691–700 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> a plane half full of Hasidic Jews (the ones refusing to board because they're still praying and knocking their head against the wall, and refuse to sit next to women). I don't know why you've decided to explain what is a Hasidic jew in that way (or at all). However I hope you can at least understand in retrospect why describing a religious group as people who all follow some negative behavior is promoting hate towa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. To add more credence to your point, let's not forget this beautiful line in TFA | During this incident, a Wi-Fi hotspot named "Free Palestine, F Zionists" prompted the pilot to issue a warning to the cabin, telling the passenger responsible that they had "30 seconds" to remove the name or the FBI would meet the aircraft. This is clearly not a threat…
Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed. > you have the right to express it Out in public sure. In an airplane you're in someone else's private space (ie the airline's) and everyone is not only confined with you in minimal comfort, they have no…
"not trying to make a political statement", but... Can we say, that Palestine is an enclosed space, considering its total land and sea blockade?
Oh, the irony
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is clearly not a threat. To you, who made up the scenario and specified that it's not a threat, sure, it seems that way. To the pilot of an airplane full of people whose safety he is responsible for, even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention to. In real life you don't get to specify what "clearly" is or is not the case. People have to make judgment calls, and in certain context…
>even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"? Should he react to all messages as if they are threats, because no matter how small the risk is, more than zero is too much? If you can't know whether something is a th…
No. But he should treat messages that are blatantly intended to provoke others as such. If someone on the flight is going out of their way to cause trouble, kicking them off is the smart move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. Do you think terrorists are really going to name their Bluetooth speaker "bomb"? Do you think this behaviour has any meaningful true positives? This is the kind of brainworms thinking that has people throwing our their 150ml liquids out at TSA and taking their shoes off.
> This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. To add more credence to your point, let's not forget this beautiful line in TFA | During this incident, a Wi-Fi hotspot named "Free Palestine, F Zionists" prompted the pilot to issue a warning to the cabin, telling the passenger responsible that they had "30 seconds" to remove the name or the FBI would meet the aircraft. This is clearly not a threat…
A zionist is someone who thinks Israel has a right to exist.
Then I am a zionist and I am white as snow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. To add more credence to your point, let's not forget this beautiful line in TFA | During this incident, a Wi-Fi hotspot named "Free Palestine, F Zionists" prompted the pilot to issue a warning to the cabin, telling the passenger responsible that they had "30 seconds" to remove the name or the FBI would meet the aircraft. This is clearly not a threat…
Does naming WiFi hotspot to reflect one’s political views achieve anything? I am not against free speech or expression of freedom, just wondering if such “protests” (assuming that is what this is) have any affect at all? Flying is already a stressful experience - between security checks, waiting for flights, unruly passengers, super cramped seats etc. Why add more stress? Either protest seriously at an appropriate ti…
They do not, it is all woke signaling to others.
They can put a pic up on Reddit, Insta and get updoots for it from all the genz maniacs.
If you wear a PLO shal you are basically a terrorist in my eyes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what's your argument? We all act crazy because crazy people might exist? That's just as crazy as being afraid of terrorists. Why would you let the crazy people run the world. If they're that crazy you put them in a hospital because clearly they need help
The argument is that if I'm responsible for the safety of a very heterogenous group of people in the cabin of my airplane, I will assume that those people are already stressed and will probably act even less rational than they normally would. And that's all that matters in that moment. > If they're that crazy you put them in a hospital because clearly they need help Oh believe me, I would if I could...
They turned what most passengers considered at most tasteless into a real threat worthy of returning to base. How can this possibly help with the stress? If this was to reduce stress, it was disproportionate and backfired in a major way.
Why are airlines adding to every part of that stress but drawing the line at a device's BT name?
Everything about flying is getting worse. The process of buying the tickets full of shady practices and dark patters, the check-in, the boarding process, the cabin luggage getting smaller for the same type of ticket, the ever more cramped seats, the removal of the old amenities like free food or snacks. They are all getting more terrible and adding stress. From what I can tell from my own ticket purchases with the same airlines in the past, the prices kept up with inflation over the past decades but the services have fallen far behind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does naming WiFi hotspot to reflect one’s political views achieve anything? I am not against free speech or expression of freedom, just wondering if such “protests” (assuming that is what this is) have any affect at all? Flying is already a stressful experience - between security checks, waiting for flights, unruly passengers, super cramped seats etc. Why add more stress? Either protest seriously at an appropriate ti…
If they aren't actively harming people nor threatening to do so with their words then that's their right. Can by tacky or in bad taste, why's that matter? It's not harming anyone and is a bad WiFi name even meaningfully annoying?
Would you say the same if it praised Israels bravery? Honoured Charlie Kirk? Said anything you don't agree with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is trying to sanewash totally insane levels of risk aversion. To add more credence to your point, let's not forget this beautiful line in TFA | During this incident, a Wi-Fi hotspot named "Free Palestine, F Zionists" prompted the pilot to issue a warning to the cabin, telling the passenger responsible that they had "30 seconds" to remove the name or the FBI would meet the aircraft. This is clearly not a threat…
You do know that "zionists" is a code work for jews in general right? A zionist is someone who thinks Israel has a right to exist. Then I am a zionist and I am white as snow.
I find interesting that no one thought about localising the device based on the Bluetooth signal strength.
However, that is also not the actual goal. There is no true threat. No one actually believes that it would be a bomb.
The goal is compliance and to train people to self-police each other.
___
Good new torment nexus idea though. Just litter the plane with BLE antennas and triangulate exactly who it is that is having wrong thoughts.
We'll be seeing it 1-5y from now