3 ms·

If you read the blog post Techcrunch is summarising, you will find out: 1) The man is an anarchism/zero-government advocate. 2) He was wearing a provocative t-

by nirnira 13y ago

If you read the blog post Techcrunch is summarising, you will find out: 1) The man is an anarchism/zero-government advocate. 2) He was wearing a provocative t-shirt featuring B52s and a slogan "Bitcoin not bombs." 3) He was nervous, difficult and antagonistic throughout the entire security process. 4) His backpack was full of metal lapel pins emblazoned with the Bitcoin logo. This could be titled instead as: "TSA scrutinises erratic, apparently mentally-unstable anarchism activist to ensure he is not going to blow up a plane." The bitcoin thing is just a red herring, they suspected him and were casting around for different leads to see if they could get something out of him. Honestly, there's no point in getting so upset and hostile going through airport security. Fixating on how your freedom is being desecrated or something like that is just going to get your back up and make everything worse.

mindcrime 13y ago
What a load of shit. Just because he's an anarchist does not mean he's a threat to anybody - nor do any of the other facts you point out. And nothing about any of those facts justifies calling him "mentally unstable". You may not agree with his politics, but that hardly justifies character assassination, if not outright libel. "Oh noes, fear the lapel pins!!!!!"
- nirnira 13y ago
  Firstly, I didn't call him mentally unstable. I suggested that, from another perspective (i.e. not the perspective of a stridently anti-government activist), he might be perceived as potentially being mentally unstable. Secondly, all of these characteristics are red flags in a screening operation. No, they don't necessarily mean that he is a threat. But they do warrant closer inspection. Inspection that, from his account, seemed to provoke him to further erratic behaviour. And it's the job of security apparatuses to pay attention to people who act strangely. This anti-TSA shit is ridiculous. So much of it revolves around ridiculing ordinary people without that much education working a fairly poorly-paid job. Like mocking people for not understanding how Bitcoin works. America asked for better protection after 9/11, and they got it. Now they're bitching because they don't like it? Why is this so hard to understand? Do you want a security apparatus that tries its best to make sure dangerous people don't board planes, or do you want a security apparatus that waves any old person onboard?
illuminate 13y ago
Or, the most obvious option that someone who craves attention is telling a fib to find the attention they so desperately seek. The funny thing is, I actually support Food Not Bombs. Just not the lame "crypto-anarchists" who mostly practice twitter-based slactivism.

by nirnira 13y ago

mindcrime 13y ago

What a load of shit. Just because he's an anarchist does not mean he's a threat to anybody - nor do any of the other facts you point out. And nothing about any of those facts justifies calling him "mentally unstable". You may not agree with his politics, but that hardly justifies character assassination, if not outright libel. "Oh noes, fear the lapel pins!!!!!"

nirnira 13y ago
Firstly, I didn't call him mentally unstable. I suggested that, from another perspective (i.e. not the perspective of a stridently anti-government activist), he might be perceived as potentially being mentally unstable. Secondly, all of these characteristics are red flags in a screening operation. No, they don't necessarily mean that he is a threat. But they do warrant closer inspection. Inspection that, from his account, seemed to provoke him to further erratic behaviour. And it's the job of security apparatuses to pay attention to people who act strangely. This anti-TSA shit is ridiculous. So much of it revolves around ridiculing ordinary people without that much education working a fairly poorly-paid job. Like mocking people for not understanding how Bitcoin works. America asked for better protection after 9/11, and they got it. Now they're bitching because they don't like it? Why is this so hard to understand? Do you want a security apparatus that tries its best to make sure dangerous people don't board planes, or do you want a security apparatus that waves any old person onboard?

illuminate 13y ago

Or, the most obvious option that someone who craves attention is telling a fib to find the attention they so desperately seek. The funny thing is, I actually support Food Not Bombs. Just not the lame "crypto-anarchists" who mostly practice twitter-based slactivism.