7 ms·

"I think he broke the law, so I certainly wouldn’t characterize him as a hero." That seems strange reasoning. Many heroes break laws. Plus the NSA broke the

• mathattack 13y ago
  Non-violent resistance (civil disobedience) is all about willfully breaking the law. His reasoning would also exclude Martin Luther King and Gandhi from his pantheon of heroes.
  • tptacek 13y ago
    Three possibilities: 1. Bill Gates does not know that Martin Luther King broke the law. 2. Bill Gates does not consider Martin Luther King a hero. 3. Bill Gates means something different, when he points out that Snowden broke the law, than simply that there was a statute forbidding Snowden's actions. 1-2 seem unlikely.
  • noblethrasher 13y ago
    It also means submitting to the authorities when you break the law; MLK spent a lot of time in jail. In fact, he often pointed out that the segragationist, who were also breaking many laws, were cowards because they wouldn’t risk jail time.
    • aric 13y ago
      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.
      • noblethrasher 13y ago
        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.
        • aric 13y ago
          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.
          • noblethrasher 13y ago
            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) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)
            • aric 13y ago
              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!
    • mathattack 13y ago
      Very good point in the case of Snowden, but this doesn't change that Gates pushed against breaking the law.
• aric 13y ago
  I wish it were strange reasoning. It's utterly normal. It's the common reasoning of a vast body of people who are completely divorced from conscience; and/or who have ulterior motives; and/or who are apathetic or ignorant to the ramifications of a total surveillance state because they don't personally feel its weight; and/or who suffer a deep cognitive dissonance that generally stems from nationalism and allegiance to political sports teams under a shared umbrella.
• staunch 13y ago
  I read the rest of the quote as correcting that statement. He seems to be objecting to the way Snowden went about breaking the law, not breaking the law itself. > "If he wanted to raise the issues and stay in the country and engage in civil disobedience..."
• wise_young_man 13y ago
  Didn't the founding fathers of the United States break some laws when they were under British rule? "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson