Talk:free helicopter ride

For findability, if this singular is created later: free helicopter rides (entered by an IP as "plural-only") is under discussion at RFV; it will eventually be archived to Talk:free helicopter rides. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July–September 2020
Death flights. Ƿidsiþ 06:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Done some minor tidying. I see no reason why this should be plural only. Seems to be new online slang that won't meet CFI. Equinox ◑ 13:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of moving it to the singular entry (rides instead of ride) since this evidently exists. Equinox ◑ 17:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Bernard E. Harcourt, Critique and Praxis, 2020 (Columbia University Press, ISBN 9780231551458), page 476(?) briefly documents this and discusses the context, and could be useful as a reference if this ever passes CFI, though it doesn't seem likely to at this time. (Relevant snippet: "The Pinochet regime executed 120 communists in this manner,  It should not come as a  surprise that a “Free Helicopter Rides” meme grew among far-right extremists, .") IMO citations would also be necessary for determining whether to consider this idiomatic, or simply a euphemistic allusion: compare the various signs and other things promising shoplifters (et al.) a, do we want an entry for that, or is it the kind of euphemistic allusion we'd consider extralexical? - -sche (discuss) 18:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I also didn't see any citable uses. And I'd want a good reference of who says it before blaming it on the "alt-right."  I always get suspicious when things are blamed on "the alt-right."  While there are people who self-identify as alt-right, more often alt-right is used as a synonym of "people whose politics I don't like."  Like fascist, or to a lesser extent antifa.  The modern use of alt-right came after knowyourmeme says offers of free helicopter rides became a thing.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * SOP, “helicopter ride” by itself is used by the “alt-right” (actually libertarian memers, because of ) in that sense, and it is not common to append “free” to it. Fay Freak (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Does helicopter ride alone meet CFI? It's much harder to search for the euphemistic sense without free. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "helicopter ride" itself might have seen usage by U.S. forces in Vietnam, as a way of dealing with the V.C.; Or atleast I remember such a usage that I encountered at somepoint when reading or watching something about the Vietnam War. -- 65.94.169.16 20:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what you are referring to: "The favorite tale of special collection methods related to me was to take several captured VC for a helicopter ride. The South Koreans would start asking questions.  If they did not get a response they would throw the first VC out of the helicopter...".  This use of helicopter ride is more literal; death is a possible outcome but not inevitable.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Do we consider those news websites durably archived? Many looks mention-y, too: "slogans such as “Free Helicopter Rides”", "Memes and jokes about "free helicopter rides" for leftists", "calls for ‘free helicopter rides’ for leftists", "Other posts cite “free helicopter rides”". Ehhh. I would appreciate more input here as to whether this is, in fact, adequately cited. - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's borderline. I like quotations of just the word to be either attributed or in context.  For example, suppose we had "Questioned about the New York Times exposé Trump called it 'fake news'."  That would be a fine citation for fake news.  We have an identifiable person using it with a discernible meaning.  But "some anonymous people used to say free helicopter rides" is more like a dictionary entry.  I do believe people say free helicopter ride as a euphemism for death flight.  I'm not sure it's worth a page, but what we have is not wrong.  Maybe add a couple more non-durable uses to prove meaning and keep the durable mentions to prove existence.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

RFV-Passed Kiwima (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)