3 ms·

To add to that, he fled to a country whose legislative and political transgressions far outnumber the United States'. Which, imo, hurts his credibility as a ser

by dvt 10y ago

To add to that, he fled to a country whose legislative and political transgressions far outnumber the United States'. Which, imo, hurts his credibility as a serious seeker of justice.

tanderson92 10y ago
Suppose I believe in non-interventionism. Does my continued stay in the US and participation in its imperalism-based economy mean any efforts of mine for justice are suspect? My point being that there are larger forces guiding our lives than our individual beliefs and actions. Or put another way: as long as Snowden criticizes the transgressions as he sees them of Russia, isn't this what credibility requires?
- dvt 10y ago
  Frankly, yes. I think Socrates' letter to Crito[1] explains why participating in a society means we embody some of that society's values. If you are truly a hardliner when it comes to non-interventionism, continuing to live and take advantage of the United States' infrastructure and quality of life (which is what it is due to said policies) makes your position suspect. Kind of like eating meat while preaching vegetarianism. [1] http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/crito.pdf http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/crito.pdf
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    Socrates has his logic, I grant you. Socrates died shortly thereafter. Snowden, on the other hand, is still relatively free to shape the public debate and further the fight for Freedom. Who is wiser, who is more strategic? I'm not dissing Socrates here, for what it's worth: I only mean that there is no contract we sign with strict logical adherence when born into an unjust society. I'm also not sure I agree that living in a country means you morally take responsibility for all its ills. I would characterize the responsibility for ills to be those that one is aware of and accepts because of the perceived personal benefit. The point of political opposition is to reject the current order of society.
    - dvt 10y ago
      I'm not sure who's more strategic, but here we are talking about Socrates 2500 years after he drank hemlock ;) > I'm also not sure I agree that living in a country means you morally take responsibility for all its ills. You're attacking a strawman here, that's a very strong position. I just said it hurts his credibility and my analogy was that eating meat while preaching vegetarianism is suspect.
      - tanderson92 10y ago
        I guess that's where we diverge. I don't see working against, in this example, imperialism while living in an imperialistic state to be akin to preaching vegetarianism while eating meat. You don't have the same choice you do with meat, to simultaneously (1) live in a free society (2) work against imperialism. Eating meat, in my "strawman" is acceptance, or rationalization, of the evil once one is aware.
  - chillacy 10y ago
    > makes your position suspect To offer another analogy: If I work at a company which makes their money off pop up ads and I think that's unethical, so I pitch management on alternative revenue streams, then is my position suspect because I'm taking my paycheck from a shady ad tech company? I think the analogy of preaching vegetarianism while eating meat is somewhere between preaching no-interventionalism while living in the country you were born in, and preaching non-interventionalism while personally bombing people on the other side of the world.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      Yes, agreed. I tried to argue this point below, but I think your analogy is more apt and the difference comes across clearer. Thanks.
Trill-I-Am 10y ago
There are no free nations on earth from which you can damage the ability of the NSA to operate
jabbernotty 10y ago
I've never understood why so many Americans believe that Snowden fled to Russia. It is simply not true and it never has been. Are we already witnessing the rewriting of this part of history?
- dvt 10y ago
  No one's rewriting history, Russia offered him asylum and he accepted; that's the salient point. Let's not be unnecessarily pedantic and dramatic.
  - jabbernotty 10y ago
    There is a thin line between bold statements that lack nuance, and plain lies. Order of events are relevant. It is important to know how he ended up in Russia in the first place, long before this asylum. And was declining the asylum really an option?
    - pastProlog 10y ago
      The US government canceled his passport at some point between him being in Hong Kong and the Moscow airport. So the claim he "fled to Russia" is a lie. He was exiled to Russia by the US officials who actively removed his ability to leave the Russian airport.
  - miend 10y ago
    He was denied the ability to travel (US revoked passport) while making a connection in Moscow. The US's actions trapped him there -- it was not his destination. Do you believe he had any reasonable choice at that point but to accept the asylum subsequently offered?

