6 ms·

Since the award for Obama I can't take this serious anymore

by Phelinofist 4y ago

nnoitra 4y ago
what brings more peace than droke strikes though?
- Phelinofist 4y ago
  Maybe one for Putin '23 after he dropped a nuke and started the nuclear war, as the ultimate form of peace? SCNR
WitCanStain 4y ago
This seems to have gone to deserving recipients though.
SanjayMehta 4y ago
Arafat and "Mother Teresa" weren't laughable enough?
- finikytou 4y ago
  mother teresa didnt bomb half the middle east
  - zaat 4y ago
    "...caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it" seems bad enough.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      I recently changed my mind on Mother Teresa situation after reading some of her writings. Not that I like her more after that, but I do think of the situation itself differently. Mother Teresa sounds very unsurprisingly as an extremely religious person. She constantly talks about God and Jesus and how people's spiritual needs are paramount, and how abortion and contraception is evil, and how her agenda is spiritual, and how she's not a social worker. All of that is said in very plain language. Now as an atheist that doesn't cause any particular positive impression on me, but what I find it interesting is that she's 100% clearly a religious worker first, second, third and probably fourth before she's anything else. The Catholic Church was very right in canonizing her, if you take canonicalization as a recognition of somebody's religious work, not as some sort of "very good person" stamp of approval. With her there seems to be no "dirty landry" like Gandhi having his weird tests of will or whatever that was. No, she's very upfront about what she is, and barely shuts up about it. So it baffles me why she ended up with the reputation she did. She's very clearly a religious worker and has that as a first priority above anything else. Seeing her as somebody would want to take care of people in a manner people who aren't religious zealots would approve is just a mistake.
      - refurb 4y ago
        This is a very reasonable take. One needs to remember that for many religious people, the spiritual “health” is as important, if not more important, than the physical health. I would assume her argument about using funds for the church rather than healthcare would be something like “the money is used to for both the spiritual and health needs of the destitute”. You can clearly disagree with that take, but it’s not like she was stealing the money or diverting it for her own gain.
      - lucozade 4y ago
        That's all fine if all she ever did was preach. No real harm done. But that's not what she did. You can't dismiss someone's actions because they believe they were doing the right thing or that the impact was unimportant to them. That may help explain why they did them but they still did them.
      - yostrovs 4y ago
        There's a short book by Christopher Hitchens called The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, which does go into her dirty dealings and doings. Recommended read, as it may very well change your mind again.
  - aussiesnack 4y ago
    Certainly, denying health care to the destitute, while diverting donations intended for them to the gilded edifices of the Catholic Church does hurdle the low bar of not bombing people. Seems a tad unambitions for a feted prize though.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Her entire ideologue and work was entirely vile and horrible. Well marketed, but vile. Anyone supporting her must be evil.
    - finikytou 4y ago
      it was marketed by media. she always did what she told she would. she is a religious worker like every other religion has. media just liked the idea of a woman saving dying people in the third world.
- ak_111 4y ago
  Arafat at least signed a peace treaty that superficially ended one of the most impactful and divisive conflicts of our time. He arguably came closest at the times to being the Palestinian Mandala (alas he had many flaws to be that imo) I would definitely not put him in the same category as awarding it to either Obama or Kissinger. If anything they initiated or architected some of the worst conflicts in the last 50 years.
dale_glass 4y ago
I think Alfred Nobel made too challenging of a target. It's an annual prize to be awarded to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" Think of the absolutely immense amounts of political capital that any of those things require, and how likely it is to find a person in any given year who could be personally credited with improving relationships between countries, or reducing standing armies. It's also not democracy-friendly, funnily enough. In most democratic countries such actions are a collective effort. A single member of a parliament can't get anything done on their own, and there doesn't necessarily need to be some sort of charismatic leader pushing such efforts. An army can shrink just because we have a general consensus that war isn't a good thing and the army can do with a smaller budget, and who do you award for that? So it makes perfect sense to me that the committee ends up blundering it. Maybe if it was a once a decade thing it'd be a more reasonable one.
- seafoam 4y ago
  Yes, if the committee declined to award it most years, and only gave it to the truly worthy, it would be much more impactful.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
danielskogly 4y ago
dang posted this[0] on the thread of last year's winner: > All: please don't post if you have a reflexive-indignant reaction rather than a curious one. This site is for the latter, not the former, and the former tends to drown out the latter. > I'm not saying you owe Nobel Prize committees better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28797286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28797286
lostlogin 4y ago
Kissinger wasn't enough to have you questions it?
tgv 4y ago
I know the feeling, but please keep the cynicism in check. Some of these people are worthy of the prize, and peace isn't an exact science. There'll be errors, and there'll be choices you don't agree with. Criticism on the actual choice is fine, the rest doesn't help. To paraphrase: give it a chance.
- Phelinofist 4y ago
  True, there were recipients that really deserved it, including the winners this year. Blunders like with e.g. Obama just leave a really bitter taste wrt to the overall integrity.
  - oezi 4y ago
    Obama was awarded it because of his net-zero goal for nuclear arms and his progress on Iran. Even that all these turned out to be failed now, the decision back then made sense.
    - Gud 4y ago
      It didn’t make sense at all. Obama was selected for the Nobel peace prize after 6 months of being president. What exactly had he accomplished? Obama was just another warmonger, in my opinion.
      - oezi 4y ago
        Citing Wikipedia: "Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals." What he accomplished was to set a new tone for peace. This is more than many other presidents. That 'warmonger' label is just bonkers. He prevented an engagement in Syria, this caused and still causes a lot of harm.
matsemann 4y ago
Did you take it seriously before, or did it just trigger you somehow that he got it? And why not use this opportunity to discuss this year's worthy recipients, instead of derailing the thread?
sbt 4y ago
I think awarding it to Obama was the wrong decision. That said, people sometimes misunderstand what the Nobel Peace Prize is about. "Peace" is interpreted in a very abstract sense by the committee and should perhaps be better understood as "Civilizational Progress". The reason the committee awarded it to Obama was because it wanted to commend the progress the US has made on the Civil Rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King received the peace prize, and Obama is seen as a culmination of this movement. In short, Obama's prize should be seen as a prize given to the American people for their progress.
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  I think the other way to look at it, is that the prize can also be a political tool. That’s how we achieve peace after all. You’re not just recognising the progress he US might have made, but signalling the current leader that hey, you could also leave your mark. Obama seems like a pretty reasonable and intelligent person to me. He probably thought about why they awarded it to him.
- RajT88 4y ago
  Obama himself was somewhat mystified by the award. But it is indeed as you say: the thinking process is somewhat opaque at times. I watched the announcement just now from the Nobel museum in Stockholm where they discussed it. It was inevitable that the award this year would relate to Russia somehow, but they thought it inappropriate to award to a leader actively waging war (even a defensive war). Discussed yesterday when we were there was your talking point about Obama's award being about what he represented and not about anything he did.
- oezi 4y ago
  If you think it was a wrong decision who should have received it in 2009? Also I think the civil rights argument seems wrong to me. Citing Wikipedia: "Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals."
- 4y ago
punnerud 4y ago
Remember that the price is based on one year of work, not the total of everything a person have done. The Obama award was from one of his years as president. From wikipedia: According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize shall be awarded to the person who in the preceding year "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"
Fatnino 4y ago
Arafat didn't do it for you? Or Kissinger?
guilhas 4y ago
Don't worry this year they nominated Zelensky just after he asked NATO for a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia

Since the award for Obama I can't take this serious anymore

nnoitra 4y ago

what brings more peace than droke strikes though?

Phelinofist 4y ago
Maybe one for Putin '23 after he dropped a nuke and started the nuclear war, as the ultimate form of peace? SCNR

WitCanStain 4y ago

This seems to have gone to deserving recipients though.

SanjayMehta 4y ago

Arafat and "Mother Teresa" weren't laughable enough?

finikytou 4y ago
mother teresa didnt bomb half the middle east
- zaat 4y ago
  "...caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it" seems bad enough.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    I recently changed my mind on Mother Teresa situation after reading some of her writings. Not that I like her more after that, but I do think of the situation itself differently. Mother Teresa sounds very unsurprisingly as an extremely religious person. She constantly talks about God and Jesus and how people's spiritual needs are paramount, and how abortion and contraception is evil, and how her agenda is spiritual, and how she's not a social worker. All of that is said in very plain language. Now as an atheist that doesn't cause any particular positive impression on me, but what I find it interesting is that she's 100% clearly a religious worker first, second, third and probably fourth before she's anything else. The Catholic Church was very right in canonizing her, if you take canonicalization as a recognition of somebody's religious work, not as some sort of "very good person" stamp of approval. With her there seems to be no "dirty landry" like Gandhi having his weird tests of will or whatever that was. No, she's very upfront about what she is, and barely shuts up about it. So it baffles me why she ended up with the reputation she did. She's very clearly a religious worker and has that as a first priority above anything else. Seeing her as somebody would want to take care of people in a manner people who aren't religious zealots would approve is just a mistake.
    - refurb 4y ago
      This is a very reasonable take. One needs to remember that for many religious people, the spiritual “health” is as important, if not more important, than the physical health. I would assume her argument about using funds for the church rather than healthcare would be something like “the money is used to for both the spiritual and health needs of the destitute”. You can clearly disagree with that take, but it’s not like she was stealing the money or diverting it for her own gain.
    - lucozade 4y ago
      That's all fine if all she ever did was preach. No real harm done. But that's not what she did. You can't dismiss someone's actions because they believe they were doing the right thing or that the impact was unimportant to them. That may help explain why they did them but they still did them.
    - yostrovs 4y ago
      There's a short book by Christopher Hitchens called The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, which does go into her dirty dealings and doings. Recommended read, as it may very well change your mind again.
- aussiesnack 4y ago
  Certainly, denying health care to the destitute, while diverting donations intended for them to the gilded edifices of the Catholic Church does hurdle the low bar of not bombing people. Seems a tad unambitions for a feted prize though.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Her entire ideologue and work was entirely vile and horrible. Well marketed, but vile. Anyone supporting her must be evil.
  - finikytou 4y ago
    it was marketed by media. she always did what she told she would. she is a religious worker like every other religion has. media just liked the idea of a woman saving dying people in the third world.
ak_111 4y ago
Arafat at least signed a peace treaty that superficially ended one of the most impactful and divisive conflicts of our time. He arguably came closest at the times to being the Palestinian Mandala (alas he had many flaws to be that imo) I would definitely not put him in the same category as awarding it to either Obama or Kissinger. If anything they initiated or architected some of the worst conflicts in the last 50 years.

dale_glass 4y ago

I think Alfred Nobel made too challenging of a target. It's an annual prize to be awarded to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" Think of the absolutely immense amounts of political capital that any of those things require, and how likely it is to find a person in any given year who could be personally credited with improving relationships between countries, or reducing standing armies. It's also not democracy-friendly, funnily enough. In most democratic countries such actions are a collective effort. A single member of a parliament can't get anything done on their own, and there doesn't necessarily need to be some sort of charismatic leader pushing such efforts. An army can shrink just because we have a general consensus that war isn't a good thing and the army can do with a smaller budget, and who do you award for that? So it makes perfect sense to me that the committee ends up blundering it. Maybe if it was a once a decade thing it'd be a more reasonable one.

seafoam 4y ago
Yes, if the committee declined to award it most years, and only gave it to the truly worthy, it would be much more impactful.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

danielskogly 4y ago

dang posted this[0] on the thread of last year's winner: > All: please don't post if you have a reflexive-indignant reaction rather than a curious one. This site is for the latter, not the former, and the former tends to drown out the latter. > I'm not saying you owe Nobel Prize committees better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28797286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28797286

lostlogin 4y ago

Kissinger wasn't enough to have you questions it?

tgv 4y ago

I know the feeling, but please keep the cynicism in check. Some of these people are worthy of the prize, and peace isn't an exact science. There'll be errors, and there'll be choices you don't agree with. Criticism on the actual choice is fine, the rest doesn't help. To paraphrase: give it a chance.

Phelinofist 4y ago
True, there were recipients that really deserved it, including the winners this year. Blunders like with e.g. Obama just leave a really bitter taste wrt to the overall integrity.
- oezi 4y ago
  Obama was awarded it because of his net-zero goal for nuclear arms and his progress on Iran. Even that all these turned out to be failed now, the decision back then made sense.
  - Gud 4y ago
    It didn’t make sense at all. Obama was selected for the Nobel peace prize after 6 months of being president. What exactly had he accomplished? Obama was just another warmonger, in my opinion.
    - oezi 4y ago
      Citing Wikipedia: "Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals." What he accomplished was to set a new tone for peace. This is more than many other presidents. That 'warmonger' label is just bonkers. He prevented an engagement in Syria, this caused and still causes a lot of harm.

matsemann 4y ago

Did you take it seriously before, or did it just trigger you somehow that he got it? And why not use this opportunity to discuss this year's worthy recipients, instead of derailing the thread?

sbt 4y ago

I think awarding it to Obama was the wrong decision. That said, people sometimes misunderstand what the Nobel Peace Prize is about. "Peace" is interpreted in a very abstract sense by the committee and should perhaps be better understood as "Civilizational Progress". The reason the committee awarded it to Obama was because it wanted to commend the progress the US has made on the Civil Rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King received the peace prize, and Obama is seen as a culmination of this movement. In short, Obama's prize should be seen as a prize given to the American people for their progress.

2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
I think the other way to look at it, is that the prize can also be a political tool. That’s how we achieve peace after all. You’re not just recognising the progress he US might have made, but signalling the current leader that hey, you could also leave your mark. Obama seems like a pretty reasonable and intelligent person to me. He probably thought about why they awarded it to him.
RajT88 4y ago
Obama himself was somewhat mystified by the award. But it is indeed as you say: the thinking process is somewhat opaque at times. I watched the announcement just now from the Nobel museum in Stockholm where they discussed it. It was inevitable that the award this year would relate to Russia somehow, but they thought it inappropriate to award to a leader actively waging war (even a defensive war). Discussed yesterday when we were there was your talking point about Obama's award being about what he represented and not about anything he did.
oezi 4y ago
If you think it was a wrong decision who should have received it in 2009? Also I think the civil rights argument seems wrong to me. Citing Wikipedia: "Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals."
4y ago

punnerud 4y ago

Remember that the price is based on one year of work, not the total of everything a person have done. The Obama award was from one of his years as president. From wikipedia: According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize shall be awarded to the person who in the preceding year "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"

Fatnino 4y ago

Arafat didn't do it for you? Or Kissinger?

guilhas 4y ago

Don't worry this year they nominated Zelensky just after he asked NATO for a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia