flow so nobody has to brake for you.
zeroonetwothree 1 days ago [-]
I never see this being an issue. On the other hand I often see cars blast by stop signs without stopping or ignore marked crosswalks with passengers inside.
No wonder pedestrian deaths are up so much the past few years
Aurornis 1 days ago [-]
Walking into traffic in an undesignated crossing is rude (and illegal). Likewise with trying to cross at an intersection when traffic has the green light.
But when there’s a designated crossing area, it’s the responsibility of traffic to stop. Pedestrians should not stand and wait at the intersection for a break in traffic because it’s a confusing signal to drivers. If you’re standing at a designated crosswalk you need to be either signaling your intent to cross or moving away from the crosswalk
lesuorac 1 days ago [-]
Getting pedantic now but depending on the circumstances the traffic is supposed to have stopped for you.
Assuming there is no paint on the road an (unmarked) crosswalk may still exist [1] and drivers are supposed to yield to a pedestrian in a marked or unmarked crosswalk [2].
Getting more pedantic, less than 1pct of the population is in California.
Pretty clear parent meant people who cross against the light / mid-block when there is a crossing 50ft away / stepping in front of the one car on the road when they could look up for one second and step out behind that car etc. in other words the people who put off 'main character' vibes.
smohare 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
sheiyei 1 days ago [-]
Getting pedantic here, "no light / crosswalk" means no crosswalk, painted or not.
lesuorac 19 hours ago [-]
Except it doesn't.
Legally there is a crosswalk regardless of if it's painted or not see [1]. I get this wasn't on the drivers test but it's still in the law.
There were some complaints about not everybody living in California. It's a law in your state too; I'm not going to find it for you.
It’s going over your head. He’s talking about certain people.
schrodinger 1 days ago [-]
Depending on where you live it may not really be relatable to you, but living in NYC -- there are people that will intentionally jay walk on a green light and even _stare you down_ knowing that you will stop and let them pass.
People jay walk when there's no traffic all the time, that's totally fine. This is a totally different act of passive aggression.
koolba 1 days ago [-]
> Depending on where you live it may not really be relatable to you, but living in NYC -- there are people that will intentionally jay walk on a green light and even _stare you down_ knowing that you will stop and let them pass.
This is the speed walking equivalent of picking up pennies in front of a steam roller. Saves a min here and then until you pay for it big time.
smohare 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
jraines 1 days ago [-]
Last time I flew my family was very early to the gate; it was me, my wife, my 5 and 3 year old girls, and a very elderly lady in a wheelchair who was blasting Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” from her phone speakers.
verall 1 days ago [-]
From what I can tell, if no rule is enforced, about 2-5% of people think it's totally normal to scroll tiktok or instagram at full volume in public.
So on a crowded bus you've normally got 1 or 2. Behavior is actually much better on airplanes, usually (maybe 1-2 in ~150 passenger plane), and I have never seen someone who did not silence their phone after being asked politely by the attendant.
Findecanor 1 days ago [-]
I've experienced it all over Europe. Trains with reserved seats tend to have a separate "silent car" for this reason.
Aurornis 1 days ago [-]
Agree. It’s funny to see comments trying to act like this never happens in Europe, only America.
nslsm 1 days ago [-]
That's because in Europe certain demographics don't catch many planes or trains. But they do catch the tube or the bus, so get on one of those and enjoy the experience.
DaSHacka 1 days ago [-]
Lol was wondering how long I would have to scroll before someone pointed out the obvious. People talking about the "collapse of the societal contract", like I wonder how that happened....
iron_albatross 22 hours ago [-]
Are there some dog whistles in your comment and its parent? If not then could you restate your point more clearly, it’s not immediately apparent what you’re talking about.
Aurornis 1 days ago [-]
> I never been in a flight, or train across Europe where passengers showed just lack of respect for the others.
In my European travels I’ve definitely seen it. It depends entirely on the region. Europe is a big place. I’ve encountered it in Asian countries too. Again, Asia is huge and diverse.
Not coincidentally, it’s the same in the United States. I’ve never seen this on the local commuter train with people traveling to and from work. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen it on a flight (flight attendants did intervene and request they stop).
Let’s not try to make this into another “America bad” topic because this is not a uniquely American problem.
maccard 1 days ago [-]
I was on a 2 hour flight this week. The guy in front of me listened to a political podcast on speaker that was loud enough it cut through my noise cancelling earbuds. There was absolutely no chance I was risking my safety calling him out on it in that scenario.
> usually get quickly pointed down by other passengers, personnel or security
I’ve never, not once, heard a member of staff ask someone to use headphones on transport.
halapro 1 days ago [-]
It's a thing everywhere except very well-behaved places/countries. This means it's almost everywhere.
The last time I had an uncle blast his Doujin feed at full volume next to me, I suggested he lower the volume, he didn't care, so I blasted my own feed at louder volume. He got it then. Sadly people a few rows back did the same on the next train...
hysan 17 hours ago [-]
Yes, at least in my experience on flights in the USA. It’s very rare but it does happen. I was lucky one time that the person doing it sat next to me and I politely asked them to use headphones and no fuss was had.
akudha 23 hours ago [-]
I have been in flights, elevators (not joking), coffee shops where people were listening to music or were on phone calls, on speaker.
