Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mass loss of life. Novel way in which people died. People dying randomly (hard to avoid). General hysteria. Paranoia over a minority group. Moral outrage against anyone not falling inline politically. Overreaching government plans to keep people safe. Petty symbolism (freedom fries/masks) to sort the moral from the immoral. Should I go on?
You think masks are petty symbolism? I think that kind of trolling just raises the temperature here, which I'd like to avoid, so no, please, do not go on.
20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?
741–750 of 969 posts
Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?
#742Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ongoing and ramped up tyrannies don't affect the people with guns, so it's not doing much good so far. When the oppressed arm themselves, people who claim opposition to gun control suddenly become very pro-gun control.
It was all guns rights until the black panthers started arming up, and all the sudden it was "perhaps some sensible limits might be wise" Pretty hard to miss the intent. Arm the homeless is what I say when I'm feeling spicy.
Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?
#743Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We should have some kind of dashboard tracking how many people die from terrorism, car crashes, heart disease, COVID, etc., and how much time and money we spend trying to prevent these deaths It would be a highly controversial dashboard, I guarantee it, likely unpopular with both political parties. The problem is that assuaging fear is often more important (to irrational people) than saving lives. For example, guns…
What if -- and I know this is a crazy idea -- but what if there was some sort of metric beyond popularity by which things were reported? Maybe even decided? For instance: if there was a free online study (in person test) "critical thinking" series of classes, where you could become accredited as a person who knows at least the basics of how lying works, statistics can be manipulated, science is hard, etc, etc, etc...…
Like those lists of "over 500 scientists have signed a document saying 5G is harmful to health so it must be true". When actually half of the people on the list aren't real people and the rest of them are political scientologists, dentists and people who know absolutely nothing about radio waves.
Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?
#744Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, I think I found the most disingenuous person on hacker news.
I speak my mind, unlike the echo chamber here. That's the opposite of disingenuous. Others have agreed with me, they either get greyed out or flagged. Even in this thread, look below. I'm sorry the majority follows blindly and can't see the similarities between the loss of freedom after 9/11 and covid.
Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?
#745Earlier quoted context omitted.
100yr ago eugenics proponents were saying the same thing while bemoaning societies unwillingness to fully embrace their solutions. 200yr ago people who wanted to build heavy industry were making the same complaints bemoaning insufficient investment. And so on and so on. ~7 billion people aren't stupid. They just don't share your prioritization of whatever the societal issues you perceive to be most important today ar…
"This minor temporary inconvenience I don't like is as bad as eugenics" is its own trope.
In any case, you're either missing the overarching point (the charitable assumption) or you don't want to fight my point head on so you're nitpicking that my examples aren't good enough (the less charitable assumption).
Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?
#746How do you manage to not losing your laptop, especially when traveling with kids? They lost mine once and I basically have to found it myself. Eventually found someone throw the bag in an corner...
Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?
#747The way you know it is all security theater is TSA pre. I haven't taken my shoes off, my laptop out, or gone through the hands-on-your-head scanner in years, because the TSA pre-check line doesn't require any of that. Because apparently verifying my ID before arrival at the airport makes me less of a threat. Or maybe it's the $80 they get every few years that makes me less of a threat...
Most of the political solutions I see tossed around are bandages on wounds inflicted by current policies. Nobody ever suggests removing the policy that is actually causing the problem in the first place.
Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?
#748Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reinforced cockpit doors with strict policies in place for when the pilots can open it, which is what we do now (in the U.S. at least) even with all of the TSA stuff.
Those doors don't stop a hijacker from executing stewardesses until the pilot opens the door.
So why are we worried about possible plane hijackings when a lot of people don't seem to be overly worried about something that's many times more risky.
[1] https://findanyanswer.com/what-are-the-chances-of-a-plane-ge...
Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?
#749Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had to give up my fingerprints to maintain a drivers license, but that doesn't get me TSA Pre.
I'm having trouble finding any state where a standard drivers license currently requires being fingerprinted. Texas did it for a little while but stopped in 2015. Some specialty licenses require it, like a commercial license to carry hazardous materials.
Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?
#750Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We should have some kind of dashboard tracking how many people die from terrorism, car crashes, heart disease, COVID, etc., and how much time and money we spend trying to prevent these deaths It would be a highly controversial dashboard, I guarantee it, likely unpopular with both political parties. The problem is that assuaging fear is often more important (to irrational people) than saving lives. For example, guns…
What's interesting is how all these policies focus on banning legal guns. Now, try asking in a debate the proportion of crimes committed with legal weapons vs illegal weapons and watch your opponent start dancing around the question! Good luck getting a straight answer.
Even at that point, "legally obtained" still included borrowing one from a friend or family member.