From Thoreau on Civil Disobedience
•
by Rigour6
Not my words, but apropos:
They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are under-bred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall.... I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.
It was the reaction of the townspeople of Concord, his neighbors, that distressed Thoreau and made him dissect the experience so as to understand their behavior. He ended his short, matter-of-fact account of his night in prison with a commentary on the townsfolk, which expressed how his eyes had been opene😛
I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions.
There is no cynicism in Thoreau’s description of his neighbors, whom he admits he may be judging “harshly,” since “many of them are not aware that they have such an institution as the jail in their village.” Instead he was unsettled by the realization that there was a wall between him and the townsfolk, a wall to which Gandhi referred in an account of his second imprisonment in South Africa. Gandhi wrote,
Placed in a similar position for refusing his poll tax, the American citizen Thoreau expressed similar thought in 1849. Seeing the wall of the cell in which he was confined, made of solid stone 2 or 3 feet thick, and the door of wood and iron a foot thick, he said to himself, “If there were a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was still a more difficult one to climb or break through before they could get to be as free as I was.”
Thoreau may have also brooded over the reaction of Emerson, who criticized the imprisonment as pointless. According to some accounts, Emerson visited Thoreau in jail and asked, “Henry, what are you doing in there?” Thoreau replied, “Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?” Emerson was “out there” because he believed it was shortsighted to protest an isolated evil; society required an entire rebirth of spirituality.
Emerson missed the point of Thoreau’s protest, which was not intended to reform society but was simply an act of conscience. If we do not distinguish right from wrong, Thoreau argued that we will eventually lose the capacity to make the distinction and become, instead, morally numb.
N by NE Volume 3 Number 2
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
a whole lot of people are missing the point.......sigh
Brilliant.
If we do not distinguish right from wrong, Thoreau argued that we will eventually lose the capacity to make the distinction and become, instead, morally numb.
^This.
If we do not distinguish right from wrong, Thoreau argued that we will eventually lose the capacity to make the distinction and become, instead, morally numb.
x2
- "Placed in a similar position for refusing his poll tax..." - not for taking up arms against his community and country.
- "For they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall..." No one was evicted from Canada or forced to give up their citizenship. That is a choice they consciously made knowing it would place them on the other side. This was not a penalty for their opposition to government actions.
- Ghandi: "We must be the change we wish to see." Acting with force and rash action is hardly a calm and reasoned approach.
"If we do not distinguish right from wrong, Thoreau argued that we will eventually lose the capacity to make the distinction and become, instead, morally numb."
Right...because its right to tank against your home land from a home alliance?
Second thing to consider...when Kronos initially veto'd the Pardon, how many of the yes voters did you see run from the country only to turn around and attack it? I have the answer...its 0. Funny how that works eh?
Cheers!
So you think this is all about you Acacia?
Last I recall this was more directed at the legislative body.
Let's be fair: Kronos asked them to reconfirm it. The pro-pardon forces have never had a moment when they had their position definitively rejected. In fact, if I recall correctly the nation's CP ran on a campaign that even if (but interestingly enough, ONLY if) the pardon was rejected by Congress, why then we'd have a referendum!
Also, their position IF the pardon was rejected was also made clear. They weren't going to leave, they were going to stay and continue their domestic terrorism policies by eliminating other political parties, heedless of the damage to the community or the concurrent risk of foreign PTO. So let us not fool ourselves into thinking their refusal to leave represented a willingness to accept the group's decision should it have gone against them.
noun, verb, traitors
--R. Giuliani
If we do not distinguish right from wrong, Thoreau argued that we will eventually lose the capacity to make the distinction and become, instead, morally numb.
x3
If we do not distinguish right from wrong, Thoreau argued that we will eventually lose the capacity to make the distinction and become, instead, morally numb.
x4
There is no gold, you are receding,
A distant ship smoke on the Rizon,
You are only coming through in waves,
Your fingers type, but I can't read what you say,
When I was a noob, I caught a fleeting glimpse,
Out of the corner of my eye,
I turned to look, but it was gone,
I can not put my two clicks on it now,
The noob is grown,
The dream is gone,
I have become, morally numb.
awesome captain
If we do not distinguish right from wrong, we will eventually lose the capacity to make the distinction between tongue-in-cheek and become, instead, orally numb.
x5
When you are caught in the maelstrom, as I learned from Poe, it's best to be light and bob to the surface. Those that stay heavy tend to panic and get sucked in. Gonna keep on spinning until I get spat out the other side or other end, dependant on the gravity of the situation.
lol plugson i see what you did there.
It's always possible that being thrown clear will work out best in a collision, but I prefer to buckle up all the same.
Sneaky, I saw the x5 and didn't even read the first part at first.