by dvt 10y ago

To add to that, he fled to a country whose legislative and political transgressions far outnumber the United States'. Which, imo, hurts his credibility as a serious seeker of justice.

tanderson92 10y ago

Suppose I believe in non-interventionism. Does my continued stay in the US and participation in its imperalism-based economy mean any efforts of mine for justice are suspect? My point being that there are larger forces guiding our lives than our individual beliefs and actions. Or put another way: as long as Snowden criticizes the transgressions as he sees them of Russia, isn't this what credibility requires?

dvt 10y ago
Frankly, yes. I think Socrates' letter to Crito[1] explains why participating in a society means we embody some of that society's values. If you are truly a hardliner when it comes to non-interventionism, continuing to live and take advantage of the United States' infrastructure and quality of life (which is what it is due to said policies) makes your position suspect. Kind of like eating meat while preaching vegetarianism. [1] http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/crito.pdf http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/crito.pdf
- tanderson92 10y ago
  Socrates has his logic, I grant you. Socrates died shortly thereafter. Snowden, on the other hand, is still relatively free to shape the public debate and further the fight for Freedom. Who is wiser, who is more strategic? I'm not dissing Socrates here, for what it's worth: I only mean that there is no contract we sign with strict logical adherence when born into an unjust society. I'm also not sure I agree that living in a country means you morally take responsibility for all its ills. I would characterize the responsibility for ills to be those that one is aware of and accepts because of the perceived personal benefit. The point of political opposition is to reject the current order of society.
  - dvt 10y ago
    I'm not sure who's more strategic, but here we are talking about Socrates 2500 years after he drank hemlock ;) > I'm also not sure I agree that living in a country means you morally take responsibility for all its ills. You're attacking a strawman here, that's a very strong position. I just said it hurts his credibility and my analogy was that eating meat while preaching vegetarianism is suspect.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      I guess that's where we diverge. I don't see working against, in this example, imperialism while living in an imperialistic state to be akin to preaching vegetarianism while eating meat. You don't have the same choice you do with meat, to simultaneously (1) live in a free society (2) work against imperialism. Eating meat, in my "strawman" is acceptance, or rationalization, of the evil once one is aware.
- chillacy 10y ago
  > makes your position suspect To offer another analogy: If I work at a company which makes their money off pop up ads and I think that's unethical, so I pitch management on alternative revenue streams, then is my position suspect because I'm taking my paycheck from a shady ad tech company? I think the analogy of preaching vegetarianism while eating meat is somewhere between preaching no-interventionalism while living in the country you were born in, and preaching non-interventionalism while personally bombing people on the other side of the world.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    Yes, agreed. I tried to argue this point below, but I think your analogy is more apt and the difference comes across clearer. Thanks.

Trill-I-Am 10y ago

There are no free nations on earth from which you can damage the ability of the NSA to operate

jabbernotty 10y ago

I've never understood why so many Americans believe that Snowden fled to Russia. It is simply not true and it never has been. Are we already witnessing the rewriting of this part of history?

dvt 10y ago
No one's rewriting history, Russia offered him asylum and he accepted; that's the salient point. Let's not be unnecessarily pedantic and dramatic.
- jabbernotty 10y ago
  There is a thin line between bold statements that lack nuance, and plain lies. Order of events are relevant. It is important to know how he ended up in Russia in the first place, long before this asylum. And was declining the asylum really an option?
  - pastProlog 10y ago
    The US government canceled his passport at some point between him being in Hong Kong and the Moscow airport. So the claim he "fled to Russia" is a lie. He was exiled to Russia by the US officials who actively removed his ability to leave the Russian airport.
- miend 10y ago
  He was denied the ability to travel (US revoked passport) while making a connection in Moscow. The US's actions trapped him there -- it was not his destination. Do you believe he had any reasonable choice at that point but to accept the asylum subsequently offered?