314
me_irl
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
No silly, I'm a freedom fighter!
The difference is that freedom fighters always win and terrorist always lose since history is written by the victors. So I appreciate your optimism
I'm starting to feel like that is literally the only difference...
Always has been
The level of public support might be relevant too
Imagine misreading it for "tourist"
“Maybe?”
"prefer not to say".
"Where's the option for 'not sure?' There is a non-zero chance I could have been brainwashed as a Manchurian candidate without my knowledge."
If you click yes the top text changes from boarding plane to bombing plane.
It'll be the one with the slow UI and you click the button and it doesn't change so you click it 10 more times and just before the 10th one it changes and you click on something you didn't mean to.
(I hate headline screenshots, but I can't find the article).
That's amazing. It makes zero sense to have that question since only people that would ever select yes are those who are mistakenly clicking it or those who think it's a funny joke (and are making a huge mistake)
Oh, it was topical? I hadn't seen that story.
It's always fun being given a philosophic dilemma, at random, in public. AM I a terrorist? I collect my basic needs by inflicting karmic violence onto others, by acting on behalf of my employers. Attempting to limit my own karmic violence by withdrawing from the system of violence is treated as violence on its own, and is, or will be, reacted to with yet more violence. I am an unwilling participant in the cycle of violence that MUST eat, and MUST sleep, while the powers that be demand MORE violence, which is then passed down through me unto others again. If I try to reject the violence, or limit how much violence I must commit, then I will be forced to endure the violence personally.
Inflicting karmic violence is my only choice to continue existing, and every phase of violence before me, through me, and after me, is the result of a political environment that has eliminated any choice I might have had.
The poll needs a third answer, "Yes, but unwillingly."
Phew They nearly caught me (/s)
TFW when the AI that analyzes facial muscular movements, eye movements, pulid dilation, hearth rate and blood pressure, and response time flags you for "secondary screening" because you're dyslexic.
It's called the "blush response". AI uses it to sort out replicants. Wait...
Banner ad loads in on the left side and shifts the "Yes" button under your finger just as you press it.
"you have chosen 'no', meaning you ~~have committed a crime~~ are a terrorist, but don't want to confess. a paddy wagon is now speeding to your home. while you wait, why not buy a police cap or t-shirt? you have the right to remain fabulous!"
Is this really something that's asked like this now? If so, I wonder how many people mess up and click the wrong answer and also what actually happens if they do click it.
They did that in 2016 already. It's exactly as stupid as it sounds. No one that actually is, is going to answer it honestly, and everyone else is going to say no, so obviously it won't work.
When I visited the US in 2000 (yep, pre-9/11), everyone was handed a small paper form shortly before landing(!), in the plane, and I distinctly remember that checkbox asking me if I am planning any illegal or terrorist activity after entering the country.
I still do not understand its purpose. I honestly don't.
I've heard it explained as a way to make your sentence harsher in case you are a terrorist and get caught. not only you were planning to do bad things, but also LIED about it to the GUBMENT. DOUBLE CRIME
Thanks, that sounds plausible enough for me. Has Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking vibes, bureaucracy would love this, so I shall accept this as fact henceforth, and indulge my confirmation bias!
Killing those 20 people was pretty bad, but this extra charge for lying is what really adds up to the sentence.
You really think a terrorist would do that? Lie about being a terrorist?
I think it's a minimization of the warnings not to bring weapons and other dangerous articles onto an airplane to asking if the reader promises not to do any harm. In reality of course, things can be dangerous even if the reader didn't intend them to be. I fly a lot and haven't seen such a question stated in this way.
As an American, whose country uses violence to achieve political goals and who is at least partially responsible for those actions, I’d have to pick “Yes” just to be honest.
I mean, unless you’re directly contributing to those actions it’s just guilt by association.
An argument could be made for tax dollars contributing, but it’s not like those are optional.
i think it's so if someone is charged with anything, they can pile pergury on top.
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
314 points (100.0% liked)
me_irl
6502 readers
1123 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS