3 ms·
The latter often describes civil disobedience.
by rpenm 13y ago
The latter often describes civil disobedience.
- sliverstorm 13y agoSabotage and civil disobedience don't really overlap. Sabotage: I will secretly undermine your operations and try not to get caught. My sabotage is operational- it is most effective when undiscovered. Civil disobedience: I will publicly defy your rules with every intention of being apprehended. My defiance is political- it achieves nothing by itself, and must be public. Yes, both involve breaking rules, but that is where the similarities end.
- no_wave 13y agoWhy should someone consent to being apprehended if they are protesting the same laws that they are breaking?
- sliverstorm 13y agoBecause it's civil disobedience. If you fight back, resist arrest, evade the police, etc it is just disobedience. :) The point behind civil disobedience is to publicly demonstrate the unjustness of the law, not fight it head-on. Remember when those nonviolent University students a little while ago got pepper-sprayed? Much, much better press for them and their cause than "students start brawl with police". Some people believe civil disobedience doesn't have to be nonviolent, but most people agree on nonviolence and all the famous examples of civil disobedience were nonviolent (Rosa Parks, Thoreau, Gandhi, etc)
- no_wave 13y agoBoth Snowden and Assange are avoiding apprehension while being non-violent. I said nothing about violence - in fact, your comment is the first on this page to mention violence - so I don't really understand where you're coming from.
- sliverstorm 13y agoOk, what's a better word? I mention violence because it is most common dividing line, but I think what I mean could be called "resistance". Whether we call it violence or resistance doesn't change my previous comment; as I clearly described, civil disobedience is typically considered to be passively accepting the consequences as part of a public display.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]