4 ms·
Agreed on the first part, but, > King stood up to his foes, Snowden ran. really stuck with me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but M.L. King didn't do anything illeg
by Tehnix 13y ago
Agreed on the first part, but,
> King stood up to his foes, Snowden ran.
really stuck with me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but M.L. King didn't do anything illegal, whereas Snowden did. Snowden ran to avoid prison sentence which makes perfect sense, and his cause also wouldn't have been helped by his incarceration, whereas King would probably be considered a "martyr", since his stance more requires a physical presence.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago^Exactly this. The are different, agreed, not disputing. But expecting someone who knows what they did will be met with torture, or absolute solitary for the rest of their life, for exposing actual wrongs against the public is ridiculous in the extreme. You have to be tortured to prove your intent was for the good of the people? Since when?
- talmand 13y agoThe Civil Rights Movement did indeed occasional do things that would be breaking the law. But that was typically aimed at laws that were unjust towards them personally. For those they participated in civil disobedience by breaking that law but not fighting it when they were arrested. Doesn't mean there wasn't violence aimed at them for doing it. But in the end, this MLK and Snowden comparisons are just rather odd because they truly have very little in common.