@Mindwin: I disagree. True, the U.S. Constitution only protects speech from infringement by the federal and state governments; but the Constitution hardly has a monopoly on what "free speech" means. (Heck, it doesn't even use that term.) If I use whatever power I have to silence someone, I am absolutely targeting their free speech, regardless of whether my power is legislative, and regardless of whether I'm justified in using it that way. — ruakh 1 min ago

+1 it's possible to be against both political correctness and racism... — Mehrdad 26 secs ago

@MicroMachine Of course the majority of people does things that are obviously wrong. I do obviously wrong things every day. But it is a lot harder to agree that the majority of people can believe something that is obviously wrong. — sgf 55 secs ago

@sgf This is a tactic that is used by a well known white nationalist, he uses it in order to get people to not dismiss him as a bigot, one time my own stepson was taken in by this tactic. How do I politely address this tactic? There's the tl;dr for you. — apaul 37 secs ago

I'm not sure how good a fit this question is for the site, so I won't post an answer. But if you're having trouble making friends, I'd suggest joining an adult club or using a tool like meetup.com. If you're focused on doing an activity or playing a game you won't need to worry about what to talk about! — scohe001 57 secs ago

When presented with a free speech argument, one might also consider pointing out that by having a discussion or debate with this other person, they are doing more than advocating for free speech: they are acting that value out in real life. I suspect this would take much of the wind out of that argument's sails. I might've emphasized things a little differently (particularly the parts about being careful that you're correctly identifying these deflections), but this is an excellent answer. +1 — jpmc26 1 min ago

Can answerers also address how one should respond if it's not a fellow passenger asking, but a flight attendant? — pacoverflow 1 min ago

As ever, it would be nice if the downvoter would educate me with their erudition so I may see what is wrong with my answer. Or not. — Russell McMahon 1 min ago

@EricLippert Someone kindly edited my post to add this. I'm just hankering after an improved answer. — Canada - Area 51 Proposal 5 secs ago

@Styxal His response only sounds like confirmation you made the right choice. You're now one step closer to that license. — Belle-Sophie 1 min ago

@CallumBradbury - :-) / thanks. I agree, but it's still a shame. In another life [SE-EE] I have more rep than one can shake a stick at so having a few knocked off in other forums does not cause too much concern - EXCEPT that it suggests that people who may benefit from a fresh point of view may be missing out . If you have not read it then you sound as though you'd find Haidt's book interesting and useful. Despite being 'somewhat old' and well experienced in the human condition, the book was immensely useful to me. — Russell McMahon 38 secs ago

@sleske: "Even if they are trying to reunite a group does not necessarily mean you need to give up a seat you like." - I agree with that outcome. However, note that to someone who is not aware of any quality difference between the seats, the answer that "I booked this seat, not that one." sounds really childish, if not actively mean-spirited (i.e. being intentionally uncooperative just to disrupt the asker's group). A brief hint that the seats are different and the OP paid more is all that's required to clear up such a situation. — O. R. Mapper 1 min ago

I agree with a lot the sentiments in this answer, and I approve of your recommendation of Haidt's book. However, I also agree with @Tinkeringbell with the following "A little re-ordering of stuff might help." — Eff 2 mins ago

I'm upvoting this for mentioning Haidt, this book is an essential read. This will get downvoted into oblivion and then deleted, for the usual reasons. First, you're an engineer and you speak like one (ie, high signal to noise ratio, straight to the point, no baby steps). I like this style. I did the same at first on this Q&A and was quickly told I was rude and blunt LOL. Consider adding a little bit of sugar on top and explaining the obvious a little bit more. Second, you violated the ambient left-leaning narrative, so you will get DV from the usual suspects. — peufeu 1 min ago

@wildcard I attempted to clarify my reasoning there. Thanks for the comment; the purpose was not to justify behavior and I agree that the Golden Rule is important. In this case, the other party is violating it; the best response IMHO is to not let it affect you. — baldPrussian 1 min ago

Great answer, and I upvoted, but disagree with one thing. After declining, based on that you specifically reserved that seat weeks ago, if the person is hostile you are under no obligation to take the high road. Personally, I'd bite back loud enough for all in the vicinity to hear that you reserved your seat properly and you have every right to be comfortable/clean as anyone on the flight. — Thomas Carlisle 22 secs ago

