Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 199 posts

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#161

Post by MichaelGG »

pfarrell wrote: post #154
dharmach wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2001 title should have gone to OBL then.

"Though we spent hours debating the pros and cons of naming Osama bin Laden, it ultimately became easy to dismiss him," said managing editor Jim Kelly. "He is not a larger-than-life figure with broad historical sweep ... he is smaller than life, a garden-variety terrorist whose evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes." They chose Giuliani instead. http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/23/giuliani.time/

"Smaller than life?" What does that mean? For worse, those attacks have had lasting implications everywhere. Sounds like they realised they'd be slammed really hard if they stuck to accuracy so they backed down with some handy-wavy nonsense about being brave.

If their bravery had caused a proper response, similar to how Norway responded to that mass-shooting, then it'd be worthwhile to note. But despite their bravery, that "garden-variety terrorist" has succeeded in scaring people into allowing their government to expand powers.

And the dismissal that it doesn't matter because he didn't think it'd work out - that's just idiotic. Do we disqualify scientists from the other Nobel prizes because "they really didn't think this experiment would discover anything"?

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#164

Post by crystaln »

MichaelGG wrote: post #161
pfarrell wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Though we spent hours debating the pros and cons of naming Osama bin Laden, it ultimately became easy to dismiss him," said managing editor Jim Kelly. "He is not a larger-than-life figure with broad historical sweep ... he is smaller than life, a garden-variety terrorist whose evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes." They chose Giuliani instead. http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/23/giuliani.time/

"Smaller than life?" What does that mean? For worse, those attacks have had lasting implications everywhere. Sounds like they realised they'd be slammed really hard if they stuck to accuracy so they backed down with some handy-wavy nonsense about being brave. If their bravery had caused a proper response, similar to how Norway responded to that mass-shooting, then it'd be worthwhile to note. But despite their bravery…

So, in your opinion, it was an idiotic injustice that Osama bin Laden was robbed of being Time's Man of the Year.

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#165

Post by snowwrestler »

MichaelGG wrote: post #161
pfarrell wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Though we spent hours debating the pros and cons of naming Osama bin Laden, it ultimately became easy to dismiss him," said managing editor Jim Kelly. "He is not a larger-than-life figure with broad historical sweep ... he is smaller than life, a garden-variety terrorist whose evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes." They chose Giuliani instead. http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/23/giuliani.time/

"Smaller than life?" What does that mean? For worse, those attacks have had lasting implications everywhere. Sounds like they realised they'd be slammed really hard if they stuck to accuracy so they backed down with some handy-wavy nonsense about being brave. If their bravery had caused a proper response, similar to how Norway responded to that mass-shooting, then it'd be worthwhile to note. But despite their bravery…

It means they were writing for their U.S. audience at the time, who wanted to see Bin Laden put down and diminished.

Hitler was Time's Man of the Year in 1938, based on his foreign policy maneuvering at that time. Despite the much greater enormity and historical impact of the Holocaust, he wasn't put there in 1945 or any time since.

Time editors are not going to expose themselves to that level of social anger. No matter how many times they say "Man of the Year" is not a reward, it still has that connotation in a lot of people's minds.

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#166

Post by sliverstorm »

gamerdonkey wrote: post #81
timsally wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone has already forgotten Pfc. Manning rotting away for 35 years. Please represent the facts accurately. Manning is eligible for release in 7-8 years. I'm willing to make a long bet ( http://longbets.org ) for $300.00 that Manning does not serve 35 years, or "rot away for 35 years" as you put it. Are you up for it?

I hate that this nitpicking has become the standard response whenever someone is facing a prison sentence. It utterly belittles the hardship that people like Pfc. Manning actually face, even if it is for 7-8 years in the end. Additionally, the parole or probation that she faces even after release are still punishment. It's not as though the troubles are suddenly over. Treating the issue in this way makes it sound lik…

35 years vs. 7-8 years is not exactly nitpicking.

What they get out in, is just as relevant as what they were sentenced to. Otherwise, why do we get so mad when a murderer is sentenced to 20 years and out in 2?

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#167

Post by sliverstorm »

Pxtl wrote: post #97
duaneb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they contradictory? There are plenty of criminals I like personally who deserve to serve time for breaking the law. EDIT: I wouldn't conflate ignorance of her gender and disrespect, it's not anything I've ever heard.

You miss the point. Pfc. Manning now identifies as Chelsea Manning. She is transgendered, and since her military career is toast she has come out of the closet on the subject. I'm going to be generous and assume that duaneb poster was not closely following the story and is unaware of the above. Transpersons are always the subject of massive flamewars online, so some folks get really strong kneejerk reactions to misge…

I doubt it was malicious. I read about it right when she made her choice public, and I still forget regularly. I'm just not used to people changing gender, so my mental constructs treat it as kind of a read-only value...

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#168

Post by untog »

ck2 wrote: post #121
guelo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was given 3.5 years for time served. He'll really be eligible for parole after a full decade in jail.

Yeah what's a decade in prison anyway. Go spend 10 days in your bathroom. I bet you cannot do it. Now realize how incredibly comfortable you are compared to prison.

How is that a useful comparison to anything?

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#169

Post by MBlume »

guelo wrote: post #114
ck2 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the aggressiveness of the current administration, you think there is a chance the next administration might come along and say "nope, they need to serve the full 35 years". The sentence is 35 years. They could legally be forced to serve the full 35 for any reason. As far as I am concerned that is the weight being hung around their neck, not the imaginary eight. And eight years in prison is an insanely long time…

He was given 3.5 years for time served. He'll really be eligible for parole after a full decade in jail.

She

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#170

Post by MBlume »

ck2 wrote: post #110
timsally wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone has already forgotten Pfc. Manning rotting away for 35 years. Please represent the facts accurately. Manning is eligible for release in 7-8 years. I'm willing to make a long bet ( http://longbets.org ) for $300.00 that Manning does not serve 35 years, or "rot away for 35 years" as you put it. Are you up for it?

After the aggressiveness of the current administration, you think there is a chance the next administration might come along and say "nope, they need to serve the full 35 years". The sentence is 35 years. They could legally be forced to serve the full 35 for any reason. As far as I am concerned that is the weight being hung around their neck, not the imaginary eight. And eight years in prison is an insanely long time…

Your comment is unclear on whether you intend to bet with timsally
Post reply on HN