Comment by pdonis
13 hours ago
> 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 contexts they are going to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry.
> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech
This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue. The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects that saying certain things is going to have in certain contexts. We're all supposed to be responsible adults who understand that we can't push our pet issues everywhere we go.
> We've just grown accustomed to security theater.
Easy for you to say since you're not the one responsible for the safety of a planeload of people. This is not a "security theater" issue either. You don't have the right to trumpet your pet issue everywhere you go.
There’s no way a reasonable person would interpret that as a threat, it feels like you’re playing silly games trying to widen the Overton window by sanewashing an obviously unreasonable reaction.
A lot of people swap jew for zionist or israel to cover up their antisemitism, so yes "fuck jews" could be interpreted as a threat.
There is no more succinct way to describe a Zionist than by using the word Zionist. To assume anyone who says "Zionist" means "Jew" is to make an unnecessary leap in bad faith.
Racist? Yes.
A threat? No.
“Fuck Jews” cannot reasonably be interpreted as a threat.
It’s a nasty antisemitic thing to say, but that’s all it is.
4 replies →
Eh, most Nazis that use the words interchangeably really do use them interchangeably. Like, they'll talk about the Jews controlling everything in one sentence and say it's Zionists pushing cultural Marxism or whatever the next.
You realize that calling everyone who criticizes an ongoing genocide an antisemite isn't workable, right?
1 reply →
Do you think we're talking about a device named "bomb"? We're talking about a device named "Free Palestine, F Israel". Those are two different situations. How can you even claim the latter is a physical threat? I also don't care if it said "F Palestine". Neither is a credible threat on the plane or the passengers.
The only issue I can see that causing is a fight. And anyone that is willing to start a fight because someone has s stupid device name should be committed because they're insane. That's crazy amounts of petty.
People like the “wash it’s not free speech” are the ones championing fcc blocking licenses and arresting g people for quoting Trump
Freedom of speech for me not thee.
So if the pilot is informed that there is a bearded guy on the plane should he turn around as well? What if its an evil looking moustache?
It doesn’t.
I get my lighter through in Brazil all the time and a friend of mine got giant scissors through in Buenos Aires. It’s entirely a choice to freak out over nothing.
In most of the world you’re allowed to do outlandish things like have a beer at the mall. Or walk outside with one.
>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 threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat. Anything else leads to absurd outcomes that make it harder to protect from real threats.
>The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question? Please enlighten us, because most of us are apparently unable to predict those ourselves.
> 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"?
I'm unable to find any connection between Teddy Ruxpin and sarin gas online, so I don't see why a pilot would make such a connection. Am I missing something?
> If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat.
Have you ever been in a position where you were responsible for the safety of several hundred people?
> What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question?
That not turning that Bluetooth device off when told to was going to end up delaying the flight.
> That not turning that Bluetooth device off when told to was going to end up delaying the flight.
This thread is discussing the “Free Palestine, F Zionists” WiFi hotspot and the threat to turn it off within 30 seconds or face the FBI. Which is explicitly not a threat, whereas “BOMB” in the context of a plane is more obviously a potential threat.
3 replies →
>I'm unable to find any connection between Teddy Ruxpin and sarin gas online, so I don't see why a pilot would make such a connection.
And I'm unable to see the connection that you're imagining in the original post. What is it? Can you explain it to me? Is the threat here in the room with us now?
Yes
> 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?
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.
> If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat.
To someone whose primary consideration is safety, like the captain of an aeroplane, your logic is entirely nonsensical.