4 ms·

> (though I think it’s important for a functional society to obey laws, and get them changed if they aren’t working instead of just breaking them based on perso

> (though I think it’s important for a functional society to obey laws, and get them changed if they aren’t working instead of just breaking them based on personal preference) This is an unbelievably privileged position to take. Are you not aware that the country itself was established in the finest tradition of civil disobedience? The declaration of independence was an act of civil disobedience. The end of colonial empires was an act of civil disobedience. Slavery and segregation were resisted by civil disobedience. Oskar Schindler is the only member of the Nazi party to have been buried in Jerusalem in recognition of his civil disobedience. Are you really suggesting that all of these acts in defiance of unjust laws were morally wrong, and that everyone should have just waited for the law or regime to change?

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
You always hear calls for "civil disobedience" or "non-violence" when it concerns systems that the speaker may not want outright support, but is highly sympathetic to. You never hear anyone say that US should have pursued a path of non-violence during the Cold War, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, or during the War On Terror. In those instances, violence is assuredly the order of the day. But when the villain is the West, civil disobedience is the max discomfort they can stomach.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  The majority of people on Earth and in the US itself would tell you that non-violence would have been preferable to the "War On Terror". All of millions of people who have felt the brunt of the US Cold War would tell you the same - be they peasants in virtually all of South America or Vietnam; or US soldiers sent to die in Vietnam. Perhaps WWII is an exception to this, but it is absolutely in the minority. Wars of aggression (Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism) have never improved any part of the world in any way - they cause misery and poverty for the majority for untold generations, no matter what high-minded rhetoric is used to justify them.
- 1_person 6y ago
  I believe every person should act according to their own subjective morality and understanding of the social consequences of their behavior. In fact, that is exactly what they will do, regardless of what is written or spoken to them. If their acts agree with expectations it is only due to a coincidental alignment of beliefs. I find it incredibly doubtful that I would elect to place myself in harms way to further any of the campaigns you've listed. I do not believe it is my place to judge others for doing so, however.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

You always hear calls for "civil disobedience" or "non-violence" when it concerns systems that the speaker may not want outright support, but is highly sympathetic to. You never hear anyone say that US should have pursued a path of non-violence during the Cold War, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, or during the War On Terror. In those instances, violence is assuredly the order of the day. But when the villain is the West, civil disobedience is the max discomfort they can stomach.

tsimionescu 6y ago
The majority of people on Earth and in the US itself would tell you that non-violence would have been preferable to the "War On Terror". All of millions of people who have felt the brunt of the US Cold War would tell you the same - be they peasants in virtually all of South America or Vietnam; or US soldiers sent to die in Vietnam. Perhaps WWII is an exception to this, but it is absolutely in the minority. Wars of aggression (Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism) have never improved any part of the world in any way - they cause misery and poverty for the majority for untold generations, no matter what high-minded rhetoric is used to justify them.
1_person 6y ago
I believe every person should act according to their own subjective morality and understanding of the social consequences of their behavior. In fact, that is exactly what they will do, regardless of what is written or spoken to them. If their acts agree with expectations it is only due to a coincidental alignment of beliefs. I find it incredibly doubtful that I would elect to place myself in harms way to further any of the campaigns you've listed. I do not believe it is my place to judge others for doing so, however.