700
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
700 points (98.2% liked)
Not The Onion
21930 readers
2166 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It's similar to people who end themselves by stepping in front of a truck or a train. It can be extremely traumatic to the driver.
It can be extremely traumatic to the guy stepping in front of the vehicle as well!
Yeah, I'm driving home from a late work shift, 3am.
My MF neighbor's adult kid had layed down in the road right past a blind curve hoping someone would run over him and kill him. Good thing my driveway was less than a couple hundred feet away and I was going slow enough to swerve around him.
F'd em up for a bit and I didn't even kill him
That's asking for an Ethan Frome type injury.
I disagree. Leaving someone with trauma, versus leaving someone in a life or death situation is quite different I'd say.
The similarity is involving people in the act and leaving them to deal with extreme trauma.
This is the hill we're choosing? Really?
It's a shitty thing to do to someone else, full stop.
Yes both is a shitty thing. But still, I would much rather be:
Traumatized for life vs. Traumatized for life + potentially die
The train conductor is much more likely to walk another day to see their family again. Even if they are really fucking traumatized. Its doing a suicide traumatizing someone vs traumatizing someone and potentially taking them with me to death
All they said was that they're similar, which they are. Out of all the experiences you could possibly have at any point in space and time in the entire universe, these two are actually very fucking similar.
I mean he's right about the suicide thing. Its the difference between traumatizing someone and taking them with you. Both are terrible, sure, no one is denying that. But one of these involves killing (or at least attempting to) somebody. So yes, murder is worse than giving someone PTSD.
People in the cars in car accidents can die too y'know. Plus the driver doesn't necessarily know the person is committing suicide, making them think they're a murderer. The word that was used to compare the two was "similar", I truly don't see how anyone could argue they're dissimilar. No one said they were exactly equal.
But WHY are you making it into a trolley problem when it's not?
Because that was the comparison being made. Of course you should do neither, but the initial commenter was basically equating the two
According to other people in this thread, she had at least enough flight experience that she should be able to land solo. So, the risk to her was from the trauma he inflicted, if it impeded her ability to land safely. Explaining it here actually makes it seem even more similar to the truck driver. It's entirely possible that if you hit a person with a truck, you'd freeze up or your mind would blank or you'd otherwise be unable to control yourself well and cause further accidents before you could stop safely.
Fun way to admit you don't read articles.
Or, hear me out.... I read the article and that's how I knew that information wasn't in the article.
I'm really conflicted about you. Part of me really likes people who encourage others to read the articles, but reading the articles isn't the only important thing. Understanding is also important.
The information was in the article. She had her pilots license and was doing the training only to maintain currency.
Okay, here is the relevant quote from the article:
This is the only explanation of her previous experience in the article, and as a person with no experience flying at least, I found it confusing. In my mind, if you get a license, you shouldn't need an instructor with you. But regardless, I do think it's obvious that a person who was "still building up her flying hours" was not "doing the training only to maintain currency." So, I think this is evidence that you found the article's explanation confusing, too.
Since I didn't understand the article's explanation, I deferred to the understanding of the commenters.
I get it, if it's like a regular driver's license you get the learners permit then have to train with an instructor or other person with their license.
A private pilot's license is a full license. The only time you need to fly with an instructor or safety pilot is for currency (rarely) or to get a new rating like flying a specific model of aircraft or the permission to fly above clouds or at night etc ... In this case you have to "build your hours" before you get the new rating, then maintain currency on the rating.
Maybe it was obvious to me because of familiarity with the subject, it certainly wasn't written to clearly communicate the message to the audience, that's for sure.