I don't demand that you agree with me, or even remotely expect it. How could I? You know hardly anything about what I believe. I fully respect people who have militantly anti-government perspectives on NSA surveillance; those perspectives make sense to me, even if I share them only partially.
What I don't respect are people who have no earthly clue what they're talking about telling me how repellent my views are.
> militantly anti-government perspectives on NSA surveillance
This points to a flaw in the logic of governance that results in accumulated errors when it's used as a precept. The NSA is the interloper in American society and a latecomer to government. The existence of the NSA has no foundation in the so-called social contract that we all share. It's essentially a lawless institution at this point.
The NSA and those that support it that are militantly anti-social. Citizens insisting on their rights aren't the problem. Those that demand or facilitate the infringement of our rights are the actual problem.
By "militant" I don't simply mean strong-held beliefs, but also unquestioning acceptance of stories that reaffirm those beliefs. I don't think strong opposition to NSA surveillance automatically makes one "militant".
Apply the concept of "unquestioning acceptance of stories that reaffirm beliefs" to those people that rationalize receiving a salary from some aspect of the Surveillance State.
In practical terms, the problem with asserting ambivalent, balanced, middle ground positions is that white sees grey as black, and black sees grey as white.
What I don't respect are people who have no earthly clue what they're talking about telling me how repellent my views are.