There are some weirdos amongst us. There were a handful of reports of people singing religious music, in planes while on flight. I haven’t had the pleasure of listening to this, thankfully
cjbgkagh 1 days ago [-]
Very much a thing and one of the many reasons I'm becoming more of a recluse, shared public spaces are becoming rather unpleasant. Mostly in the US and LatAm, a fair amount in the UK, not so much in Germany.
plagiarist 1 days ago [-]
There are fewer and fewer shared public spaces every year anyway. It feels like everything is getting taken over by franchises that want to maximize customer throughput.
arikrahman 1 days ago [-]
I am already embarassed when my headphone jack slips and everyone can hear a targeted ad putting me on blast. To do so intentionally never occured to me. It would be mortifying.
jghn 1 days ago [-]
I can't remember the last time I've been on a flight, train, or bus where there wasn't at least one person playing audio of some sort without headphones.
nunez 18 hours ago [-]
Big time!
I fly every week. There's always ONE F**ING GUY who needs to have Instagram or TikTok going at full blast.
MattPalmer1086 11 hours ago [-]
It never used to happen in the UK but now people do it every day on tubes and trains. I had to move seats twice last week due to these assholes blasting their stuff out.
I don't know what changed exactly. It was definitely seen as antisocial behaviour in the past. I'll just leave this clip here of Spock dealing with a noisy punk on a bus.
On planes I've mostly seen it with people playing stuff for very young children.
I've heard a lot of Cocomelon crap at full volume on planes because I guess parents don't want to have their kids use headphones. I sort of understand it but at the same time I also think it's pretty inconsiderate for the rest of the people on the flight who likely do not want to listen to their kid's awful YouTube show.
In the NYC subway I've seen dozens of people who will blast their terrible music very loudly with a bluetooth speaker. These are full-grown adults. I don't know why they do that, I suspect it would sound better on the train with headphones. Maybe it's some form of evangelism, where they think the music is utterly fantastic that everyone should listen to it.
_se 1 days ago [-]
Usually it's because the kid won't wear headphones. Not really an excuse, but a lot of the time the kid is just going to do what they want. What the parents should do in that situation is make them watch without sound, but that's harder than the alternative, so they just do whatever.
tombert 1 days ago [-]
Or the parent should just take the phone away! If the kid won't listen to it quietly then they should do that thing that I believe is called "parenting". Bring a picture book or something for them if they need to be entertained without the phone.
This was done by my parents when I was a young kid. I wouldn't turn the volume down on my Game Boy on a flight, so my parents took it away from me until I promised to keep the volume down, which I did after that.
CamJN 23 hours ago [-]
I've been on a flight where a set of parents took away their child's tablet, not for being noisy but as punishment for some other bad behaviour. What resulted was 6 hours of a child screaming on an 8 hour flight. Aside from wanting to punt the little shit out the door, I was almost impressed at the kid not giving up after a few minutes, and then hours when nothing changed.
tombert 21 hours ago [-]
I still think that's less actively inconsiderate than Cocomelon at full volume. At some level they can't control the kid crying but they can control the volume which their kid's media runs at.
bluecalm 1 days ago [-]
My experience is the opposite. People blast music or other sounds on flights all the time.
In Europe it's also very common to smoke in public, including beaches, restaurants, areas around building entrances. Literring is also very common.
Even Switzerland is dirty because cigarette buts are everywhere. It's just that some % of the population are inconsiderate assholes and only heavy enforcement works vs than. Unfortunately this is something our current society is not willing to do.
wolfi1 1 days ago [-]
it's usually some guy on the neighbouring table at McDonald's
gspr 1 days ago [-]
I've definitely experienced this on public transit in cities in several different countries here in Europe. It's not an everyday experience, but it definitely happens.
pjmlp 1 days ago [-]
Yes, but that isn't a flight.
gspr 1 days ago [-]
But you said people on busses and trains doing this get shut down. My experience is they don't.
mvdtnz 17 hours ago [-]
It's a problem everywhere. People on the golf course walk around with bluetooth speakers audible to players in front and behind. Mountain bikers play music audible to other trail users. Many people have absolutely no regard for others around them and this manifests through noise nuisance.
I want to echo the top comment in that post. Apple removing the headphone jack from iPhones was absolutely criminal.
mikkupikku 1 days ago [-]
At cruising altitude, I hope.
lucasay 1 days ago [-]
Feels less like malice and more like people just not thinking about others. Still, on a plane you’re stuck for hours—rules like this make sense.
HPsquared 1 days ago [-]
I assume it's about blasting others with noise, not company sponsored headphones.
mindslight 1 days ago [-]
A disinforming clickbait headline strikes again. This isn't about it being mandatory to use headphones, ala TNG "The Game". Rather it's about using speakers that broadcast sound for everyone to "enjoy". I haven't been molested and crushed^w^w^w^wflown in quite some time, but with the noise floor on airplanes being so high to begin with I'd imagine the result is much worse than somewhere that is at least quieter to start.
b3ing 24 hours ago [-]
They tell people not to do it on busses but it still happens, typically people are more respectful at night but not always. However I never worry about terrorists on the bus, they would get jacked up fast
btreecat 24 hours ago [-]
Blasting your phone at volumes louder than the ambient noise is social terrorism
userbinator 21 hours ago [-]
I don't understand how people can stand the sound of the plane itself and whatever they're listening to on top of that. I consider IEMs or ANC TWS to be necessary whenever I'm on a flight, and that's even without listening to anything else.
dalmo3 24 hours ago [-]
PSA: get an etymotic in ear phones, play some quiet music, and forget you're flying. Those things become your eardrums.
They're pretty good, but not great. Just passive noise cancelling.
My AirPods Pros block noise better actually, but I have after-market foam eartips on them.
Regardless, the problem is less speakerphone music and more shrill child voices and screams. No eartips can block those frequencies well it seems.
temporallobe 1 days ago [-]
Good.
