4 ms·
"What should I consider Suspicious?" "People Who:" "Act nervous or suspicious behaviour inconsistent with activities" Whoever wrote this should go back to both
by twelvechairs 15y ago
"What should I consider Suspicious?" "People Who:" "Act nervous or suspicious behaviour inconsistent with activities"
Whoever wrote this should go back to both English class (grammar!) and circular logic class (I should consider someone 'suspicious' because they have 'suspicious behaviour'?)
- loup-vaillant 15y agoIt's not circular logic. It's an appeal to intuition. When they say a suspect is someone who act suspect, they really mean "act in ways you feel is suspect". There, you know that if someone is glancing sideways, then your feeling suspicious is enough to mark that person as suspect (or so the flyer says). Anyway, that's just as bad: it teaches you to be paranoid.
- slowpoke 15y ago>Anyway, that's just as bad: it teaches you to be paranoid. What taught me to be paranoid weren't retarded fliers like these. That honor goes to the people who caused me to pick up the practices described on this flier in the first place - organizations like the FBI, government increasingly evolving towards police states a and, last but not least, corporations like Google or Facebook, whose practices can at best be described as amoral.
- mikegirouard 15y agoYour second point struck me as well. Not only does the grammar seem completely odd at times, but the whole thing seems a bit dodgy. Is there any official download to this file on the FBI's website?