Jubbergun wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I find this attitude to be complete bullshit. I'm tired of everyone making excuses for people who cannot behave within the standards of what was once common courtesy. Good manners and civility aren't "white," they aren't "wealthy," and there is absolutely no reason in the world why a person cannot properly comport themselves within the confines of so common a setting as a retail outlet.
Was Dotzilla in the wrong for yelling at the uncouth heathen? After saying "excuse me," especially multiple times, not really. There were better ways to handle the situation, but if we're going to live in a society where people like Aestu are going to make excuses for individuals like this woman, then the same excuses should be made for people like Dotzilla who lose patience with the moronic shenanigans those like this woman perform in public.
It's fucking Wal-Mart. By definition it lays outside the bounds of civilized society.
Jubbergun wrote:
The biggest mistake Dotzilla made here was not making the goon go get his manager. I'm sure that would have the tenor of the situation more than a little. If nothing else, he should make a call to the establishment in question and complain.
It is in the interest of management to ensure security has broad discretionary powers and act assertively to quash any potential difficulties, no matter how unfairly.
Wal-Mart is infinitely more worried about an altercation spiraling out of control, disrupting normal business operation, and potential legal tangles than they are about one disgruntled dude not shopping there again. They have more to lose from A than B, and every policy Wal-Mart has is a study in quantity over quality.
Jubbergun wrote:
It's also poor form to ask former service members about what they did or didn't do, especially if the question involves "did you kill anyone," because the only people who are happy to answer that question are those who didn't or those who are happy about having done it, and there are very few people with redeeming qualities who are giddy over having done something terrible that they'll never be able to undo. No matter how necessary it may have been to take another person's life, there's always an element of "what could I have done differently," among the guilt that person has to live with for the rest of their life. It's inconsiderate to bring it up in any context.
I made no such implication, and Tuhl didn't imply that was the nature of his inquiry.
Your actual issue is that you like most military people are trying to make an entire way of life based on authoritarianism and organized violence sound honorable and morally correct, and you're upset that the kinds of inquires you don't like run headfirst into the brutal, amoral and utterly futile nature of the military lifestyle.
That's not to say that any and all military people are necessarily evil, but others don't need to tread eggshells for fear of upsetting your cognitive dissonance.
