I mean sure, but it theoretically stops people arguing and threatening to try and bring stuff they shouldn’t really be bringing through, as being able to point at that will end a lot of arguments… Equally though, it makes a lot of sense as otherwise you’d have “ah yes this bomb isn’t banned because I’ve switched out a molecule in the explosive for an analogue”
Comment on Technically Correct
Hegar@fedia.io 5 weeks agoAh yes, the "rules only apply when I say they do" rule. Much legitimate.
1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 5 weeks ago
Hegar@fedia.io 5 weeks ago
I don't think they need to make the enforcement of rules ultimately arbitrary to prevent explosives. You already can't bring explosives. The molecules involved are not relevant.
Ziglin@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The mollecular structure isn’t the only thing relevant for bombs.
You could make a bomb out of a pressurized material that you can quickly get to expand, I think that technically isn’t an explosive.
I get your point but I also think having a catch all is good to prevent things that could otherwise get through by technicality.
snooggums@midwest.social 5 weeks ago
If there is a list of acceptable things, then those specific things are not things they “shouldn’t be bringing on”.
redisdead@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
What actually happens is that some random power tripping TSA agent decides to annoy the fuck out of people he doesn’t like, and when challenged he is protected by this rule.
bss03@infosec.pub 5 weeks ago
Inconsistent enforcement of “the rules” is the most common form of systematic marginalization.
It’s also easy of centrists to excuse, since it could happen to anyone, even when the statistic show to it is overwhelmingly correlated with some protected trait.