They could keep the auto-ban though and have the review process for if you think you’ve been wrongly banned. So, you get an email saying you were banned for violating the terms of service, then in the email it says something like “click here if you feel this has been in error and it will be reviewed by our team.”…

I’m a trans woman and former tinder user with nothing about cam work in my profile. In fact, I had nothing in my profile at all. I was banned from the app, too, despite the fact that I hadn’t even messaged anyone.

They probably deleted her for saying she did cam work..

Hi Xiade! You’re correct, a discussion of privilege and oppression that solely focuses on race does miss out on other axes of privilege, like class, gender identity, accessibility needs, and sexual orientation. This is why it’s important to introduce the concept of intersectionality to these discussions. Basically,…

so what term to describe “white people as a whole get treated better than most brown people” would be ok for you? 

So you understand it exists but want to pretend it doesn’t because it hurts your feelings? That’s the standard mediocre white person response. Not sure why you took the time to write it out like that.

It also labels a privilege things that either should not be a privilege (ie not being shot by police, not being assumed to be a shoplifter, having decent schools and grocery schools near you), or that you have no control over or both.

I can’t believe that after all the shitty stunts pulled by airlines people are still assuming that the flight attendant was right, the mother with two children is wrong and that a puppy made no sounds that it was distressed after its carrier was placed in the wrong area.

You’re out here fighting the good fight, Vulcans!

Considering that this article is news aggregation more than reporting, I don’t even really blame people for getting the wrong idea—especially considering how weirdly inconsistent the ABC story is with literally every other report. But...

Cool. People lie. Two separate eyewitnesses who do not have prior knowledge of the dog owner have stated it was very clear and repeated that there was a dog inside the carrier. I am not looking at a photograph of a dead dog. It was bad enough seeing the photo of the daughter sobbing on the floor in the airport when…

That ABC article is contradicted by most of the witness statements. Most importantly, by the first two witnesses who came forward before this became a news story—one on Twitter and one of Facebook, both with photos—who both said separately that the flight attendant was aware of the dog.

People: read the links in the story before you pass judgment. If you want a quick overview...

It’s funny... this family made the exact same mistake you’re making now—they assumed that the information they were given was correct.

The owner was aware, that was where she initially put the dog carrier. This has been widely reported and Jezebel’s report is seriously lacking in details. If you click on any other links, it becomes obvious that there is a definite reason United has already come forward with a statement claiming full responsibility.

the part where they say the puppy cried until it could no longer draw breath will haunt me.

I don’t know exactly what went down here, but how did this broad stick her puppy in the overhead bin and sit still in her seat for several hours without being like LET ME CHECK ON MY DOG?

TSA approved dog carriers can just look like duffel bags. The pet can be pretty much hidden.

According to the Facebook post, the flight attendant(s) “INSISTED that the puppy be locked up for three hours without any kind of airflow. They assured the safety of the family’s pet so wearily, the mother agreed.”

Sure, Jan.