4 ms·
Do you have any examples of this happening?
by bathtub365 7y ago
Do you have any examples of this happening?
- Tomte 7y agoThere are multiple instances of violent people who stopped being violent and got the prize. Arafat is one example. Whether the prize played a role in their decision is something only they can say (and then you might not believe them). So I find this question useless, because it cannot be answered. The mechanism I sketched is generally plausible, though.
- dnautics 7y agoThere are also instances of relatively peaceful people who got the prize and became warmongers, e.g. a certain president of the us, who sent 500 drone strikes into Libya in a single year after winning the prize (among other military adventures)
- Tomte 7y agoHow does that relate to the question in this sub thread? Do you actually propose that they did violent things because they got the prize?
- benjohnson 7y agoThe prize may have given them political cover that let their violence go on longer
- Tomte 7y agoThey only get the prize after stopping, so you're arguing for something more complicated: violence, then non-violence, then violence. Possible, but not terribly plausible, IMO. And the examples proffered so far (Obama or Kissinger) certainly don't fit that pattern.
- jtolmar 7y agoIf there are as many examples of people receiving the peace prize then going on to be warmongers as there are the reverse, it suggests that the peace prize isn't really doing anything here and we're just looking at the base rate of leaders switching between peaceful and warlike actions.
- Tomte 7y agoNo, that's a fallacy, unless you can credibly argue for a causal link, i.e. because of the prize people feel they can get away with violence. I find that not impossible to argue, but incredible, and would want to see supporting evidence.