13
votes
Sweden has seen a 4% drop in the number of people flying via its airports, as flight-shaming takes off
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Sweden's air travel falls as flight-shaming rises
- Published
- Jan 10 2020
- Word count
- 315 words
I don't think the people who feel flight shamed and the people who choose to take the train instead of flying are the same people.
Why do you think that? I do feel bad when I have to fly. I also chose to utilise the train system last summer when travelling through Europe. Therefore the two sets of people in your statement has at least some overlap (me). Are you arguing that most people who feel flight shamed do not choose to use the train and flies regardless or that they cancel their trip plans all together?
Have you been flight shamed?
Unless I misinterpret the meaning of those words then yes. Shame is the reason I feel bad when I make a choice to fly somewhere.
I assume flight-shaming is the same as fat-shaming. Like if I eat a doughnut and feel shame because I try to eat healthy that isn't fat-shaming or if a nutritionist goes on television informing people that doughnuts aren't healthy that's also not fat-shaming. In the same way being informed about the consequences on the climate when flying isn't being flight-shamed. I guess if someone like told me something like "Really you are going to fly, with your climate footprint" that would be flight-shaming. I've never seen anyone using flying to belittle someone else IRL or online. So my assumption is that the people who use the term flight-shaming are the people who feel that the climate debate is a personal attack on them and that the people who fly less are the people who are interested in the climate debate. I might be totally wrong or we might have different ideas about what flight-shaming is.
I read that as feeling shame over flying, and perhaps more broadly as being shamed by the more responsible actions of others. I think adding -ing to the headline translation probably made for a better hook but in the process changed the implication.
Yeah most likely, I only read the headline at first and now that I've actually read the thing it doesn't mention flight-shaming or flygskamma which I guess would be the Swedish conjugation of flight-shame to flight-shaming.
I made the original comment mostly as a joke or a snide, I would probably have read the article if I thought it would lead to a discussion. It's a reminder to always read the article even when I feel the source probably don't use click bait. A bit off topic but I wonder how much a title should be considered a part of an article. If I make a comment based on BBC stating flight-shaming is a real thing in their title, is my comment still relevant if the article then is about flight-shame? I don't think my comment is relevant to be honest but are titles relevant?