Hacker News Reader

Comment by Falell | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com