Comment by aric | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aric | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Who created that rule? People must martyr themselves in cages, in blood, and in torture to peacefully resist, disseminate, and earn approval?

Lunacy.

There are stark differences to Martin Luther King, Jr. This current era is a time when people transcend borders more easily. King was fortunate to seize upon an entire network build-up behind a cause and behind him over many years. The punishments he faced by breaking segregation laws are gentle in comparison to the brand of "justice" and punishment Snowden is likely facing in his "homeland." One might imagine the likes of King, Mandela, and so on, recognizing this new face of oppression as did King did against the industry of military and against a government that's willing and eager to invade Vietnam and obliterate the Vietnamese under the mirage of virtue. One might imagine King now standing vocally strong in support of anyone who dares to not become a disposable pawn to today's prison economy. Yet it matters not. One might not want to conjecture; for, as always, a person's words are only one person's narrow perspective.

I was specifically referring to the definition of civil disobedience.

If you are arguing that civil disobedience may no longer be an effective tool of resistance, then you're preaching to the choir. Similar to the Borg of Star Trek, it's clear to me that at some point the establishment is going to develop effective adaptations against that particular tactic; it's been disturbed too many times by it. I don’t think that we’re there quite yet, but we’re close enough that I stay up worrying about it.

That's not the definition of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is not, in any way, exclusive to waging disobedience within a regionally localized or symmetric form. By definition, it's only exclusive to disobeying one's government, laws, or other civil institutions.

True enough on that last part. These chilling effects compound rapidly.

I am using the definition of civil disobedience as first proffered by Thoreau, and effected by Gandhi, MLK, et. al. [1]

It entails neither locality nor symmetry. Indeed, it exploits the fact that there exists a dimension where the faceless establishment cannot hope to enjoy a beneficial asymmetry: sympathy. When you kill or imprison a man for merely using a certain restroom, or sitting in a certain place on the bus, or casting a ballot, etc, you are making a gross injustice apparent to all, and you put yourself in the position of prevailing against the sympathies and sensibilities of society (including some of the oppressors). Thus, it turns an asymmetry that the establishment normally enjoys into a liability.

Upvoted because this discussion has caused me to think of some new and interesting thoughts.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)

Upvoted as well. We ultimately agree. I'm sure you understand my contention.

> "It also means submitting to the authorities when you break the law; MLK spent a lot of time in jail."

I interpreted that phrase as exclusive although you probably implied it as inclusive. I simply don't want anyone to be mistaken. Civil disobedience doesn't require submission to authority. Enough people as it is make irrelevant equivocations about Snowden and others having to flee the [United States | {or insert regime}] out of fearing for their lives. Civil disobedience feeds on strategy. MLK had his legions and knew some fleeting jail time would actually work in his favor. I appreciate Thoreau. :) I wish more people would take his thoughts (and the thoughts of other like-minds) to heart. Peace!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com