4 ms·

That's incredibly cowardly of you. You're using "fighting words" which is not speech that is protected under the first amendment. The common response to fight

That's incredibly cowardly of you. You're using "fighting words" which is not speech that is protected under the first amendment. The common response to fighting words like this is a fistfight. In this case you're making a coward's bet that they value their source of income enough not to kick your ass. A police officer might have (legally) arrested you for trying to start a fight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States

mindslight 8y ago
Given that it's political speech, and given that I am unable to state this opinion in the direct venue - while I'm being assaulted and detained by them - I think it's justified. Or at least worth playing the grey areas if we're doing any individual action to stand up for our rights. Also, I was a decade younger. I don't see how anything you've said supports the characterization of "cowardly", unless you mean I was wrong to say something that could be classified as "fighting words" and then not back it up with fighting.
- ghaff 8y ago
  It's not political speech. It's you being an asshole which, under other circumstances, could well lead to someone punching you in the face.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    Sure, I'll take the characterization of being an asshole. But I don't see how that's much of an indictment, as the situation is well beyond the point of social decorum. Which is the whole problem - the "breach of the peace" occurred when the uniformed gang setup shop to assault, detain, and molest people. What I did was to just not entirely peacefully assent to their rule, which necessarily involves shooting from behind trees. We certainly could use more of it, lest we want to end up having to literally shoot from behind trees.
- cglace 8y ago
  It's about as brave as a redneck driving by some black kids screaming ###### at them. Seriously, you are characterizing people that may just check some ID's as child molesters. You sound unhinged.
  - dsr_ 8y ago
    I think it would have been perfectly reasonable for German citizens to make uniformed members of the SS feel uncomfortable and unwanted by means short of violence. Is this situation different? Is the difference one of quality or quantity?
    - dfundako 8y ago
      Are you seriously asking if the situation of the TSA is different than the situation of the SS in Nazi Germany?
      - dsr_ 8y ago
        Yes. It appears to be provoking a kneejerk response from people who don't want to address the question.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- staunch 8y ago
  There are much more effective ways you could protest the TSA. Mouthing off to random employees in a grocery store was clearly not chosen based on effectiveness but laziness, so don't lie to yourself about the lack of venues. It's cowardly because you wouldn't use fighting words like this in a context where you believed they might respond like many reasonable people would: with a punch in the mouth. You're hiding behind their own civility and restraint. The same way many women think they can freely attack a man under the assumption that many men don't want to hit a women. It's cowardly to use someone else's self-control as a weapon against them. And you should realize that your personal opinion that they're fascists and child molesters is not even close to a proven fact. It's a slanderous and exaggerated characterization that very few reasonable people would agree with, even those that do not like the TSA at all. Try reporting their "child molestation" to any law enforcement anywhere in the world. No judge and no jury would convict them of your charge. It's not so much different from calling a doctor that checks a child's testicles for problems a molester. Context makes all the difference legally and ethically. You disagree with the ethics but that doesn't make you right. Legally there's no question that you're wrong.
  - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
    >It's cowardly because you wouldn't use fighting words like this in a context where you believed they might respond like many reasonable people would: a punch in the mouth. Fighting words - with regard to insults - is a purely childish concept. No reasonable person would punch someone in the mouth over an insult. The word you're looking for is immature - not reasonable.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    > There are much more effective ways you could protest the TSA I didn't ask myself the best way to protest the TSA, and then choose to go find some agents in a grocery store. I was there to buy groceries, which I still accomplished. > you wouldn't use fighting words like this in a context where you believed they might respond like many reasonable people would: a punch in the mouth I think our disagreement is fundamentally based on your considering it reasonable for someone to respond violently to a verbal insult? This is going to depend entirely on personal and local culture, and I do not have such expectation. I'm used to the response being a quicker retort, and going your separate ways. If someone resorts to starting a fight it's an automatic loss in the court of public opinion. > your personal opinion that they're fascists and child molesters They're patently fascist, having power due to the synergy of government and corporations. Ping-ponging between the two legal regimes is the basis of being able to force you into a warrantless search, yet still dole out federal penalties. And they're plainly molesters - both with the rummaging through our personal effects, and every time one of their hands brushes my nuts. I personally don't have direct evidence to warranty "child" (although I would imagine they would have to be fondling them too?), but it is a concept our society understands.

mindslight 8y ago

Given that it's political speech, and given that I am unable to state this opinion in the direct venue - while I'm being assaulted and detained by them - I think it's justified. Or at least worth playing the grey areas if we're doing any individual action to stand up for our rights. Also, I was a decade younger. I don't see how anything you've said supports the characterization of "cowardly", unless you mean I was wrong to say something that could be classified as "fighting words" and then not back it up with fighting.

ghaff 8y ago
It's not political speech. It's you being an asshole which, under other circumstances, could well lead to someone punching you in the face.
- mindslight 8y ago
  Sure, I'll take the characterization of being an asshole. But I don't see how that's much of an indictment, as the situation is well beyond the point of social decorum. Which is the whole problem - the "breach of the peace" occurred when the uniformed gang setup shop to assault, detain, and molest people. What I did was to just not entirely peacefully assent to their rule, which necessarily involves shooting from behind trees. We certainly could use more of it, lest we want to end up having to literally shoot from behind trees.
cglace 8y ago
It's about as brave as a redneck driving by some black kids screaming ###### at them. Seriously, you are characterizing people that may just check some ID's as child molesters. You sound unhinged.
- dsr_ 8y ago
  I think it would have been perfectly reasonable for German citizens to make uniformed members of the SS feel uncomfortable and unwanted by means short of violence. Is this situation different? Is the difference one of quality or quantity?
  - dfundako 8y ago
    Are you seriously asking if the situation of the TSA is different than the situation of the SS in Nazi Germany?
    - dsr_ 8y ago
      Yes. It appears to be provoking a kneejerk response from people who don't want to address the question.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
staunch 8y ago
There are much more effective ways you could protest the TSA. Mouthing off to random employees in a grocery store was clearly not chosen based on effectiveness but laziness, so don't lie to yourself about the lack of venues. It's cowardly because you wouldn't use fighting words like this in a context where you believed they might respond like many reasonable people would: with a punch in the mouth. You're hiding behind their own civility and restraint. The same way many women think they can freely attack a man under the assumption that many men don't want to hit a women. It's cowardly to use someone else's self-control as a weapon against them. And you should realize that your personal opinion that they're fascists and child molesters is not even close to a proven fact. It's a slanderous and exaggerated characterization that very few reasonable people would agree with, even those that do not like the TSA at all. Try reporting their "child molestation" to any law enforcement anywhere in the world. No judge and no jury would convict them of your charge. It's not so much different from calling a doctor that checks a child's testicles for problems a molester. Context makes all the difference legally and ethically. You disagree with the ethics but that doesn't make you right. Legally there's no question that you're wrong.
- grasshopperpurp 8y ago
  >It's cowardly because you wouldn't use fighting words like this in a context where you believed they might respond like many reasonable people would: a punch in the mouth. Fighting words - with regard to insults - is a purely childish concept. No reasonable person would punch someone in the mouth over an insult. The word you're looking for is immature - not reasonable.
- mindslight 8y ago
  > There are much more effective ways you could protest the TSA I didn't ask myself the best way to protest the TSA, and then choose to go find some agents in a grocery store. I was there to buy groceries, which I still accomplished. > you wouldn't use fighting words like this in a context where you believed they might respond like many reasonable people would: a punch in the mouth I think our disagreement is fundamentally based on your considering it reasonable for someone to respond violently to a verbal insult? This is going to depend entirely on personal and local culture, and I do not have such expectation. I'm used to the response being a quicker retort, and going your separate ways. If someone resorts to starting a fight it's an automatic loss in the court of public opinion. > your personal opinion that they're fascists and child molesters They're patently fascist, having power due to the synergy of government and corporations. Ping-ponging between the two legal regimes is the basis of being able to force you into a warrantless search, yet still dole out federal penalties. And they're plainly molesters - both with the rummaging through our personal effects, and every time one of their hands brushes my nuts. I personally don't have direct evidence to warranty "child" (although I would imagine they would have to be fondling them too?), but it is a concept our society understands.