Hacker News Reader

Comment by dependenttypes | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, this is kind of like putting your hand inside the mouth of a crocodile and then complaining that you have been bitten. Or if you start insulting/harassing and physically blocking someone and then start complaining that you were punched as a result.

I would consider civil disobedience something more like as a policeman to refuse to disrupt a peaceful protest, or illegally publishing data (consider Aaron Swartz, Alexandra Elbakyan, Edward Snowden, or Chelsea Manning), or someone like Oskar Schindler.

View on HN

A crocodile is a vicious wild animal. And in your analogy... the police are the crocodiles?

Sorry for being facetious, but the whole point is that people expect police to have some self-control (unlike an animal) and behave better in these situations. If you're a cashier, and a customer is yelling at you, berating you, taunting you, etc. you're expected to try to remain calm and attempt to de-escalate the situation - certainly you're not supposed to attack the person. If anything, police should be held to an even higher standard than this.

> And in your analogy... the police are the crocodiles?

No, I would feel safer with a crocodile around actually.

This definition of is ridiculous to me, implying that only the privileged few (policemen, those with specific knowledge) may be civilly disobedient.

The entire intent is for the masses, with no qualifications whatsoever, to make themselves heard in a way that cannot be ignored.

I am not implying that. For example a worker in a gun manufactory can be civilly disobedient too by not showing up, slacking off, or intentionally making arms of subpar quality.

Edit: I am talking about wartime labor mobilization. In addition the government owns gun manufactories too.

> to make themselves heard in a way that cannot be ignored.

You are stepping away from just civil disobedience then. Riots, sieges, or a full scale revolution fit that description better.

> For example a worker in a gun manufactory can be civilly disobedient too by not showing up, slacking off, or intentionally making arms of subpar quality.

You can't just redefine words to suit your fancy because you don't like what the word actually means. That example you give is literally 100% not what civil disobedience means. Civil disobedience by definition means defying government, not your employer.

I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse. Civil disobedience is protest against a government, and is usually assumed to be non-violent. Look at Wikipedia, pick any result out of Google. Blocking a highway is classic civil disobedience, in line with making a human chain and blocking access to government buildings.

Equating these acts with "siege" screams bad faith to me, I feel like every example you've given is intentionally misleading or missing the point.

If I blocked someone from getting in their driveway and shouted insults at them, I think getting punched would be reasonable. I am not a professional conflict resolver.

Police, on the other hand, are our paid civil servants. It is their job to remove passion and emotion from the interaction and to deescalate potentially dangerous situations. They have a duty to respond sub-proportionately in a way that resolves conflict unless their life is in danger.

Time and time again we see police responding by escalating tension, passion, and violence. This is a spectacular failure of their duty and huge breach of public trust.

Certainly, I agree that it would be better if they attempted to arrest these who block the road rather than shoot at them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com