SilverElfin 1 days ago [-]
We need to also ban people taking calls on speaker in public places like cafes or trains.
lagniappe 1 days ago [-]
Join the conversation, works every time.
paradox460 23 hours ago [-]
They look at you like you're the rudest person in the world. It's quite the trip
I had one person say
>Excuse me, I was having a private conversation
At which point you say "on speakerphone with everyone else able to hear it?"
Hamuko 1 days ago [-]
I've thought about doing that several times, seeing as they're already including me. Just need to become a bit more brazen of a person.
lokar 1 days ago [-]
You should be able to report them to apple and google, lifetime smart phone ban.
irishcoffee 1 days ago [-]
I don’t think United airlines has the authority to do that.
That is to say, do you really want a federal law passed about this? I vote we go with social shaming. Worked for cigarettes.
mikkupikku 1 days ago [-]
It didn't really work well with cigs until govs started banning smoking in restaurants, bars, etc. That said, the shaming was important for setting the social stage for such legal bans.
balderdash 1 days ago [-]
Of course they do - they modified their contract of carriage - which you basically agree to why buy a flight (https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html) it’s the same mechanism they use to deny you boarding if you are barefoot etc.
irishcoffee 1 days ago [-]
Sorry friend, I sarcastically was saying united cannot enforce their rules in cafes et. al.
bigstrat2003 1 days ago [-]
I don't really want that. But I do sometimes fantasize about revoking some people's ability to use speakerphone or reply-all.
eudamoniac 5 hours ago [-]
Some cultures don't really get phased by shaming in that way, unfortunately.
SilverElfin 1 days ago [-]
Shaming doesn’t always work. I’ve asked politely and been threatened in return by people that look dangerous. That made me want to avoid confrontation in the future.
1 days ago [-]
keiferski 1 days ago [-]
I first interpreted the title as meaning you must use the cheapo free headphones and aren’t allowed to use your own.
1 days ago [-]
latand6 1 days ago [-]
I was a passenger that was asked NOT to use the headphones regularly. Not from USA though
verdverm 1 days ago [-]
An app you can use to play back their audio on a short delay that messes with the brain
Ok, but how about kicking sick people off of flights, particularly trans continental?
INTPenis 1 days ago [-]
I'm behind this 100%.
I got a SARS virus flying to Udon Thani in 2019. We were seated next to two thai guys who were so sick they could barely sit up straight. We offered them help and treats because they looked like they were about to vomit.
Plane lands, next day I'm sick. I was laid up for 2 weeks with fever, the shits, and I had a weird spontaneous cough for over 1 month after I got better.
I bet most of that plane got sick, and it was so damn avoidable.
IncreasePosts 1 days ago [-]
The problem is there can he huge penalties for not flying when you booked. You might not be able to rebook your flight or hotel or days off so you're stuck either getting everyone sick or perhaps being out thousands of dollars or not going on vacation at all.
INTPenis 24 hours ago [-]
Then they should have containment suits on the plane. If they see someone THAT sick, stick em in the suit.
JumpCrisscross 1 days ago [-]
> how about kicking sick people off of flights
Difficult for the airline to do given the myriad of health privacy adjacents.
sebastiennight 1 days ago [-]
What if we asked the President to give us a quick rundown of each passenger's health?
tayo42 1 days ago [-]
What's the threshold for sick?
It'll never happen becasue everything around travel is to hard to reschedule.
standardUser 1 days ago [-]
They should be stripped of all citizenship and left to live out their life roaming the airport. But this is a start.
paxys 1 days ago [-]
Good, now do the same for public transit.
dmitrygr 1 days ago [-]
Yes! Now do the same on beaches, busses, streets. Same punishment: banishment from the area.
OptionOfT 1 days ago [-]
And on hiking trails.
I was hiking in Zion. Large sign: be quiet, owls are nesting.
Multiple people with those speakers hanging off of their backpack: we don't care.
And even the rangers don't feel empowered to say anything anymore.
SilverElfin 1 days ago [-]
I often see younger people in parks near me blasting loud music on speakers. It’s so disrespectful to those looking for a peaceful place. Especially when they’re playing explicit rap music with everyone’s families and children around.
wolvoleo 1 days ago [-]
Yeah or people on bikes with a boombox. They do it because it's illegal to cycle with earphones in in these parts. But it creates its own problem of course.
mikkupikku 1 days ago [-]
I wonder if shoulder mounted speakers that aren't touching the users ears could help resolve this to everybody's reasonable satisfaction. (That is, everybody who's not deliberately trying to broadcast their music to everybody else.)
JumpCrisscross 1 days ago [-]
> It’s so disrespectful to those looking for a peaceful place
Idk, they’re not looking for “a peaceful place” and are using a public space without damaging it. Nobody is forced to use the park at the same time as them. This seems like a difference in preferences which is fine.
which 1 days ago [-]
That same line of reasoning could apply to music on planes. No one really needs to use a particular airline at a particular time or use a public park at any given time. It ceases to be a public place if a small group of people can de facto monopolize it by making it unpleasant for most other people to be there.
James Q. Wilson talked about this problem a long time ago... and why standard neighborhood shaming cannot really police it. Maybe there is an increasingly different set of norms among different generations which is why you have a breakdown in manners and even high school kids from affluent areas hitting "devious licks."
Because the sanctions employed are subtle, informal, and delicate, not everyone is equally vulnerable to everyone else’s discipline. Furthermore, if there is not a generally shared agreement as to appropriate standards of conduct, these sanctions will be inadequate to correct such deviations as occur. A slight departure from a norm is set right by a casual remark; a commitment to a different norm is very hard to alter, unless, of course, the deviant party is “eager to fit in,” in which case he is not committed to the different norm at all but simply looking for signs as to what the preferred norms may be.