If we do not distinguish right from wrong, Thoreau argued that we will eventually lose the capacity to make the distinction and become, instead, morally numb.
x6
Everything in this article can be turned around and applied to the "ex-Pats" just as well.
"They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are under-bred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall.... I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it."
You fight not just against those who hold responsible, but all of eCanada. You choose to fight against eCanada, even though there are other options. I voted against the pardon, but because I don't want to fight against eCanada I'm the enemy? And there are many more like me.
"I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions. "
You don't get your way, and so you decide to fight against us? If that isn't a fair-weather friend then I don't know what one is. You say that everyone who speaks in favor, or at least not against the pardon has no morals, or integrity.
“If there were a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was still a more difficult one to climb or break through before they could get to be as free as I was.”
It seems as though you are the ones who are lacking freedom. You are slaves to the past. I will never forgive Rolo - who, for the record, has never done anything to me. But that does not mean that I believe he doesn't deserve a chance to show he is capable of change. I do not need to forgive him to give him that chance.
"If we do not distinguish right from wrong, Thoreau argued that we will eventually lose the capacity to make the distinction and become, instead, morally numb."
If anything, you guys are fighting wrong with wrong. Where is the morality there?
Eric, I don't agree with the fighting but the expats fight for what they believe in and not for their own personal gain or glory. Now, what does Rolo fight for?
Your point that the difference is not absolute is well made. But only a blind man when see them as morally equivalent.
Eric Last, in the eyes of the expats, you are not the enemy, rather a collateral damage. An unfortunatly casualty of war. However, All other option have been exhausted.
I hear a lot of people calling them unconpromising. How was congress acting if unconpromising? It was just a straight pardon, no strings attach, and no signs of good will whatsoever on the other part.
@Rigour
I understand that they fight for what they believe in, but the way in which they are fighting does not have any way to their goal. I've heard a couple of theories on what they want, and the one thing they all have in common is that they cannot be accomplished through their current efforts.
The only way their current efforts will lead to what they want is if Acacia or Congress decides to give in to their threats - exactly what a number of people argue was the reason that Rolo got his pardon. As I've said before, either people want the government to give in to threats or they don't.
As for what Rolo fights for, I've heard many people say that Rolo has never fought against eCan. I can't verify that statement, but if it's true, then who cares if personal gain or glory was also a factor for him? All that matters is that eCan benefited from it as well. eCan is not going to benefit in any way from people fighting against its interests.
And of course I don't see the two acts as morally equivalent (assuming you are referring to Rolo's actions and not his pardon - I don't see anything morally wrong with giving him a chance, even though I disagreed with the pardon because I feel it went further than was necessary by giving him forgiveness as well) but I don't believe that really makes a difference. The fact that they are on the same side of the moral spectrum shows that this response doesn't really make sense.
@Chucky
I don't believe all other options have been exhausted. As someone who is against the pardon, the way I am dealing with it is waiting to see if it will work. If not, then I will take action (by action I do not mean fighting against eCan.)
I do agree that some compromises could have been made by the pro-pardon Congressmen - but it still passed. That showed that enough people were willing to give even that a shot, because what we had been doing was working so horribly.
At least I'm not seen as an enemy. Being an acceptable casualty isn't great, though.
When I was a noob, I caught a fleeting glimpse,
Out of the corner of my eye,
I turned to look, but it was gone,
I can not put my two clicks on it now,
The noob is grown,
The dream is gone,
I have become, morally numb. x2
Eric, if the e😜ats chose to put that sort of pressure on the government, one could easily say they had finally decided to trade in the only sort of currency which the government seems to care about.
And of course Rolo fought against Canada. He just did it from within - and to great effect.
As I explained on NPR earlier I don't understand how ppl are terrorists by eCanadian logic. It's OK to steal because game mechanics allow it, it's OK to buy elections because game mechanics allow it, it's OK to PTO because game mechanics allow it. Therefore, by Canadian logic, it's OK to tank against Canada because game mechanics allow it. Which part of the logic chart is confusing some people?
There is either morally right or there is no morality at all. I've fought for the morally right side for a long time, prehaps if that's declared dead (which it has by congress) then it shouldn't matter.
@Rigour
I honestly don't believe it was the threats that lead to the pardon, at least not directly (or totally). The fact that Rolo was able to continue to be a menace showed that his ban was a flawed solution. It did nothing for the problem, except exclude Rolo from "hanging out" with everybody else. And it's not like there aren't other channels for him to talk with people on IRC, or ways around a forum ban.
And Rolo may have done a lot of things to hurt eCan, but he never actively fought against us (again, not something I can verify.) The more important thing to focus on, though, is that this reaches further than eCan. It effects everyone we are allied to, especially France and Ireland. I remember seeing someone say in a shout, in regards to the "ex-Pats" fighting against orders in one of the RWs yesterday, "don't fight in that one, fight in the other one - fighting in that one would hurt Ireland, not eCan." (that was paraphrasing, of course.) That made me think "eCan fighting against itself hurts Ireland, too."
