3 ms·

That Snowden didn't face his charges in the states and instead fled to continue his days under the protection of (much more repressive) Vladimir Putin, who hims

by Aqueous 12y ago

That Snowden didn't face his charges in the states and instead fled to continue his days under the protection of (much more repressive) Vladimir Putin, who himself is a warmonger, and gave the dictator several public relations victories while hypocritically criticizing the US from abroad, severely diluted his moral authority. Had he stayed in the US after the leaks he might have deserved a peace prize, and made a much more profound statement, but he didn't.

001sky 12y ago
You don't enhance your moral authority by adopting a position of weakness and subservience. In general, on the topic of peace, there is never peace through weakness. Wether you need violence or not to exert (your) strength is a wholly different subject. Weakness is inherently unstable, and in a context of instability the ROI on "opportunistic violence" increases. There is plenty of empirical evidence outhere to support this if the logic isn't self evident.
- shabda 12y ago
  All the major victories against repression in 20th century have come via peaceful means. There has been no "peace via war" in 20th century which can come close to the impact of Gandhi, MLK or Mandela.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    That's crazy talk. Nazi Germany much? Also, one of the major incentives to maintain a strong defense is to keep from having to use it. Of course this principle, like anything else, can be taken too far.
  - cmsefton 12y ago
    Mandela? Sorry, what? Read his autobiography. He makes no apologies for the fact that he embraced guerrilla warfare, and actively waged war against the state. Initially, yes, he and the ANC adopted peaceful means, but when the South African state shutdown and outlawed all the peaceful means at their disposal (e.g. strikes, demonstrations, etc.), he supported, encouraged and actively participated in fighting against the State. Hell, he co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC, after the Sharpville massacre. Even after his release from prison, he refused to disarm the ANC since the same apartheid state apparatus that he fought against still existed. Mandela is undoubtedly a great man of peace, and he did manage to bring about an incredible transformation in South Africa, but to say he did it through peaceful means is just incorrect.
- Aqueous 12y ago
  Heroic civil disobedience, in my view, requires violating the law and accepting the consequences in protest. Both laureates Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela flouted the law and accepted the consequences. Were those two individuals adopting a position of subservience and weakness? Snowden seems pretty subservient to Putin right now, and relies completely on him for his continued safety and asylum in Russia. He's in a pretty weak spot since Putin can dispense with him any time he wishes - either deport him or have him disappear, and the US won't raise a finger - but will keep him around as long as he's politically useful.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  > "You don't enhance your moral authority by adopting a position of weakness and subservience." Those of us from pacifist religious traditions would disagree.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Pacifism, like anything else, can be taken too far. Einstein himself migrated away from it as he grew older. And Gandhi advocated nonviolent resistance to the Nazis, which very few sane people would agree with then or now.

by Aqueous 12y ago

001sky 12y ago

You don't enhance your moral authority by adopting a position of weakness and subservience. In general, on the topic of peace, there is never peace through weakness. Wether you need violence or not to exert (your) strength is a wholly different subject. Weakness is inherently unstable, and in a context of instability the ROI on "opportunistic violence" increases. There is plenty of empirical evidence outhere to support this if the logic isn't self evident.

shabda 12y ago
All the major victories against repression in 20th century have come via peaceful means. There has been no "peace via war" in 20th century which can come close to the impact of Gandhi, MLK or Mandela.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  That's crazy talk. Nazi Germany much? Also, one of the major incentives to maintain a strong defense is to keep from having to use it. Of course this principle, like anything else, can be taken too far.
- cmsefton 12y ago
  Mandela? Sorry, what? Read his autobiography. He makes no apologies for the fact that he embraced guerrilla warfare, and actively waged war against the state. Initially, yes, he and the ANC adopted peaceful means, but when the South African state shutdown and outlawed all the peaceful means at their disposal (e.g. strikes, demonstrations, etc.), he supported, encouraged and actively participated in fighting against the State. Hell, he co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC, after the Sharpville massacre. Even after his release from prison, he refused to disarm the ANC since the same apartheid state apparatus that he fought against still existed. Mandela is undoubtedly a great man of peace, and he did manage to bring about an incredible transformation in South Africa, but to say he did it through peaceful means is just incorrect.
Aqueous 12y ago
Heroic civil disobedience, in my view, requires violating the law and accepting the consequences in protest. Both laureates Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela flouted the law and accepted the consequences. Were those two individuals adopting a position of subservience and weakness? Snowden seems pretty subservient to Putin right now, and relies completely on him for his continued safety and asylum in Russia. He's in a pretty weak spot since Putin can dispense with him any time he wishes - either deport him or have him disappear, and the US won't raise a finger - but will keep him around as long as he's politically useful.
lotharbot 12y ago
> "You don't enhance your moral authority by adopting a position of weakness and subservience." Those of us from pacifist religious traditions would disagree.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Pacifism, like anything else, can be taken too far. Einstein himself migrated away from it as he grew older. And Gandhi advocated nonviolent resistance to the Nazis, which very few sane people would agree with then or now.