JumpCrisscross 1 days ago [-]
> same line of reasoning could apply to music on planes
You can’t leave a plane. And planes aren’t for recreation. I like quiet parks. But parks aren’t some natural creation, they’re entirely manmade. I’m okay with other people having different thoughts on how to recreate.
> Maybe there is an increasingly different set of norms among different generations
Older people have been complaining about kids with boomboxes and skateboards for generations.
isthatafact 1 days ago [-]
> "But parks aren’t some natural creation, they’re entirely manmade."
? That does not at all match my experience with parks.
But besides that, I am not sure how it would support your argument.
which 1 days ago [-]
The average park in America is only like 5-10 acres. And of that only certain areas may have playstructures / basketball courts / benches / other things that people can actually use. So sufficiently loud audio can ruin people's experience. It's obvious to anyone who's been outside in the past 10 years that "live and let live" doesn't work... if they were using heroin and nodding out would that just be another form of recreation?
Yes, and the crime spike of the 1960s started with boomers reaching 15-20. You can follow that to cookie monster pajamas in Walmart.
kstrauser 1 days ago [-]
One person playing loud music makes the park less enjoyable for thirty people around them. That’s not “preferences”, when their method of consuming the public space affects the way everyone around them experiences it.
leptons 1 days ago [-]
There are typically noise rules at most parks where I live. The people who "blast loud music" are breaking the rules, and annoying everyone else at the park. That's not cool, and they should get kicked out if they don't comply.
3842056935870 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
izzydata 1 days ago [-]
I was recently in Hawaii in the middle of the forest and this group nearby on the trail were blasting music from a bluetooth speaker. Whether it is compelte lack of self awareness or utter disregard for other people it is just disturbing behavior.
JumpCrisscross 1 days ago [-]
> beaches, busses, streets
Bus, sure. On beaches and streets you have the option of moving away. It’s obnoxious. But in the same category as a large group walking slowly.
7jjjjjjj 1 days ago [-]
Playing music on the street is acceptable if and only if the music is good.
osti 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
cobbzilla 1 days ago [-]
Have you ever tried to sleep while the person next to you watches a movie at full volume?
furyofantares 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
nxpnsv 1 days ago [-]
That's too harsh, a regular murder would suffice.
sharkweek 1 days ago [-]
Just put them in row 24 on a Boeing 737 max and let the problem take care of itself.
halapro 1 days ago [-]
Just open the window
lostlogin 1 days ago [-]
Boeing tried this new feature.
halapro 1 days ago [-]
Not a bug, works as intended.
lelanthran 1 days ago [-]
> That's too harsh, a regular murder would suffice.
Correct. Kicking someone off during a flight and not giving them a parachute counts as a regular murder...
verdverm 1 days ago [-]
Requisite link to satirical study
"Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial"
Not harsh enough. They belong in the special level of hell reserved for child molesters and people who talk in the theatre.
Hamuko 1 days ago [-]
Harsh, but fair.
SOLAR_FIELDS 1 days ago [-]
Now explain why it wouldn’t also be fair to kick people off that were loudly emitting disgusting flatulence. Is it because they “might” not have control over it? Can I not claim I also “might” not have the control over my impulsive desire to listen to music or that I can’t use headphones for a medical issue?
I mean such a thing I would say equally detracts from the flying experience, so why not also kick those people off?
Edit: not sure why I’m getting downvoted, this is a legitimate question. I genuinely want to hear the justification.
DaSHacka 1 days ago [-]
You'd have a more convincing argument if you argued for a passenger with Tourette's or something. Bodily functions are obviously different from watching a movie at full volume, because there's never a situation where you would be involuntarily blasting the audio of your show or whatever to the whole plane.
SOLAR_FIELDS 1 days ago [-]
Okay, Tourette’s then. Should we kick people off for Tourette’s?
Your comment also presupposes two things: that flatulence is always involuntary and blasting music isn’t. Let’s say I have a form of Tourette’s that forces me to involuntarily blast noise and music and I have medical papers to prove it. Is it okay then?
I would absolutely support it if you could demonstrate that those two things are actually true. My point is: Who gets to decide what’s legitimately an involuntary medical issue and what isn’t, and where is the line that demarcates it? And what is the point of this exercise? It’s to prevent people from forcing everyone else to have a worse experience for their own personal gain, which flatulence is a form of that you could argue, so why is blasting music fundamentally different?
recursive 1 days ago [-]
We're talking about music coming from a phone. Not a person. Just turn the phone off or uninstall tiktok. Or put it in your bag.
vel0city 1 days ago [-]
Are you seriously making the argument blasting music or a movie or whatever is an involuntary bodily function?
SOLAR_FIELDS 23 hours ago [-]
Yes. Because I'm asking the question who decides what is involuntary or not. Who is it? It seems like there is a presupposition here, but who is defining that?
Coming back to the Tourette's example: let's say someone starts shouting cuss words and loudly annoying everyone else "involuntarily". Do they get kicked off the plane? Why or why not? Who decides that? Does the person have to present medical evidence that they have Tourette's to not get kicked off the plane? If so, can they also present medical evidence of a condition that causes them to spontaneously press play on their mobile devices with no headphones and would that be accepted?
I'm obviously not defending the behavior of the loud-music-on-plane-players, or advocating that everyone needs to smell everyone's farts. I'm pointing out that this is something that is arbitrary and weaponizable.
anigbrowl 17 hours ago [-]
I vote to throw you off the plane for disingenuous baitposting.
21 hours ago [-]
vel0city 21 hours ago [-]
You don't understand that a phone isn't a part of the human body? Seriously? We as a society can't even come to agreement on that basic fact anymore?
If someone shoots a gun in a crowd is that too an involuntary bodily function? Is the gun not just part of their body? Are you confused by that as well? Where do we draw the limits on what is the human body? Who decides that? If I lay on the ground does the whole earth become my body?
throwaway894345 1 days ago [-]
Seems like this flew right over a few heads.
widowlark 1 days ago [-]
and yet the joke fell right into our laps
sebastiennight 1 days ago [-]
United says we should tone down the sarcasm
1 days ago [-]
chisel192 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
saint11 1 days ago [-]
But kicking someone off mid-flight at high altitude is still a bit harsh. I hope they give them parachutes at least.
dguest 1 days ago [-]
FUN FACT: Aviation rules require that any plane carrying a parachute must have at least one for every person on board. Hopefully the reason is obvious.
Now given that, do you really want to pay the extra cost of flying with 300 parachutes just so mr-full-volume-phone can have one?
3eb7988a1663 1 days ago [-]
That is an incredibly fun fact. Does this only apply to commercial or also a little Cessna? Presumably there is no actual enforcement on the private planes.
dguest 11 hours ago [-]
I made it too fun: what I said was at best an over-genarlization. The actual rules [1] apply to acrobatics and say that parachutes are required for everyone when non-crew passenger is on the plane:
Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional [acrobatic] maneuver...
So without the passenger no one needs a parachute, with them everyone does.
It's perfectly legal for a 787 to carry a few parachutes just for the full-volume passengers.
I've packed my own parachute for this hypothetical situation.
HPsquared 1 days ago [-]
Only if they paid extra at check-in.
doubled112 1 days ago [-]
And you specifically have to request it. It isn’t a normal option during purchase.
vel0city 1 days ago [-]
Nah, with how ticketing is these days they'll bug you a dozen times to choose between the $50 basic economy disaster package that only has the mask and 50% airflow or the full package for $100 that includes another 25% airflow and a flotation device. Business execute gets you the parachute, a private life raft, and a few days of MREs for $250.
gumby271 1 days ago [-]
Bet it won't happen twice though.
MPSimmons 1 days ago [-]
> give them parachutes at least
the first time
andrewflnr 1 days ago [-]
I'm going to vote with my wallet by moving United up my priority list.
integralid 1 days ago [-]
Either you missed the joke or I missed your sarcasm. I read GP as a joke: being literally kicked out of a flight in air is a death sentence, which is a bit harsh penalty indeed.
1 days ago [-]
fleroviumna 8 hours ago [-]
[dead]
1 days ago [-]
nexxuz 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
general1465 1 days ago [-]
On one hand I understand why this exists, but on the other hand, I don't think it is even necessary. There is so much noise during the flight, and combined with lower atmospheric pressure I can barely hear what steward standing next to me is saying.
austin-cheney 1 days ago [-]
I agree with the policy but this is such a mild offense. Just a few years ago in the US there was an epidemic of drunk people savagely beating flight attendants.
People who cannot figure out how to share use of shared space should lose access to those places.
halapro 1 days ago [-]
Yes and no. I don't want to be a Karen, but also I think it's fair to not cause discomfort to others. Imagine if every flight was as noisy a city intersection. For 5 hours. And you can't hide.
ashwinnair99 1 days ago [-]
Airlines have been quietly expanding what they can remove you for. This isn't really about headphones. It's about how much discretion crew have now and how little recourse you have at 35,000 feet.
lelanthran 1 days ago [-]
Look... if me and 199 other passengers are going to abide by restrictions we were informed about before we paid any money for a ticket, it's completely unfair that the authorities make an exception for one passenger who accepted the same contract we all did.
Arrest them on board, handcuff them and lead them away in handcuffs at the destination. No sympathy from me, especially since the only way the handcuffs route is going to happen is if the passenger in questions ignores the instructions from the flight crew.
I also have to note that on most flights, whether domestic or international, the it's already a criminal offence to ignore an instruction from the flight crew. The airline here did not need to make publish a new rule, they could have simply had the flight crew inform the annoying passenger.
0x3f 1 days ago [-]
The airlines could alway remove you for literally any reason. Even if it was discriminatory or otherwise illegal, you'd still definitely be getting off the plane, at least.
polski-g 24 hours ago [-]
Good. You want to be an asshole? Do it in your car, driving alone, to your destination.
standardUser 1 days ago [-]
The ones with limited recourse are the flight crew who are trapped with you and a hundred other asshole for hours with no escape and very limited options in case of a serious disruption. If there is one space that has justification to act as temporary dictatorship, it's an aircraft in flight.
leptons 1 days ago [-]
You might blame the airlines, but passengers have become more rude and entitled year after year. It's really everywhere now, not just on airplanes. I personally am fine with removing passengers who think they are entitled to annoy the rest of us when we can't just get up and leave the place.
Rendered at 20:09:55 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I never been in a flight, or train across Europe where passengers showed just lack of respect for the others.
The only ones pumping anything loud, on trains or busses, usually get quickly pointed down by other passengers, personal or security.
Ah, and then there are the rebellious kids or gangs, as the other exception, which usually don't take flights anyway.
And so yes, I've definitely seen and experienced people watching inane tiktoks on speaker in subway or bus or airplane. It's the epitome of complete lack of empathy or self awareness to me, but I guess that's the way culture is going.
Still annoying?
If so, is the problem usually the loudness of the speakerphone, or the loudness of the person who is there? I've noticed some people talk louder when on speakerphone than when on regular phone (and some people talk louder on regular phone than when talking to someone in person).
Back before mobile phones there was a tendency for people to talk louder on the phone at first, but after being reminded a few times that just because the other person is far away doesn't mean you have to shout most people learned to talk at normal volume.
I wonder if loud talkers don't get that feedback now? With old phone handsets there was pretty much only one position for them, so the mic was about the same distance from the mouth for all speakers. Talk to loud and it would be annoying on the receiving end.
But with modern phones there are a variety of positions people hold them in, which can lead to quite different mic positions. My understanding is that they do a lot more automatic gain control and other processing to try to keep the level the same despite all those different positions. Perhaps this means that the person on the other end doesn't know you are talking loud and so unless someone on your end tells you to keep it down you might never realize you are a loud phone talker.
Naturally it is extremely rude. If two people have a conversation in public both pay attention to the surroundings and feedback to change their volume tone and topics. If you put someone on speaker without introducing everyone present then they should hang up on you.
This is silly. Just tell the person you are talking to that they are on speaker.
Assuming the party on the phone has been informed and the volume is not excessive, having a conversation on speaker is equivalent to having a physical conversation in person.
With the old phones you could reasonably tilt your head and raise your shoulder to hold the handset in place so you could do something that required two hands while talking/listening, like looking up something in a book or taking notes.
Smartphones are smaller than the old handsets and much flatter. I can pinch mine between my shoulder and head but I've got to raise my should pretty high and do some other contortions to get my head tilted enough making it much more awkward to do anything with my hands. Also that phone is small enough that it is pretty well covered in that position by the side of my face and my shoulder, so I'm not sure the mic could pick up much.
Landline telephones mostly had handsets that looked like the top photo here [1]. When held with a hand they were positioned as shown in the second photo there.
Because of its thickness and length you only had to tilt your head and/or raise you should a little to hold it hands free with the speaker end right at the ear and the mic end still near the mouth.
If you were taking a call while standing for example and needed to write something down in a notebook that was no problem.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handset
But if you're in public, and using a smartphone, headphones are always an option. There s absolutely no reason why anyone needs to use speakerphone in public if they're just one person.
Don't take functionality away because of a few bad actors. That'd be like getting rid of drones because a few people are assholes.
Put rules in place to correct the bad behavior. Kicking them off planes seems fair.
I told him that phone speakers "make me gassy" and then he turned it off.
Very rarely does anybody call them out or otherwise try to reign it in, because you're as likely as not to be physically attacked and in America, the odds of bystanders coming to your rescue are... Not zero, but not great.
Regardless, no punishment is too harsh, this should be considered the equivalent of lighting up a cigarette on a plane.
On topic (and discussed already on HN): https://github.com/Pankajtanwarbanna/stfu
There is nothing about a tablet or a flight that requires letting them blast audio at full volume. It’s not even a good experience.
We traveled with a single Nexus 7 and one pair of headphones shared by three kids. Having to take turns taught them to be OK with having entertainment, being a spectator, or being bored. And they understood that if we ever heard it, they'd all have to be bored for a while.
There are a couple of us who have actually seen someone call them out that are warning folks here what commonly happens. I saw someone get attacked with a knife, another commenter here had a gun pulled on him when they asked them to stop. It isn't about the loud music itself, it's that they're openly saying they are king shit, that no one is willing to challenge them, and broadcasting their eagerness to deliver violence upon anyone that might.
The other side of this is that they often do it on places you can't easily escape, like a train car with stops only every 5 minutes. This gives them a very long time to go to town on anyone that might challenges them. Something I've seen with my own eyes when they were asked to tone down the music.
I'm well aware of the types you're talking about, but in my experience this has largely changed. It used to be that these sorts were the most common offenders. But now it's just, well, everyone and anyone. For instance I don't think the little, old lady in front of me on the bus the other day was challenging people to violence.
I though the discussion here was about people not using their headphones on airplanes.
There are angry people playing dominance games on one hand, and on the other people who simply don't care what anybody else wants and will do what they can get away with. There's no difference in intelligence between the two, but only the first type can actually be reasoned with. The second type will only pretend to be reasonable until the person that they're intimidated by leaves the room.
Everybody says "social cues," but as you said, the people who "don't get social cues" also don't seem to "get" direct requests or orders.
Okay this is ridiculous. One is a fire hazard and the other is not. Do you really need the hyperbole here?
I'm not sure it's contempt they're expressing, or if they're expressing anything at all. There really are people who enjoy and defend it, too; "it's just a guy playing music, mind your own business." Truly alien.
If you ask such person to stop it is implied they expect you to back that up with violence and you've already consented to a battle.
More like you've already admitted cowardice, which makes you fair game. If it's the music that upsets you, come at me with louder speakers!
This is actually a really good response though. Because the act of having a device blaring demonstrates contempt for everyone one around them. It's hard to act in a hateful way to someone who just offered you something for free.
On the other hand I did get a chewing out from an older guy for having a conversation with friends on a train once, so some people take it perhaps a bit too serious.
Yes, because there's been a recent push to more heavily punish good Samaritans than perpetrators. When good men get metaphorically crucified for helping, they stop helping.
If that seems like a common sense outcome of such policies, you're right. But as we've seen time and again, common sense is not a flower that grows in everyone's garden.
Motivated in large part as a response to society saying fuck them. I'm not defending assholes being assholes, but I think what we have been seeing in the US over the last 5 or 10 years is classic collapse of the social contract stuff. The less a society cares about its people the less its people will care about the rest of society.
What I did not know is that he was one of the producers for Voyage Home. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0857130/
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/I_Hate_You
> According to the movie credits, the song was performed by the obscure band Edge of Etiquette. (Edge of Etiquette was, indeed, so obscure that it is rather difficult to find anything more about them than their having performed this particular song.) The punk on the bus who flipped Kirk "the bird" was played by Star Trek IV associate producer Kirk Thatcher. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia, 4th ed., vol. 1, p. 354, Edge of Etiquette was a pseudonym for Thatcher.
> Thatcher also wrote the lyrics for the song to music written by Mark Mangini. A game card, from the Star Trek Customizable Card Game released by Decipher, excerpted the lyrics of the song. Thatcher had complained that the new wave music previously considered would not have been an accurate representation of what a 1980s punk would listen to, and offered to write "I Hate You" instead.
This links to https://www.wired.com/2016/09/punk-star-trek-iv-vulcan-nerve... ( https://web.archive.org/web/20161222223425/https://www.wired... ... ghads, their "you must log in" blocker even worked through the wayback machine ... use reader mode)
> But portraying “Punk on the Bus” would turn out to be Thatcher’s most lasting contribution to The Voyage Home. He and Nimoy had grown chummy during filming, so when the filmmakers were looking to cast the punk, Thatcher lobbied the director to get the role. “I told him, ‘Look, I used to have a mohawk, and I’ll dress the part—you won’t recognize me,'” Thatcher says. “Leonard said, ‘Huh, really,’ in that deep, basso profondo way. I couldn’t tell if he thought it was a stupid idea.”
> ...
> The song itself came later. Paramount Pictures had a music-licensing deal that gave it to access to songs by new-wave artists like Duran Duran, but none of those bands seemed like a good fit for Thatcher’s snarling character. “I said, ‘Leonard, that’s not punk. I could write you a punk song and it will cost you nothing. I’ll do it for [a few hundred dollars],'” says Thatcher. He wrote out the nihilistic lyrics, which he brought to his friend (and future Mad Max: Fury Road Oscar winner) Mark Mangini, a sound editor who came up with the song’s snotty, simple guitar riff. Thatcher himself sang vocals, and the whole tune was recorded on a weekend night, in a hallway that would provide the necessarily shitty sound.
> “My idea of punk at the time was the Dead Kennedys, Germs, Black Flag—real West Coast hardcore punk, that real raw sound,” Thatcher says. “I also wanted a Sex Pistols ‘God Save the Queen’ vibe, which is why I did the British accent.”
> As for Nimoy’s response? “He came by, heard it, and said, ‘OK. That’s very punk.'”
Yes, because people have always felt like outsiders in relation to society. My point was that this sort of public misbehaving is getting worse because social cohesion is getting even worse. Not everyone with grievances against society will respond this way, but as more people have grievances against society, more people will respond in a manner like this.
They said “walk out into traffic.” That’s rude. You should wait for a signal or a break in the flow so nobody has to brake for you.
No wonder pedestrian deaths are up so much the past few years
But when there’s a designated crossing area, it’s the responsibility of traffic to stop. Pedestrians should not stand and wait at the intersection for a break in traffic because it’s a confusing signal to drivers. If you’re standing at a designated crosswalk you need to be either signaling your intent to cross or moving away from the crosswalk
Assuming there is no paint on the road an (unmarked) crosswalk may still exist [1] and drivers are supposed to yield to a pedestrian in a marked or unmarked crosswalk [2].
[1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
[2]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
Pretty clear parent meant people who cross against the light / mid-block when there is a crossing 50ft away / stepping in front of the one car on the road when they could look up for one second and step out behind that car etc. in other words the people who put off 'main character' vibes.
Legally there is a crosswalk regardless of if it's painted or not see [1]. I get this wasn't on the drivers test but it's still in the law.
There were some complaints about not everybody living in California. It's a law in your state too; I'm not going to find it for you.
[1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
People jay walk when there's no traffic all the time, that's totally fine. This is a totally different act of passive aggression.
This is the speed walking equivalent of picking up pennies in front of a steam roller. Saves a min here and then until you pay for it big time.
So on a crowded bus you've normally got 1 or 2. Behavior is actually much better on airplanes, usually (maybe 1-2 in ~150 passenger plane), and I have never seen someone who did not silence their phone after being asked politely by the attendant.
In my European travels I’ve definitely seen it. It depends entirely on the region. Europe is a big place. I’ve encountered it in Asian countries too. Again, Asia is huge and diverse.
Not coincidentally, it’s the same in the United States. I’ve never seen this on the local commuter train with people traveling to and from work. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen it on a flight (flight attendants did intervene and request they stop).
Let’s not try to make this into another “America bad” topic because this is not a uniquely American problem.
> usually get quickly pointed down by other passengers, personnel or security
I’ve never, not once, heard a member of staff ask someone to use headphones on transport.
The last time I had an uncle blast his Doujin feed at full volume next to me, I suggested he lower the volume, he didn't care, so I blasted my own feed at louder volume. He got it then. Sadly people a few rows back did the same on the next train...
There are some weirdos amongst us. There were a handful of reports of people singing religious music, in planes while on flight. I haven’t had the pleasure of listening to this, thankfully
I fly every week. There's always ONE F**ING GUY who needs to have Instagram or TikTok going at full blast.
I don't know what changed exactly. It was definitely seen as antisocial behaviour in the past. I'll just leave this clip here of Spock dealing with a noisy punk on a bus.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf5iwGZNY_Q
I've heard a lot of Cocomelon crap at full volume on planes because I guess parents don't want to have their kids use headphones. I sort of understand it but at the same time I also think it's pretty inconsiderate for the rest of the people on the flight who likely do not want to listen to their kid's awful YouTube show.