@Aeriala
The fact that nobody said that it's okay to do any of those things is the "confusing" part - or maybe I should say the "illogical" part of your logic chart. Forgiving someone for doing something and saying that it is okay to do are two completely different things. If it was okay to do, would anyone even have to be forgiven in the first place?
Eric: I am sorry but the words "unconditional pardon" must mean something different to you than they do to me.
There were 2 men I knew:
One had a scuffle with me once and some punches were thrown.
The other cleaned out my bank accounts and safety deposit boxes, then bragged about it to my kids.
You tell me which one did me more harm.
I don't disagree that people shouldn't fight against their former country.
I wonder at the logic which somehow makes this the most terrible and awful crime when everything else is given an unconditional pardon. Others may see sort of line of principle there, I don't.
Perhaps eCanada does not deserve its allies. If it can't be honest to itself, why should our allies place confidence in us. The tanking is not the problem. I think of it was more a symptom or a reaction to the real problem. I'm not saying Rolo is the problem, but rather it is our expectations of the game that has let us down. We expected fairness and teamplay...it failed to remain steady in eCanada.
Or, perhaps there is no need to consider honesty and morality if alliances and basic game play rely only on peoply clicking the right buttons at the right time. Can a person withdraw from trusting his team members and still be able to click away at the game? Some can do it, while others not so well.
I'm okay with people tanking against eCanada. As long as they don't try to come back and claim themselves heroes and how it was all good for the team. Not that I think they are being dishonest, but rather those claims just would not reflect the true nature of the game. They're not villains or heros, just a player chosing where to allocate their influence. I know there is more to it than that, since there are emotions and other intentions involved, yet that's a good way for us back here in eCanada to start looking at it.
Accept what we have let develop. That would be an honest thing to admit to yourself, Eric.
This is how I do the math:
I have long worked for a certain kind of team based on co-operation and a basic duty of fairplay to your teammates. I am not saying others have to do that, I am saying we'll probably all be more successful and have more fun if we do that.
I am not a big believer in forums but they represent a kind of extra-game in which people try to increase their co-ordination and co-operation.
Rolo used to be that sort of player too. He got what he likes to term "butthurt" when he was impeached and since then he has justified his rage theft in a sort of reductio ad absurdum of tearing down the team. In other words, he wasn't content not to participate in team efforts, he set about to actually stop others from doing so.
Eventually for whatever reason the balance of power in Congress shifted and eCanada's elected team leaders said, "we agree with Rolo, you don't owe your teammates jack."
At that point I said, well OK, if that's the sort of "team" you officially want, our goals are not compatible. And exit me.
@Rigour
What makes you think that unconditional pardon means anything different to me? I've said it countless times: I am not for the pardon - I am, in fact, against it. But that does not mean I am not for what they pardon essentially stands for. Our "justice system" does not solve any problems, at least not when the actions that are considered "crimes" happen in-game - because our justice system has no power there. To me, that's the problem that the pardon solved, not the "Rolo problem". The only one who can solve the "Rolo problem" is Rolo. He is the only one that can stop his own actions. It appears that he felt a pardoned was needed for that, so I guess we killed two birds with one stone.
And I never have tried to claim that what the "ex-Pats" are doing is worse than what Rolo has done. I do, however, feel that it is worse in some ways. Again, I think this is a matter of perspective. I was not around when Rolo wasn't a "eCanadian Hero and Patriot" so I never got to know him beforehand. And, nothing he has done has really affected me. However, I know Ralph, Fritz, Hooligan, etc. I have immense respect for these people. To me, this feels a lot more personal. It feels a lot more like betrayal. Those are the only ways in which it feels worse to me. They might not see me as the enemy, but they are still fighting against me - just like they are fighting against many of their other friends. Your metaphor kind of shows that, until you throw in the "grabbed about it to my kids part." Everything else, the guy doesn't even have to be in contact with you for. But to have a scuffle, he'd have to be right there in front of you.
@Plugson
I accept that this situation was caused by actions of those in eCan. What I don't accept is the choices that have been made and the reasoning that is apparently behind those choices - because they simply do not make sense to me. I accept that they have been made, because there is no denying that, but I do not accept that they are the right choices by any stretch.
@Rigour, again
I honestly do not see how anyone thinks that a pardon justifies the actions of whoever is being pardoned, because it absolutely does not do that. If you see it that way, it's because you are applying it there - Congress certainly did not. No one during the discussion ever said "we must do this because Rolo has done no wrong, and doesn't deserve to be treated as he is." The only argument for the pardon was "what we are doing right now isn't working. It's not as if we have actually locked him up in a jail cell - he is still able to do whatever he pleases in this game, and right now it pleases him to hurt us."
Eric: I think it's fair to say that different people can see things differently.
To me, an unconditional pardon means: what you did was not wrong and you cannot be held responsible for it either now or in the future. People in Canada who receive a pardon actually have no criminal record.
Or as Rolo put it: "I accept your apology for my mistreatment."
So to me it is a statement of what the groundrules of the team are. And one of the groundrules of Team eCanada is "It's OK to steal from your teammates, and it's OK to destroy parties others people have built, even if it increases the risk of PTO."
There is a HUGE difference between saying
"I can't do anything about what you did, but I don't agree with it."
and
"What you did was OK."
I have long ago given up on changing Rolo. What I am trying to do is not let Rolo change me.
Eric Last writes: "he is still able to do whatever he pleases in this game, and right now it pleases him to hurt us."
Bingo.
The pardon provided absolutely no benefit at enormous cost.
That was entirely foreseeable.
Olivermellors asks: What motivates people to do something that has no apparent benefit and obvious enormous cost? Weakness? something else?
Redo the math: destroy the team play ideal (10 benefit); destroy the honesty standard (20 benefit); destroy the honesty arbiter (5 benefit); remove political adversaries (35 benefit) et etc.
Clearly the pardon was beneficial to some players. The sought after benefit was never controlling two guys with a bunch of tank companies. It was adopting their style of play, and what they had to offer.
There is still time to say "that was a bonehead move".
oliver, my educated guess is that there is less than 24 hours of that time left.
@Rigour
I'm done discussing what a pardon is or is not, because as you said, different people see things differently. I've made my argument in all of the ways that I can, and clearly there is no persuading you. However, I still disagree, but I think we can both live with that.
Also, allowing Rolo's pardon to have such a large affect on you could certainly be seen as letting Rolo change you.
@oliver
That paraphrasing was from the time before Rolo was pardoned - so I was not speaking about the pardon. I was speaking about how the ban, or punishment, was not having the desired results. Since the pardon, Rolo has not shown that he wants to hurt us. He hasn't done anything to help us as of yet, but it's too early to tell right now.
I do agree that that benefit, which is Rolo not working against us, does not outweigh the cost, which is the mass exodus with some of those leaving fighting against us. I do disagree that this was foreseeable, though. It may seem that way in hindsight, but when we were discussing the pardon at no point did I think that we would come to this, nor did anyone else voice such thought.
For me, it is hard to say if the pardon was a mistake. The desired result has so far shown itself, although that could change at any moment, but there are undesired results that accompany it, and as I said earlier, the undesired outweigh the desired.
There were other options - commuting/amending/whatevering Rolo's sentence instead of giving him a pardon. I feel that there is a chance that had we gone down that path that we would not be in the situation we find ourselves, or at least not in one as bad. If there was any mistake, I believe it was the hardheadedness and hastiness of those that wished to push the pardon without any sense of the value of compromise. Ralph was even in favor of amending Rolo's sentence as opposed to a pardon. But it seems as thought it is too late, now.
Rigour suggests it is not too late, quite yet. Still time to say "yep, that was a bone headed move".
btw: "at no point did I think that we would come to this, nor did anyone else voice such thought." You are mistaken. All was predicted, quite accurately. Not taken seriously, but I'm used to that. 🙂
But they want more than just an admittance that it was a mistake. They have laid out the options that they find to be acceptable, and at the moment Acacia is not willing to go through with any of them - and I honestly do not blame him.
And I always take you seriously, oliver - I just don't always remember everything, lol.
Eric, as a person who witnessed the discussion between Am and a couple of the e😜ats, I would not agree with his characterization that they negotiated and that he was given options. They discussed positives and negatives of various alternatives but at no point was there anything like a "Well, we think you should do this" or "Would you guys accept that?"
The conversation was AM giving and repeating his reasons that a pardon was the only way to go and the e😜ats saying we don't accept a full unconditional pardon. So to say they laid out options is in my view wrong - perhaps they should have. AM took various things people said and then rephrased them and did an opinion poll, but those things weren't options, they were people asking him "why did it have to be a full pardon? Don't you realize you could have done something less?" And Acacia saying "If I had done something less we'd be wiped" and them saying "Well, if that's true frankly maybe the nation deserves to be wiped." You see, like that? Nobody said, "Well one alternative we propose is eCanada should be wiped. " What they said was, "We don't think being wiped is worth more than standing up for what is right."
but no one had the sense to just say "yep, that was a bone-head move. Okay, where do we go from here"... too bad --- i find it works quite well --but then I don't have any hang ups about admitting I do bonehead stuff.
/me guesses oliver may be married.
hehe.... you bet...
I'm going to have to quit my job to keep up with all the comments on the Rigour Forums
But I thought you had no work to do after winning your first(and last) case?