You state/ask
"What Snowden has done is draw a very defined and unremovable line
between the government and the major populace?" I wouldn't argue that
this line doesn't exist, but it may be hard to defend the idea that
Snowden was the one to draw it. The line has existed forever. It was
made thicker when the programs he disclosed started, by those who
started them; all Snowden did was make people aware of it.
"What's "bad" is the fact that he has sown seeds of dissent within the minds and hearts of hundreds of millions of people, which have since taken root and entrenched themselves within the collective mindset of various communities all around the world."
I really like this statement. Snowden's actions being bad is a completely legitimate opinion when one is inspired to view those he blew the whistle on as good. With hindsight we can look on past regimes with greater clarity. I have no doubt most would agree that was dissent sown into the minds or the citizens of the DPRK, Stalin's Russia or Nazi Germany it would have been good. It is wise, however, to remember that we possess all the capability for injustice, genocide and evil that they did/do.
Only with the end of the whistle-blowees (NSA, GCHQ and by extension anyone with oversight over them) will we be able to form a true opinion. Until then our viewpoints will be continually influenced by them (and of course those on Snowden's side).
"It's scary to think that because of this act of altruism, Snowden has effectively set the stage to raise a generation of potential anarchists, who are able to fully nurture and realise their discontent for the government. This isn't bad per se, but in my opinion being of an anti-establishment mindset requires you to be intelligent AND objective to be a productive rebel."
The world was going to be scary from the moment mass surveillance was rolled out. Either its proponents would be successful and we would set the stage for a generation (if not more) of people used to invasive surveillance, for whom privacy literally means nothing, or its opponents would be successful, inspire dissent against such activities and a disposition towards anarchy. Either way we're fucked really.
The intelligence requirement to be successfully anti establishment is also there to be successfully pro establishment. Just as anarchy will turn to shit with stupidity so too does any form of organised government.
"Edward Snowden has essentially left the future in the hands of several hundred million people, each with their own opinions and objectives. How sure are we that this massive collective will be better able to figure out a more peaceful and enlightened future than the current government?"
Again, was it Snowden who has left the future in the hands of millions? I'd suggest that no, it wasn't. In any open society the future is already in the hands of those people (and no matter what has happened recently we're still in an open enough society for this to be true). Snowden just pointed that out to those millions, along with the fact that it may not remain true forever.
"What's "bad" is the fact that he has sown seeds of dissent within the minds and hearts of hundreds of millions of people, which have since taken root and entrenched themselves within the collective mindset of various communities all around the world."
I really like this statement. Snowden's actions being bad is a completely legitimate opinion when one is inspired to view those he blew the whistle on as good. With hindsight we can look on past regimes with greater clarity. I have no doubt most would agree that was dissent sown into the minds or the citizens of the DPRK, Stalin's Russia or Nazi Germany it would have been good. It is wise, however, to remember that we possess all the capability for injustice, genocide and evil that they did/do.
Only with the end of the whistle-blowees (NSA, GCHQ and by extension anyone with oversight over them) will we be able to form a true opinion. Until then our viewpoints will be continually influenced by them (and of course those on Snowden's side).
"It's scary to think that because of this act of altruism, Snowden has effectively set the stage to raise a generation of potential anarchists, who are able to fully nurture and realise their discontent for the government. This isn't bad per se, but in my opinion being of an anti-establishment mindset requires you to be intelligent AND objective to be a productive rebel."
The world was going to be scary from the moment mass surveillance was rolled out. Either its proponents would be successful and we would set the stage for a generation (if not more) of people used to invasive surveillance, for whom privacy literally means nothing, or its opponents would be successful, inspire dissent against such activities and a disposition towards anarchy. Either way we're fucked really.
The intelligence requirement to be successfully anti establishment is also there to be successfully pro establishment. Just as anarchy will turn to shit with stupidity so too does any form of organised government.
"Edward Snowden has essentially left the future in the hands of several hundred million people, each with their own opinions and objectives. How sure are we that this massive collective will be better able to figure out a more peaceful and enlightened future than the current government?"
Again, was it Snowden who has left the future in the hands of millions? I'd suggest that no, it wasn't. In any open society the future is already in the hands of those people (and no matter what has happened recently we're still in an open enough society for this to be true). Snowden just pointed that out to those millions, along with the fact that it may not remain true forever.
Tags:
News