In the NYC subway I've seen dozens of people who will blast their terrible music very loudly with a bluetooth speaker. These are full-grown adults. I don't know why they do that, I suspect it would sound better on the train with headphones. Maybe it's some form of evangelism, where they think the music is utterly fantastic that everyone should listen to it.
This was done by my parents when I was a young kid. I wouldn't turn the volume down on my Game Boy on a flight, so my parents took it away from me until I promised to keep the volume down, which I did after that.
Even Switzerland is dirty because cigarette buts are everywhere. It's just that some % of the population are inconsiderate assholes and only heavy enforcement works vs than. Unfortunately this is something our current society is not willing to do.
https://etymotic.com/product/er2xr-earphones/
My AirPods Pros block noise better actually, but I have after-market foam eartips on them.
Regardless, the problem is less speakerphone music and more shrill child voices and screams. No eartips can block those frequencies well it seems.
I had one person say
>Excuse me, I was having a private conversation
At which point you say "on speakerphone with everyone else able to hear it?"
That is to say, do you really want a federal law passed about this? I vote we go with social shaming. Worked for cigarettes.
https://github.com/Pankajtanwarbanna/stfu
I got a SARS virus flying to Udon Thani in 2019. We were seated next to two thai guys who were so sick they could barely sit up straight. We offered them help and treats because they looked like they were about to vomit.
Plane lands, next day I'm sick. I was laid up for 2 weeks with fever, the shits, and I had a weird spontaneous cough for over 1 month after I got better.
I bet most of that plane got sick, and it was so damn avoidable.
Difficult for the airline to do given the myriad of health privacy adjacents.
It'll never happen becasue everything around travel is to hard to reschedule.
I was hiking in Zion. Large sign: be quiet, owls are nesting.
Multiple people with those speakers hanging off of their backpack: we don't care.
And even the rangers don't feel empowered to say anything anymore.
Idk, they’re not looking for “a peaceful place” and are using a public space without damaging it. Nobody is forced to use the park at the same time as them. This seems like a difference in preferences which is fine.
James Q. Wilson talked about this problem a long time ago... and why standard neighborhood shaming cannot really police it. Maybe there is an increasingly different set of norms among different generations which is why you have a breakdown in manners and even high school kids from affluent areas hitting "devious licks."
You can’t leave a plane. And planes aren’t for recreation. I like quiet parks. But parks aren’t some natural creation, they’re entirely manmade. I’m okay with other people having different thoughts on how to recreate.
> Maybe there is an increasingly different set of norms among different generations
Older people have been complaining about kids with boomboxes and skateboards for generations.
? That does not at all match my experience with parks.
But besides that, I am not sure how it would support your argument.
Yes, and the crime spike of the 1960s started with boomers reaching 15-20. You can follow that to cookie monster pajamas in Walmart.
Bus, sure. On beaches and streets you have the option of moving away. It’s obnoxious. But in the same category as a large group walking slowly.
Correct. Kicking someone off during a flight and not giving them a parachute counts as a regular murder...
"Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial"
https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
Anyway, for those who did not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCZ86O3PO-U
I mean such a thing I would say equally detracts from the flying experience, so why not also kick those people off?
Edit: not sure why I’m getting downvoted, this is a legitimate question. I genuinely want to hear the justification.
Your comment also presupposes two things: that flatulence is always involuntary and blasting music isn’t. Let’s say I have a form of Tourette’s that forces me to involuntarily blast noise and music and I have medical papers to prove it. Is it okay then?
I would absolutely support it if you could demonstrate that those two things are actually true. My point is: Who gets to decide what’s legitimately an involuntary medical issue and what isn’t, and where is the line that demarcates it? And what is the point of this exercise? It’s to prevent people from forcing everyone else to have a worse experience for their own personal gain, which flatulence is a form of that you could argue, so why is blasting music fundamentally different?
Coming back to the Tourette's example: let's say someone starts shouting cuss words and loudly annoying everyone else "involuntarily". Do they get kicked off the plane? Why or why not? Who decides that? Does the person have to present medical evidence that they have Tourette's to not get kicked off the plane? If so, can they also present medical evidence of a condition that causes them to spontaneously press play on their mobile devices with no headphones and would that be accepted?
I'm obviously not defending the behavior of the loud-music-on-plane-players, or advocating that everyone needs to smell everyone's farts. I'm pointing out that this is something that is arbitrary and weaponizable.
If someone shoots a gun in a crowd is that too an involuntary bodily function? Is the gun not just part of their body? Are you confused by that as well? Where do we draw the limits on what is the human body? Who decides that? If I lay on the ground does the whole earth become my body?
Now given that, do you really want to pay the extra cost of flying with 300 parachutes just so mr-full-volume-phone can have one?
It's perfectly legal for a 787 to carry a few parachutes just for the full-volume passengers.
[1]: https://faraim.org/faa/far/cfr/title-14/part-91/section-91.3...
the first time
People who cannot figure out how to share use of shared space should lose access to those places.
Arrest them on board, handcuff them and lead them away in handcuffs at the destination. No sympathy from me, especially since the only way the handcuffs route is going to happen is if the passenger in questions ignores the instructions from the flight crew.
I also have to note that on most flights, whether domestic or international, the it's already a criminal offence to ignore an instruction from the flight crew. The airline here did not need to make publish a new rule, they could have simply had the flight crew inform the annoying passenger.