Welcome to Interpersonal.SE! I'm guessing that the downvotes are because only flying on Australian airlines is a) not an interpersonal skill, which is what this site is about, and b) not always possible, depending on where OP is flying to/from. — F1Krazy 54 secs ago

It might be on-topic for how to respond to a certain situation, provided you know what course of action you want to take. Warnng: that can lead to a LOT of posts here. — baldPrussian 1 min ago

Hmmm... I chose that example because it was fairly uncontroversial (until I get excoriated by the unicorn-loving Atlantis true believers which infest this site like a plague). But prejudice has real world impact: it hurts real people. I would prefer it to desist. But I would rather see that happen through debate and rebuttal rather than the current zeitgeist of silencing people through oh so easily abused social pressure. But how do you debate someone who disagrees with you about basic tenets of reality? — Jared Smith 40 secs ago

@ArwenUndómiel Edited! Please let me know if this suffices :) — jackwise 1 min ago

"you can be fairly dismissive" - not really. How could they know you do without asking? Upvoted anyway because of the first paragraph that I find incredibly important and inexplicably missing in the other answers. — O. R. Mapper 40 secs ago

@BTownTKD That's a good point. You might find that such things really are separate. Very contextual, though. Disagreeing with various sexual orientations doesn't automatically make some a bigot. So I wouldn't recommend breaking down their belief systems unless you already are in such a conversation in which they have expressed explicit (or veiled) bigotry, as OP has outlined. This is more of a general comment to anyone reading my answer. — Clay07g 1 min ago

Thanks for the comment and the explanation. While flying on Australian airlines may not be an option for everyone, my suggestion is still valid because there will be airlines all around the world that honour the seat allocation system. I have edited my response to make my original comment clearer. — Jak 10 secs ago

@sphennings I've edited my question. If it's still off topic then I can try again. — Hmm 1 min ago

@Trilarion Agreed, revised the example — jackwise 1 min ago

+1, this is the best approach: interpersonal skills, after all, are ideally about making everyone better off when possible. I do this 100% of the time, and only once has it bitten me. (Trans-Atlantic flight, I explained that I didn't want to switch because I'd ordered the vegetarian meal, they replied that the girl I was switching with was also vegetarian . . . which maybe she was, but if so then she'd apparently failed to order the meal. In retrospect, I should have insisted on talking to a flight attendant before agreeing.) — ruakh 1 min ago

You're being gaslit, probably unintentionally but that you would even consider paying for him to stay at an airbnb! Your perspective of your relationship is all askew - he's walking all over you. Tell him "no, you've caused me too much trouble" and that's it. Don't get into an argument about why not, because he'll weasel a way back in. — Jim W 1 min ago

"because of factors beyond the person's control" +1 The wife and I have been on 20+ hour, multi-leg journeys, only to be told that for our last leg we're going to be seated half a plane away. While we can deal with it... one can understand why we'd at least ask. — NPSF3000 1 min ago

Why not just ignore the email? — Salmononius2 1 min ago

@Catija Really? I really like when downvoters explain what they didn't like in the comments (and I think it falls under "Leave constructive criticism") at interpersonal.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment — Greg Schmit 6 secs ago

Do you have another job right now? If so, you could just say: "You haven't said if I would get exclusive authorship over this article, or how much you would pay me for it. But either way, doing additional work for a former employer while working for my current employer would simply be unfair to my current employer." Now of course, you could just use the last sentence, and not the first, if you really wanted to be diplomatic with this person, but personally, I wouldn't. It sounds like you've been far too nice already. Standing up for yourself would be good practice. That's how you gain respect. — Stephan Branczyk 1 min ago

I don't think this address the implied agreement between OP and the former superior. Of course they didn't have a contract, but the crux of the problem is the oral agreement that was definitely made. — DoritoStyle 44 secs ago

There was never an oral agreement for the OP to complete the report if I am understanding the OP’s post correctly. In the contract the supervisor was supposed to complete it, and he is now trying to coerce OP into doing it for him (for free) — Link0352 32 secs ago